Community Engagement in Precision Medicine Research: Organizational Practices and Their Impacts for Equity.

Q1 Arts and Humanities AJOB Empirical Bioethics Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1080/23294515.2023.2201478
Janet K Shim, Nicole Foti, Emily Vasquez, Stephanie M Fullerton, Michael Bentz, Melanie Jeske, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee
{"title":"Community Engagement in Precision Medicine Research: Organizational Practices and Their Impacts for Equity.","authors":"Janet K Shim, Nicole Foti, Emily Vasquez, Stephanie M Fullerton, Michael Bentz, Melanie Jeske, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2023.2201478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the wake of mandates for biomedical research to increase participation by members of historically underrepresented populations, community engagement (CE) has emerged as a key intervention to help achieve this goal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using interviews, observations, and document analysis, we examine how stakeholders in precision medicine research understand and seek to put into practice ideas about who to engage, how engagement should be conducted, and what engagement is for.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We find that ad hoc, opportunistic, and instrumental approaches to CE exacted significant consequences for the time and resources devoted to engagement and the ultimate impacts it has on research. Critical differences emerged when engagement and research decisionmaking were integrated with each other versus occurring in parallel, separate parts of the study organization, and whether community members had the ability to determine which issues would be brought to them for consideration or to revise or even veto proposals made upstream based on criteria that mattered to them. CE was understood to have a range of purposes, from instrumentally facilitating recruitment and data collection, to advancing community priorities and concerns, to furthering long-term investments in relationships with and changes in communities. These choices about who to engage, what engagement activities to support, how to solicit and integrate community input into the workflow of the study, and what CE was for were often conditioned upon preexisting perceptions and upstream decisions about study goals, competing priorities, and resource availability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Upstream choices about CE and constraints of time and resources cascade into tradeoffs that often culminated in \"pantomime community engagement.\" This approach can create downstream costs when engagement is experienced as improvised and sporadic. Transformations are needed for CE to be seen as a necessary scientific investment and part of the scientific process.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"185-196"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10615663/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2023.2201478","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In the wake of mandates for biomedical research to increase participation by members of historically underrepresented populations, community engagement (CE) has emerged as a key intervention to help achieve this goal.

Methods: Using interviews, observations, and document analysis, we examine how stakeholders in precision medicine research understand and seek to put into practice ideas about who to engage, how engagement should be conducted, and what engagement is for.

Results: We find that ad hoc, opportunistic, and instrumental approaches to CE exacted significant consequences for the time and resources devoted to engagement and the ultimate impacts it has on research. Critical differences emerged when engagement and research decisionmaking were integrated with each other versus occurring in parallel, separate parts of the study organization, and whether community members had the ability to determine which issues would be brought to them for consideration or to revise or even veto proposals made upstream based on criteria that mattered to them. CE was understood to have a range of purposes, from instrumentally facilitating recruitment and data collection, to advancing community priorities and concerns, to furthering long-term investments in relationships with and changes in communities. These choices about who to engage, what engagement activities to support, how to solicit and integrate community input into the workflow of the study, and what CE was for were often conditioned upon preexisting perceptions and upstream decisions about study goals, competing priorities, and resource availability.

Conclusions: Upstream choices about CE and constraints of time and resources cascade into tradeoffs that often culminated in "pantomime community engagement." This approach can create downstream costs when engagement is experienced as improvised and sporadic. Transformations are needed for CE to be seen as a necessary scientific investment and part of the scientific process.

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
社区参与精准医学研究:组织实践及其对公平的影响。
背景:在要求生物医学研究增加历史上代表性不足人群成员的参与之后,社区参与(CE)已成为帮助实现这一目标的关键干预措施。方法:通过访谈、观察和文件分析,我们考察了精准医学研究中的利益相关者如何理解并寻求将关于参与对象、应如何进行参与以及参与目的的想法付诸实践。结果:我们发现,对CE的临时、机会主义和工具性方法对投入的时间和资源及其对研究的最终影响产生了重大影响。当参与和研究决策相互结合时,与研究组织中平行、独立的部分相比,以及社区成员是否有能力确定哪些问题将提交给他们审议,或者根据对他们重要的标准修改甚至否决上游提出的提案时,就会出现关键的差异。据了解,CE有一系列目的,从工具性地促进招聘和数据收集,到推进社区优先事项和关注点,再到进一步对与社区的关系和社区变革进行长期投资。这些关于参与谁、支持什么样的参与活动、如何征求社区意见并将其纳入研究工作流程以及CE的目的的选择,往往取决于对研究目标、竞争优先事项和资源可用性的预先存在的看法和上游决策。结论:关于CE的上游选择以及时间和资源的限制会导致权衡,最终导致“哑剧式的社区参与”。当参与是即兴的和零星的时,这种方法可能会产生下游成本。需要进行变革,才能将CE视为必要的科学投资和科学过程的一部分。
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
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Animals is "Still Genetics": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement. Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States. Ethics Consultation in U.S. Pediatric Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards. Monitored and Cared for at Home? Privacy Concerns When Using Smart Home Health Technologies to Care for Older Persons. Advance Medical Decision-Making Differs Across First- and Third-Person Perspectives.
×
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