Institutional community engagement leader perspectives on supporting ethical community-engaged research.

IF 2 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Journal of Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2025-01-06 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1017/cts.2024.1165
Stephanie Solomon Cargill, Nancy Shore, Rachel Olech, Phoebe Friesen, Jessica Rowe, Sana Khoury-Shakour, Emily E Anderson
{"title":"Institutional community engagement leader perspectives on supporting ethical community-engaged research.","authors":"Stephanie Solomon Cargill, Nancy Shore, Rachel Olech, Phoebe Friesen, Jessica Rowe, Sana Khoury-Shakour, Emily E Anderson","doi":"10.1017/cts.2024.1165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Over the last couple of decades, there has been a growing awareness of the value of community-engaged research (CEnR). Simultaneously, many academic institutions have established centralized support for CEnR. For example, dozens of academic medical centers in the United States receive National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) and have embedded community engagement programs (CE) whose primary expertise and mission is to advance CEnR at their institutions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>As part of a larger interview study aiming to learn more about how institutional CE programs and HRPPs work together, we analyzed interviews with CE program leaders at academic medical centers that receive funding from the NIH CTSA program to identify barriers and strategies to conducting CEnR at their institutions, primarily focusing on the relationships with Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified three categories in the interviews: barriers and strategies vis-à-vis IRBs to address 1) CE/IRB relationships; 2) Understanding issues; and 3) Structural and resource issues.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CTSA CE program leaders have experience implementing solutions to common barriers to IRB review faced by CEnR researchers. The barriers they face in these three categories and the strategies they use to overcome them can provide helpful insights to others who hope to facilitate CEnR research at their institutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"e27"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11883558/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.2024.1165","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: Over the last couple of decades, there has been a growing awareness of the value of community-engaged research (CEnR). Simultaneously, many academic institutions have established centralized support for CEnR. For example, dozens of academic medical centers in the United States receive National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) and have embedded community engagement programs (CE) whose primary expertise and mission is to advance CEnR at their institutions.

Methods: As part of a larger interview study aiming to learn more about how institutional CE programs and HRPPs work together, we analyzed interviews with CE program leaders at academic medical centers that receive funding from the NIH CTSA program to identify barriers and strategies to conducting CEnR at their institutions, primarily focusing on the relationships with Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).

Results: We identified three categories in the interviews: barriers and strategies vis-à-vis IRBs to address 1) CE/IRB relationships; 2) Understanding issues; and 3) Structural and resource issues.

Conclusions: CTSA CE program leaders have experience implementing solutions to common barriers to IRB review faced by CEnR researchers. The barriers they face in these three categories and the strategies they use to overcome them can provide helpful insights to others who hope to facilitate CEnR research at their institutions.

Abstract Image

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
机构社区参与领导对支持伦理社区参与研究的观点。
引言:在过去的几十年里,人们越来越意识到社区参与研究(CEnR)的价值。同时,许多学术机构已经建立了对CEnR的集中支持。例如,美国的数十个学术医疗中心获得了美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)资助的临床和转化科学奖(CTSAs),并有嵌入式社区参与计划(CE),其主要专长和任务是在其机构中推进CEnR。方法:作为一项更大的访谈研究的一部分,旨在更多地了解机构CE项目和hrpp是如何合作的,我们分析了接受NIH CTSA项目资助的学术医疗中心的CE项目负责人的访谈,以确定在其机构开展CEnR的障碍和策略,主要关注与机构审查委员会(irb)的关系。结果:我们在访谈中确定了三个类别:针对-à-vis IRB的障碍和策略,以解决1)CE/IRB关系;2)理解问题;3)结构和资源问题。结论:CTSA CE项目负责人有经验实施解决方案,以解决CEnR研究人员面临的IRB审查的常见障碍。他们在这三个类别中面临的障碍以及他们用来克服这些障碍的策略可以为那些希望在他们的机构中促进CEnR研究的其他人提供有益的见解。
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
Erratum: Characteristics of participants in the national research mentoring network studies - CORRIGENDUM. A critical juncture: Integrating large language models in biostatistical workflows. Cooperative extension and academic departments partnership: Translating nutrition science messages to diverse audiences. Dental, Oral and Craniofacial Tissue Regeneration Consortium (DOCTRC): An infrastructure for accelerating regenerative therapies from discovery to clinical impact. Using a participation monitoring database to enhance recruitment in a rare cancer population.
×
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:604180095
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