Achieving Health Equity Through Community Engagement in Translating Evidence to Policy: The San Francisco Health Improvement Partnership, 2010-2016.

BACKGROUND: The San Francisco Health Improvement Partnership (SFHIP) promotes health equity by using a novel collective impact model that blends community engagement with evidence-to-policy translational science. The model involves diverse stakeholders, including ethnic-based community health equity coalitions, the local public health department, hospitals and health systems, a health sciences university, a school district, the faith community, and others sectors. COMMUNITY CONTEXT: We report on 3 SFHIP prevention initiatives: reducing consumption of sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs), regulating retail alcohol sales, and eliminating disparities in children's oral health. METHODS: SFHIP is governed by a steering committee. Partnership working groups for each initiative collaborate to 1) develop and implement action plans emphasizing feasible, scalable, translational-science-informed interventions and 2) consider sustainability early in the planning process by including policy and structural interventions. OUTCOME: Through SFHIP's efforts, San Francisco enacted ordinances regulating sale and advertising of SSBs and a ballot measure establishing a soda tax. Most San Francisco hospitals implemented or committed to implementing healthy-beverage policies that prohibited serving or selling SSBs. SFHIP helped prevent Starbucks and Taco Bell from receiving alcohol licenses in San Francisco and helped prevent state authorization of sale of powdered alcohol. SFHIP increased the number of primary care clinics providing fluoride varnish at routine well-child visits from 3 to 14 and acquired a state waiver to allow dental clinics to be paid for dental services delivered in schools. INTERPRETATION: The SFHIP model of collective impact emphasizing community engagement and policy change accomplished many of its intermediate goals to create an environment promoting health and health equity.

Institutionalizing Community-engaged Translational Science in an Academic Institution: A Community Stakeholder-Driven Process.

BACKGROUND: Although studies have described the power imbalance in academic-community partnerships, little has been published describing how community-based participatory research-informed practitioners can change academic institutions to promote more effective community-engaged research. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes a university-funded community-based participatory project in which academic researchers and their community partners worked together to articulate, develop and advocate for institutionalizing best practices for equitable partnerships throughout the university. METHODS: Findings derive from a collaborative ethnographic process evaluation. RESULTS: The study describes the integral steps proposed to promote equitable community-university research collaboration, the process by which these principles and best practice recommendations were developed, and the institutional change outcomes of this process. CONCLUSIONS: When universities make even small investments toward promoting and nurturing community-engaged research, the quality of the science can be enhanced to advance health equity and community-university relationships can improve, particularly if based on trust, mutual respect, and openness to accomplish a shared vision.

Addressing the challenges of conducting community-engaged research during COVID-19: Rapid development and evaluation of a COVID-19 Research Patient and Community Advisory Board (PCAB).

Introduction: We created a COVID-19 Research Patient and Community Advisory Board (PCAB) to provide patient and community input into clinical and translational research studies. The purpose of this article is to describe the PCAB creation, implementation, and evaluation. Methods: We identified PCAB members who had participated in previous stakeholder engaged activities at our institution and invited their participation. We created a systematic consultation process where researchers could submit plain language research summaries and questions for the PCAB. A facilitated 1-hour virtual consultation was then held where PCAB members provided feedback. We assessed satisfaction of PCAB members and researchers who received consultations using surveys. We also reviewed video recordings of PCAB consultations and reflections from team meetings to identify key lessons learned. Results: Twenty-seven PCAB members took part in 23 consultation sessions. Twenty-two completed an evaluation survey (81% response rate). Most members agreed or strongly agreed their opinions were valued (86%), it was a productive use of time (86%) and were satisfied (86%). Nineteen researchers completed an evaluation survey (83% response rate). Researchers reported positive experiences of working with the PCAB. Additional insights include limited funding in COVID-19 research for equitable community engagement, deficiencies in researcher communication skills, and a lack of cultural humility incorporated into study activities. Conclusions: PCAB members provided recommendations that maximized the patient-centeredness and health equity focus of COVID-19 research. The detailed description of the process of developing, implementing, and evaluating our PCAB can be used as a template for others wishing to replicate this engagement model.

Bridging the gap between research, policy, and practice: Lessons learned from academic-public partnerships in the CTSA network.

A primary barrier to translation of clinical research discoveries into care delivery and population health is the lack of sustainable infrastructure bringing researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and communities together to reduce silos in knowledge and action. As National Institutes of Health's (NIH) mechanism to advance translational research, Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) awardees are uniquely positioned to bridge this gap. Delivering on this promise requires sustained collaboration and alignment between research institutions and public health and healthcare programs and services. We describe the collaboration of seven CTSA hubs with city, county, and state healthcare and public health organizations striving to realize this vision together. Partnership representatives convened monthly to identify key components, common and unique themes, and barriers in academic-public collaborations. All partnerships aligned the activities of the CTSA programs with the needs of the city/county/state partners, by sharing resources, responding to real-time policy questions and training needs, promoting best practices, and advancing community-engaged research, and dissemination and implementation science to narrow the knowledge-to-practice gap. Barriers included competing priorities, differing timelines, bureaucratic hurdles, and unstable funding. Academic-public health/health system partnerships represent a unique and underutilized model with potential to enhance community and population health.

Erratum: Bridging the gap between research, policy, and practice: Lessons learned from academic-public partnerships in the CTSA network - CORRIGENDUM.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/cts.2020.23.].