Community Engagement in the CTSA Program: Stakeholder Responses from a National Delphi Process.
ABSTRACT In response to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee's December 2012 public request for stakeholder input on the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program, two nonprofit organizations, the Center for Community Health Education Research and Service, Inc. (CCHERS) and Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH), solicited feedback from CTSA stakeholders using the Delphi method. Academic and community stakeholders were invited to participate in the Delphi, which is an exploratory method used for group consensus building. Six questions posed by the IOM Committee to an invited panel on community engagement were electronically sent to stakeholders. In Round 1 stakeholder responses were coded thematically and then tallied. Round 2 asked stakeholders to state their level of agreement with each of the themes using a Likert scale. Finally, in Round 3 the group was asked to rank the Round 2 based on potential impact for the CTSA program and implementation feasibility. The benefits of community engagement in clinical and translational research as well as the need to integrate community engagement across all components of the CTSA program were common themes. Respondents expressed skepticism as to the feasibility of strengthening CTSA community engagement.
Article: The Delphi method?Nursing Research 01/1997; 46(2):116-8. · 1.50 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Boston is one of the preeminent health care and research centers in the world, but for much of its urban core, these resources are largely out of reach. Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) provides a model with the potential to bridge the gaps between its research prominence and the health of its residents. We report here two case studies of major research projects that were partnerships between universities in Boston and community based organizations and city agencies. The Healthy Public Housing Initiative (HPHI) and the Asthma Center on Community Environment and Social Stress (ACCESS) are projects that provide numerous lessons about the potential and challenges of conducting CBPR. Ensuring that the projects were true partnerships emerged as key issues in both, especially with respect to funding mechanisms and distribution of resources, although the nature of the challenges differed substantially in the two projects. We note that both academic and community partners may harbor stereotypes about the other and that generalizations about broad populations, academics or community members, may not apply well to everyone. Aligning objectives and expectations emerged as another key lesson. In HPHI, tension between service delivery and research was both a source of conflict and a source of creative development that led to divergent but interesting outcomes. In ACCESS, the tensions revolved more around community capacity building while attempting to build and maintain a large cohort for epidemiological investigations. We conclude that open and frank discussion and a transparent process upfront about project direction, finances, expectations, and other dimensions are necessary but not sufficient to address the inherent challenges in CBPR, and that even so, there are likely to be differences in perspective in such partnerships that require honest negotiation throughout the process of the project.Journal of Urban Health 12/2006; 83(6):1013-21. · 1.94 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In the first week of October, I announced the launch of a national consortium that will transform how clinical and translational research is conducted; ultimately enabling researchers to provide new treatments more efficiently and quickly to patients. This new consortium, funded through Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs), begins with 12 academic health centers (AHCs) located throughout the nation. An additional 52 AHCs are receiving planning grants to help them prepare to apply for a CTSA.Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 02/2007; 81(1):126-8. · 7.39 Impact Factor