263 研究人员对社区参与咨询委员会建议的反馈分析

IF 2.1 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Journal of Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2024-04-03 DOI:10.1017/cts.2024.239
Grace Cua, Devyani Gore, Sandra Morales, Marc Atkins, Community Engagement Advisory Board (CEAB)
{"title":"263 研究人员对社区参与咨询委员会建议的反馈分析","authors":"Grace Cua, Devyani Gore, Sandra Morales, Marc Atkins, Community Engagement Advisory Board (CEAB)","doi":"10.1017/cts.2024.239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Community Engagement and Advisory Board (CEAB) has been an active and sustainable source of expert recruitment, retention, and community engagement advice. Our goal is to describe the strategies offered by the CEAB to university researchers and discuss which are most and least likely to be implemented. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The University of Illinois at Chicago’s (UIC) Center for Clinical and Translational Science’s (CCTS) CEAB was established in 2009 and is one of the longest-standing boards across the CTSA network. Our CEAB consists of 28 members, each representing a community-based organization or underrepresented community, which has provided 16 consultations since 2021. Our analysis consisted of: 1) reviewing and coding consultation notes (n= 16) to extract common recruitment and retention strategies provided to researchers; 2) reviewing feedback forms (n = 10) completed by the research team to code the strategies most likely to be implemented by researchers; 3) analyzing the codes to identify the strategies least likely to be implemented. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Our preliminary analysis indicated that the majority of researchers reported they are most likely to implement strategies to reduce burden for research participants (make study participation more convenient, e.g., allowing participant accompaniment, avoiding commuting to study site, providing transportation provide them with resources to their healthcare) and enhance recruitment from trusted community sources (e.g., Aldermen, local agencies, libraries). Researchers are least able to follow recommendations to alter their budget (e.g., increase participant stipends, hire community staff). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: In a previous paper focused on this CEAB, Matthews etal. (2018) found researchers indicated that they plan to implement at least one recommended strategy. In this follow-up examination, we describe the recommended strategies to guide CEABs to align recommendations with researcher priorities to best assist with their translational science goal.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"263 An Analysis of Researchers’ Feedback on Community Engagement Advisory Board Recommendations\",\"authors\":\"Grace Cua, Devyani Gore, Sandra Morales, Marc Atkins, Community Engagement Advisory Board (CEAB)\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cts.2024.239\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Community Engagement and Advisory Board (CEAB) has been an active and sustainable source of expert recruitment, retention, and community engagement advice. Our goal is to describe the strategies offered by the CEAB to university researchers and discuss which are most and least likely to be implemented. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The University of Illinois at Chicago’s (UIC) Center for Clinical and Translational Science’s (CCTS) CEAB was established in 2009 and is one of the longest-standing boards across the CTSA network. Our CEAB consists of 28 members, each representing a community-based organization or underrepresented community, which has provided 16 consultations since 2021. Our analysis consisted of: 1) reviewing and coding consultation notes (n= 16) to extract common recruitment and retention strategies provided to researchers; 2) reviewing feedback forms (n = 10) completed by the research team to code the strategies most likely to be implemented by researchers; 3) analyzing the codes to identify the strategies least likely to be implemented. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Our preliminary analysis indicated that the majority of researchers reported they are most likely to implement strategies to reduce burden for research participants (make study participation more convenient, e.g., allowing participant accompaniment, avoiding commuting to study site, providing transportation provide them with resources to their healthcare) and enhance recruitment from trusted community sources (e.g., Aldermen, local agencies, libraries). Researchers are least able to follow recommendations to alter their budget (e.g., increase participant stipends, hire community staff). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: In a previous paper focused on this CEAB, Matthews etal. (2018) found researchers indicated that they plan to implement at least one recommended strategy. In this follow-up examination, we describe the recommended strategies to guide CEABs to align recommendations with researcher priorities to best assist with their translational science goal.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.239\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.239","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的/目标:社区参与和咨询委员会(CEAB)一直是专家招聘、留任和社区参与建议的积极和可持续的来源。我们的目标是描述 CEAB 为大学研究人员提供的策略,并讨论哪些策略最有可能实施,哪些策略最不可能实施。方法/研究对象:伊利诺伊大学芝加哥分校(UIC)临床与转化科学中心(CCTS)的 CEAB 成立于 2009 年,是整个 CTSA 网络中成立时间最长的委员会之一。我们的 CEAB 由 28 名成员组成,每名成员代表一个社区组织或代表性不足的社区,自 2021 年以来已提供了 16 次咨询。我们的分析包括1) 对咨询记录(n= 16)进行审核和编码,以提取提供给研究人员的常见招募和保留策略;2) 对研究团队填写的反馈表(n= 10)进行审核,以对研究人员最有可能实施的策略进行编码;3) 对编码进行分析,以确定最不可能实施的策略。结果/预期结果:我们的初步分析表明,大多数研究人员表示他们最有可能实施的策略是减轻研究参与者的负担(让参与者更方便地参与研究,如允许参与者陪同、避免通勤到研究地点、提供交通服务、为他们提供医疗保健资源),以及加强从可信赖的社区来源(如市议员、地方机构、图书馆)进行招募。研究人员最不可能按照建议改变预算(如增加参与者津贴、雇用社区工作人员)。讨论/意义:Matthews etal.(2018)发现研究人员表示他们计划实施至少一项建议策略。在本后续研究中,我们描述了建议的策略,以指导 CEAB 将建议与研究人员的优先事项相结合,从而最好地帮助他们实现转化科学目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
263 An Analysis of Researchers’ Feedback on Community Engagement Advisory Board Recommendations

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Community Engagement and Advisory Board (CEAB) has been an active and sustainable source of expert recruitment, retention, and community engagement advice. Our goal is to describe the strategies offered by the CEAB to university researchers and discuss which are most and least likely to be implemented. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The University of Illinois at Chicago’s (UIC) Center for Clinical and Translational Science’s (CCTS) CEAB was established in 2009 and is one of the longest-standing boards across the CTSA network. Our CEAB consists of 28 members, each representing a community-based organization or underrepresented community, which has provided 16 consultations since 2021. Our analysis consisted of: 1) reviewing and coding consultation notes (n= 16) to extract common recruitment and retention strategies provided to researchers; 2) reviewing feedback forms (n = 10) completed by the research team to code the strategies most likely to be implemented by researchers; 3) analyzing the codes to identify the strategies least likely to be implemented. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Our preliminary analysis indicated that the majority of researchers reported they are most likely to implement strategies to reduce burden for research participants (make study participation more convenient, e.g., allowing participant accompaniment, avoiding commuting to study site, providing transportation provide them with resources to their healthcare) and enhance recruitment from trusted community sources (e.g., Aldermen, local agencies, libraries). Researchers are least able to follow recommendations to alter their budget (e.g., increase participant stipends, hire community staff). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: In a previous paper focused on this CEAB, Matthews etal. (2018) found researchers indicated that they plan to implement at least one recommended strategy. In this follow-up examination, we describe the recommended strategies to guide CEABs to align recommendations with researcher priorities to best assist with their translational science goal.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
Overview of ACTIV trial-specific lessons learned. Preparing better: Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) therapeutics trials lessons learned: A call to the future. The future is now: Using the lessons learned from the ACTIV COVID-19 therapeutics trials to create an inclusive and efficient clinical trials enterprise. ACTIV trials: Lessons learned in trial design in the setting of an emergent pandemic. Lessons learned from COVID-19 to overcome challenges in conducting outpatient clinical trials to find safe and effective therapeutics for the next infectious pandemic.
×
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