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}
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.