Assessing the context within academic health institutions toward improving equity-based, community and patient-engaged research.

IF 2.1 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Journal of Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2024-12-11 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1017/cts.2024.675
Prajakta Adsul, Shannon Sanchez-Youngman, Elizabeth Dickson, Belkis Jacquez, Alena Kuhlemeier, Michael Muhammad, Katherine J Briant, Bridgette Hempstead, Jason A Mendoza, Lisa G Rosas, Anisha Patel, Patricia Rodriguez Espinosa, Tabia Akintobi, Paige Castro-Reyes, Lori Carter-Edwards, Nina Wallerstein
{"title":"Assessing the context within academic health institutions toward improving equity-based, community and patient-engaged research.","authors":"Prajakta Adsul, Shannon Sanchez-Youngman, Elizabeth Dickson, Belkis Jacquez, Alena Kuhlemeier, Michael Muhammad, Katherine J Briant, Bridgette Hempstead, Jason A Mendoza, Lisa G Rosas, Anisha Patel, Patricia Rodriguez Espinosa, Tabia Akintobi, Paige Castro-Reyes, Lori Carter-Edwards, Nina Wallerstein","doi":"10.1017/cts.2024.675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The continued momentum toward equity-based, patient/community-engaged research (P/CenR) is pushing health sciences to embrace principles of community-based participatory research. Much of this progress has hinged on individual patient/community-academic partnered research projects and partnerships with minimal institutional support from their academic health institutions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We partnered with three academic health institutions and used mixed methods (i.e., institution-wide survey (<i>n</i> = 99); qualitative interviews with institutional leadership (<i>n</i> = 11); and focus group discussions (6 focus groups with patients and community members (<i>n</i> = 22); and researchers and research staff (<i>n</i> = 9)) to gain a deeper understanding of the institutional context.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five key themes emerged that were supported by quantitative data. First, the global pandemic and national events highlighting social injustices sparked a focus on health equity in academic institutions; however, (theme 2) such a focus did not always translate to support for P/CenR nor align with institutional reputation. Only 52% of academics and 79% of community partners believed that the institution is acting on the commitment to health equity (Χ<sup>2</sup> = 6.466, <i>p</i> < 0.05). Third, institutional structures created power imbalances and community mistrust which were identified as key barriers to P/CenR. Fourth, participants reported that institutional resources and investments are necessary for recruitment and retention of community-engaged researchers. Finally, despite challenges, participants were motivated to transform current paradigms of research and noted that accountability, communication, and training were key facilitators.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Triangulating findings from this mixed-methods study revealed critical barriers which provide important targets for interventions to improving supportive policies and practices toward equity-based P/CenR.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"e6"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11736299/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.675","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The continued momentum toward equity-based, patient/community-engaged research (P/CenR) is pushing health sciences to embrace principles of community-based participatory research. Much of this progress has hinged on individual patient/community-academic partnered research projects and partnerships with minimal institutional support from their academic health institutions.

Methods: We partnered with three academic health institutions and used mixed methods (i.e., institution-wide survey (n = 99); qualitative interviews with institutional leadership (n = 11); and focus group discussions (6 focus groups with patients and community members (n = 22); and researchers and research staff (n = 9)) to gain a deeper understanding of the institutional context.

Results: Five key themes emerged that were supported by quantitative data. First, the global pandemic and national events highlighting social injustices sparked a focus on health equity in academic institutions; however, (theme 2) such a focus did not always translate to support for P/CenR nor align with institutional reputation. Only 52% of academics and 79% of community partners believed that the institution is acting on the commitment to health equity (Χ2 = 6.466, p < 0.05). Third, institutional structures created power imbalances and community mistrust which were identified as key barriers to P/CenR. Fourth, participants reported that institutional resources and investments are necessary for recruitment and retention of community-engaged researchers. Finally, despite challenges, participants were motivated to transform current paradigms of research and noted that accountability, communication, and training were key facilitators.

Conclusions: Triangulating findings from this mixed-methods study revealed critical barriers which provide important targets for interventions to improving supportive policies and practices toward equity-based P/CenR.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估学术卫生机构内部的环境,以改善基于公平、社区和患者参与的研究。
以公平为基础、患者/社区参与的研究(P/CenR)的持续势头正在推动卫生科学接受基于社区的参与性研究原则。这一进展在很大程度上取决于个体患者/社区学术合作研究项目和伙伴关系,而其学术卫生机构的机构支持很少。方法:我们与三家学术卫生机构合作,采用混合方法(即,全机构调查(n = 99);对机构领导的定性访谈(n = 11);焦点小组讨论(6个由患者和社区成员组成的焦点小组(n = 22);研究人员和研究人员(n = 9)),以获得对制度背景的更深入了解。结果:五个关键主题得到了定量数据的支持。首先,全球大流行和突出社会不公正的国家事件促使学术机构关注卫生公平;然而,(主题2)这样的关注并不总是转化为对P/CenR的支持,也不符合机构的声誉。只有52%的学者和79%的社区合作伙伴认为该机构正在履行对卫生公平的承诺(Χ2 = 6.466, p < 0.05)。第三,体制结构造成了权力不平衡和社区不信任,这被认为是P/CenR的主要障碍。第四,与会者报告说,机构资源和投资对于招募和留住社区参与的研究人员是必要的。最后,尽管面临挑战,与会者仍有动力改变当前的研究范式,并指出问责制、沟通和培训是关键的促进因素。结论:这项混合方法研究的三角测量结果揭示了关键障碍,这些障碍为改善基于公平的P/CenR的支持性政策和实践提供了重要的干预目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
26.90%
发文量
437
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Health impacts of a remotely delivered prolonged nightly fasting intervention in stressed adults with memory decline and obesity: A nationwide randomized controlled pilot trial - ADDENDUM. Erratum: 489 Nasal-derived Extracellular Vesicles (EVs) carry a cargo of antiviral and immunomodulatory molecules - CORRIGENDUM. Local context review by single institutional review boards: Results from a modified Delphi process. Considerations and recommendations for collaborative research networks in epidemiology: Lessons learned from the diabetes LEAD Network. Training T-shaped translational scientists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1