Engaging stakeholders to strengthen support for community-engaged research at Stanford School of Medicine: An institutional assessment and action planning approach.
Patricia Rodriguez Espinosa, Anisha I Patel, Starla Gay, Ysabel Duron, Alyce S Adams, Nina Wallerstein, Ruth O'Hara, Lisa G Rosas
{"title":"Engaging stakeholders to strengthen support for community-engaged research at Stanford School of Medicine: An institutional assessment and action planning approach.","authors":"Patricia Rodriguez Espinosa, Anisha I Patel, Starla Gay, Ysabel Duron, Alyce S Adams, Nina Wallerstein, Ruth O'Hara, Lisa G Rosas","doi":"10.1017/cts.2025.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite the central role that patient and community engagement plays in translational science and health equity research, there remain significant institutional barriers for researchers and their community partners to engage in this work meaningfully and sustainably. The goal of this paper is to describe the process and outcomes of Engage for Equity PLUS at Stanford School of Medicine, which was aimed at understanding and addressing institutional barriers and facilitators for community-engaged research (CEnR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A Stanford champion team of four faculty and two community partners worked with the University of New Mexico team to conduct two workshops (<i>n</i> = 26), focus groups (<i>n</i> = 2), interviews with leaders (<i>n</i> = 4), and an Institutional Multi-Stakeholder Survey (<i>n</i> = 35). These data were employed for action planning to identify strategies to build institutional support for CEnR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings revealed several key institutional barriers to CEnR, such as the need to modify organizational policies and practices to expedite and simplify CEnR administration, silos in collaboration, and the need for capacity building. Facilitators included several offices devoted to and engaging in innovative CEnR efforts. Based on these findings, action planning resulted in three priorities: 1) Addressing IRB barriers, 2) Addressing barriers in post-award policies and procedures, and 3) Increasing training in CEnR within Stanford and for community partners.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Addressing institutional barriers is critical for Academic Medical Centers and their partners to meaningfully and sustainably engage in CEnR. The Engage for Equity PLUS process offers a roadmap for Academic Medical Centers with translational science and health equity goals.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"e36"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11883597/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.2025.8","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: Despite the central role that patient and community engagement plays in translational science and health equity research, there remain significant institutional barriers for researchers and their community partners to engage in this work meaningfully and sustainably. The goal of this paper is to describe the process and outcomes of Engage for Equity PLUS at Stanford School of Medicine, which was aimed at understanding and addressing institutional barriers and facilitators for community-engaged research (CEnR).
Methods: A Stanford champion team of four faculty and two community partners worked with the University of New Mexico team to conduct two workshops (n = 26), focus groups (n = 2), interviews with leaders (n = 4), and an Institutional Multi-Stakeholder Survey (n = 35). These data were employed for action planning to identify strategies to build institutional support for CEnR.
Results: Findings revealed several key institutional barriers to CEnR, such as the need to modify organizational policies and practices to expedite and simplify CEnR administration, silos in collaboration, and the need for capacity building. Facilitators included several offices devoted to and engaging in innovative CEnR efforts. Based on these findings, action planning resulted in three priorities: 1) Addressing IRB barriers, 2) Addressing barriers in post-award policies and procedures, and 3) Increasing training in CEnR within Stanford and for community partners.
Conclusions: Addressing institutional barriers is critical for Academic Medical Centers and their partners to meaningfully and sustainably engage in CEnR. The Engage for Equity PLUS process offers a roadmap for Academic Medical Centers with translational science and health equity goals.