Geographically-dispersed teams have become the norm in clinical research collaborations. The Institutional Development Awards (IDeA) Program, first authorized by Congress in 1993 and managed by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, has been developed for the purpose of broadening the geographic distribution of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for biomedical and behavioral research by enhancing the competitiveness for research funding of institutions located in states in which the aggregate success rate for grant applications to the NIH has historically been low. The IDeA States are composed of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the following 23 states: Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming. The Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) research program's IDeA States Pediatric Clinical Trials Network (ISPCTN) was formed in 2016 with 24 sites within the IDeA states to provide clinical trial access to children in rural and underserved communities while building research capacity and infrastructure. In order to become effective, the network research coordinators used many methods to become more cohesive and productive. One of those methods was the use of Team Science.
Background: Little attention has been given to the cultural competence education needs for researchers.
Objectives: To describe the planning and implementation of a neighborhood visit approach to cultural competency education in the community.
Methods: A committee of community partners and academics planned, conducted and evaluated the visit. The cultural competence and confidence (CCC) model was used to engage researchers. An evaluation survey assessed participant satisfaction and experiences.
Results: Of the 74 attendees 64 (84%) completed the conference evaluation. Attendees expressed that the visit and conference objectives were met and that the content was relevant to their work. Nearly all (95%) responded they would incorporate what they learned into practice.
Conclusion: A neighborhood visit approach is feasible and acceptable to researchers and community partners. Evaluation of this community based education program showed preliminary evidence of changing both the way researchers think about the community and conduct research.