Prajakta Adsul, Shannon Sanchez-Youngman, Elizabeth Dickson, Belkis Jacquez, Alena Kuhlemeier, Michael Muhammad, Katherine J Briant, Bridgette Hempstead, Jason A Mendoza, Lisa G Rosas, Anisha Patel, Patricia Rodriguez Espinosa, Tabia Akintobi, Paige Castro-Reyes, Lori Carter-Edwards, Nina Wallerstein
{"title":"评估学术卫生机构内部的环境,以改善基于公平、社区和患者参与的研究。","authors":"Prajakta Adsul, Shannon Sanchez-Youngman, Elizabeth Dickson, Belkis Jacquez, Alena Kuhlemeier, Michael Muhammad, Katherine J Briant, Bridgette Hempstead, Jason A Mendoza, Lisa G Rosas, Anisha Patel, Patricia Rodriguez Espinosa, Tabia Akintobi, Paige Castro-Reyes, Lori Carter-Edwards, Nina Wallerstein","doi":"10.1017/cts.2024.675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The continued momentum toward equity-based, patient/community-engaged research (P/CenR) is pushing health sciences to embrace principles of community-based participatory research. Much of this progress has hinged on individual patient/community-academic partnered research projects and partnerships with minimal institutional support from their academic health institutions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We partnered with three academic health institutions and used mixed methods (i.e., institution-wide survey (<i>n</i> = 99); qualitative interviews with institutional leadership (<i>n</i> = 11); and focus group discussions (6 focus groups with patients and community members (<i>n</i> = 22); and researchers and research staff (<i>n</i> = 9)) to gain a deeper understanding of the institutional context.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five key themes emerged that were supported by quantitative data. First, the global pandemic and national events highlighting social injustices sparked a focus on health equity in academic institutions; however, (theme 2) such a focus did not always translate to support for P/CenR nor align with institutional reputation. Only 52% of academics and 79% of community partners believed that the institution is acting on the commitment to health equity (Χ<sup>2</sup> = 6.466, <i>p</i> < 0.05). Third, institutional structures created power imbalances and community mistrust which were identified as key barriers to P/CenR. Fourth, participants reported that institutional resources and investments are necessary for recruitment and retention of community-engaged researchers. Finally, despite challenges, participants were motivated to transform current paradigms of research and noted that accountability, communication, and training were key facilitators.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Triangulating findings from this mixed-methods study revealed critical barriers which provide important targets for interventions to improving supportive policies and practices toward equity-based P/CenR.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"e6"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11736299/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the context within academic health institutions toward improving equity-based, community and patient-engaged research.\",\"authors\":\"Prajakta Adsul, Shannon Sanchez-Youngman, Elizabeth Dickson, Belkis Jacquez, Alena Kuhlemeier, Michael Muhammad, Katherine J Briant, Bridgette Hempstead, Jason A Mendoza, Lisa G Rosas, Anisha Patel, Patricia Rodriguez Espinosa, Tabia Akintobi, Paige Castro-Reyes, Lori Carter-Edwards, Nina Wallerstein\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cts.2024.675\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The continued momentum toward equity-based, patient/community-engaged research (P/CenR) is pushing health sciences to embrace principles of community-based participatory research. Much of this progress has hinged on individual patient/community-academic partnered research projects and partnerships with minimal institutional support from their academic health institutions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We partnered with three academic health institutions and used mixed methods (i.e., institution-wide survey (<i>n</i> = 99); qualitative interviews with institutional leadership (<i>n</i> = 11); and focus group discussions (6 focus groups with patients and community members (<i>n</i> = 22); and researchers and research staff (<i>n</i> = 9)) to gain a deeper understanding of the institutional context.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five key themes emerged that were supported by quantitative data. First, the global pandemic and national events highlighting social injustices sparked a focus on health equity in academic institutions; however, (theme 2) such a focus did not always translate to support for P/CenR nor align with institutional reputation. Only 52% of academics and 79% of community partners believed that the institution is acting on the commitment to health equity (Χ<sup>2</sup> = 6.466, <i>p</i> < 0.05). Third, institutional structures created power imbalances and community mistrust which were identified as key barriers to P/CenR. Fourth, participants reported that institutional resources and investments are necessary for recruitment and retention of community-engaged researchers. Finally, despite challenges, participants were motivated to transform current paradigms of research and noted that accountability, communication, and training were key facilitators.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Triangulating findings from this mixed-methods study revealed critical barriers which provide important targets for interventions to improving supportive policies and practices toward equity-based P/CenR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"e6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11736299/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.2024.675\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.675","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}
Assessing the context within academic health institutions toward improving equity-based, community and patient-engaged research.
Introduction: The continued momentum toward equity-based, patient/community-engaged research (P/CenR) is pushing health sciences to embrace principles of community-based participatory research. Much of this progress has hinged on individual patient/community-academic partnered research projects and partnerships with minimal institutional support from their academic health institutions.
Methods: We partnered with three academic health institutions and used mixed methods (i.e., institution-wide survey (n = 99); qualitative interviews with institutional leadership (n = 11); and focus group discussions (6 focus groups with patients and community members (n = 22); and researchers and research staff (n = 9)) to gain a deeper understanding of the institutional context.
Results: Five key themes emerged that were supported by quantitative data. First, the global pandemic and national events highlighting social injustices sparked a focus on health equity in academic institutions; however, (theme 2) such a focus did not always translate to support for P/CenR nor align with institutional reputation. Only 52% of academics and 79% of community partners believed that the institution is acting on the commitment to health equity (Χ2 = 6.466, p < 0.05). Third, institutional structures created power imbalances and community mistrust which were identified as key barriers to P/CenR. Fourth, participants reported that institutional resources and investments are necessary for recruitment and retention of community-engaged researchers. Finally, despite challenges, participants were motivated to transform current paradigms of research and noted that accountability, communication, and training were key facilitators.
Conclusions: Triangulating findings from this mixed-methods study revealed critical barriers which provide important targets for interventions to improving supportive policies and practices toward equity-based P/CenR.