A discussion among deans on advancing community engaged research.

The benefits of community-engaged research (CEnR) have been documented in the literature. However, the adoption of community engaged (CE) and participatory approaches among health researchers remains limited. The Boston University (BU) Clinical Translational Science Institute's community engagement program initiated a discussion among five BU Deans to explore their approaches to support the practice of CEnR among faculty in their schools. The discussion was recorded and the transcript analyzed to identify and explore themes that emerged. Most strategies discussed by the Deans were not focused on changing institutional systems to advance CEnR. Instead, the analyses showed that institutional CE efforts highlighted by the Deans were focused on "responsibility centered on one person" or "research mentors." Approaches to developing a culture of CEnR that centers responsibility for promoting it on a few people in a university may place significant burden on leadership and researchers and is not an effective way to promote culture change. Systems change is needed to support CEnR, improve accountability, and realize successful partnerships between academic institutions and communities. The dialogue among Deans focused on the topic of CEnR provided an effective method to catalyze discussion and over time may help to strengthen a culture of CEnR research.

Integrating community engagement with implementation science to advance the measurement of translational science.

This special communication provides an approach for applying implementation science frameworks to a Clinical and Translational Science Institutes (CTSIs) community engagement (CE) program that measures the use of implementation strategies and outcomes that promote the uptake of CE in research. Using an iterative multi-disciplinary group process, we executed a four-phased approach to developing an evaluation plan: 1) creating an evaluation model adapted from Proctor's conceptual model of implementation research; 2) mapping implementation strategies to CTSI CE program interventions that support change in research practice; 3) identifying and operationalizing measures for each strategy; and 4) conducting an evaluation. Phase 2 employed 73 implementation strategies across 9 domains generated by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change project. The nine domains were used to classify each CE program implementation strategy. In Phase 3, the group used the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to define measures for each individual strategy. Phase 4 demonstrates the application of this framework and measures Year 1 outcomes for the strategy providing interactive assistance, which we implemented using a centralized consultation model. This approach can support the CTSA program in operationalizing CE program measurement to demonstrate which activities and strategies may lead to benefits derived by the program, institution, and community.