4 results
247 Virtual community and partner-engaged panels - We can do them, but should we?
- Part of
- Lesli Skolarus, Tamara Sutton, Darius Tandon, Josefina Serrato
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 8 / Issue s1 / April 2024
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 03 April 2024, pp. 74-75
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We describe the transition of ShAred Resource Panels (ShARPs) within the Center for Community Health (CCH) at Northwestern University’s Clinical and Translational Sciences (NUCATS) Institute to virtual sessions and explore ongoing practices. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Restrictions placed during the COVID-19 pandemic led to changes in community-engaged health equity research, such as the transition of community and partner-engaged panels from in-person to virtual. ShARPs have occurred since December 2015. The model includes research team members, community members, community co-facilitator, and CCH staff. These custom panels bring together 8-10 community members familiar with a research topic or community of focus, offering feedback on adaptations that can improve research relevance and feasibility. Until the COVID-19 pandemic, all ShARPs were conducted in person. From March 2020 to January 2023, panels occurred virtually. From 2023, the option of virtual or in-person ShARPs has been available. Count data and informal interview data were reviewed. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The number of ShARPs peaked in 2019 and has remained stable. The first virtual ShARP occurred on April 22, 2020, and all subsequent sessions have been virtual. As of October 2023, 6 ShARPs have occurred, with no research teams pursuing an in-person session despite its availability. Participants described virtual ShARPs as convenient and accessible. Academic teams cited concern about low community member participation should they opt for an in-person session. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: It is feasible to conduct ShARPs virtually and is the current preferred modality. Whether virtual ShARPs enhance, neutralize, or detract from the effectiveness of the session is unknown and guides our future work. More research is needed, including discussion, and learning from our CTSA colleagues.
3151 It all starts with a dialogue – Stimulating Engaged Research Opportunities through Stakeholder-Academic Resource Panel (ShARPs)
- Grisel M. Robles-Schrader, Josefina Serrato, Roxane Padilla, Michael Fagen
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 3 / Issue s1 / March 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 March 2019, pp. 91-92
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The foci of this evaluation is to:. determine if cultural and contextual adaptations identified by community stakeholders via ShARP sessions change research design/implementation/dissemination strategies. examine changes in stakeholder engagement by the research team after the initial ShARP session. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: CCH staff measured session effectiveness for multiple stakeholders at multiple time points. Researchers and community stakeholders completed surveys to assess process and function at the end of the session. CCH staff follow-up with researcher team members approximately 12-18 months after the session to assess longer term outcomes and changes resulting from stakeholder input gathered at the ShARP. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS:. 16 ShARPs sessions were hosted in a three year period. o 4 hosted in Spanish o 2 focused solely on youth populations. 141 stakeholders representing diverse professional backgrounds participated in sessions and represented a cross section of: o Ages: 12- 17 (5%); 18-24 (6%); 25-34 (24%); 35-44 (23%); 45-54 (12%); 55-64 (9%); 65 and older (13%); No Response (8%) o Gender Identities: Female (62%); Male (34%); Transgender (0%); No Response (4%) o Race/Ethnicities: Asian, Pacific Islander (13%); African American/Black (28%); Hispanic/Latino/x (25%); Native Americans, First Nations, American Indian (0%); Caucasian/White (24%); Multiracial (2%); No Response (9%). Feedback from research teams (aggregate of Strongly Agreed/Agreed responses) o ShARP panel was made up of relevant stakeholders (97%) o ShARP session was worthwhile (100%) o Stakeholder input will improve my research project (100%) o I would engage stakeholders in future projects (40%). Feedback from community stakeholders (aggregate of Strongly Agreed/Agreed responses) o ShARP session worthwhile (89%) o I have an increased understanding of research after participating in this session (89%) o Based on the experience, would consider providing input on a research study in the future (90%) o This session was the first time I was asked to provide input on a research study (46%) DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Preliminary results indicate engaging stakeholders in research can provide cultural and contextual adaptations that increase research relevance and feasibility in any phase of research. Conversely, stakeholders indicated an increased understanding of research. This poster will feature stakeholder and researcher perspectives. Increasing dialogues between research teams and community stakeholders can improve research design and relevance. The ShARPs programs aims to increase these types of dialogues which can be especially important for research teams who are unsure of who or how to begin engaging stakeholders in research. Gathering additional data via follow-up interviews will help us better understand the impact this program has on long term stakeholder engagement in research.
3347 Developing Relevant Community Engagement Metrics to Evaluate Engagement Support and Outcomes
- Grisel M. Robles-Schrader, Keith A Herzog, Josefina Serrato
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 3 / Issue s1 / March 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 March 2019, pp. 87-88
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The goals in this project were two-fold:. Develop metrics that assessed community engagement support the center provides, and. Systematically document the fluid and time-intensive nature of providing community engaged research support, as well as key outcomes. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The CCH utilized REDCap software in combination with Excel, to create and implement a data collection system to monitor and report on the full spectrum of engagement activities offered by the center. Center staff collaborated in identifying relevant metrics, developing the data collection instruments, and beta-testing instruments with real examples. This facilitated the integration of contextual factors (defined as factors such as the history, size, and diversity of the community, the organizational mission, the structure and size of the CE team, the number of years a university has been supporting community-engaged research work, etc.). Taking a collaborative approach in developing the center’s evaluation plan offered the added benefit of facilitating staff/faculty buy-in, building staff capacity, and engaging the team in understanding concepts related to performance measurement versus management. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Key benefits of these engagement tracking systems include: consolidating data into a central location, standardizing tracking processes and critical definitions, and supporting more automated reporting systems (e.g., dashboards) that facilitate quality improvement and highlight success stories. Data were compiled and reported via on-line dashboard (REDCap and Tableau) to help center leadership and staff analyze:. Quality improvement issues (How quickly are we responding to a request for support? Are we providing resources that meet the needs of community partners? Academics? Community-academic partnerships?);. Qualitative process analysis (In what research phase are we typically receiving requests for support (e.g. proposal development phase, implementation phase, etc.)? What types of projects are applying for seed grants? After the seed grant ends, are the community-academic partnerships continuing to partner on research activities?);. Outcomes (Are new partnerships stemming from our support? Are supported research projects leading to new policies, practices, programs?). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: There is a gap in the literature regarding meaningful, actionable, and feasible community engaged metrics that capture critical processes and outcomes. This project identified many more relevant metrics and demonstrates that it is worthwhile to take a collaborative, inclusive approach to identifying, tracking, and reporting on key process and outcome metrics in order to convey a more comprehensive picture of community engagement activities and to inform continuous improvement efforts. Community engagement centers across CTSIs offer a similar range of programs and services. At the same time, much of the community-engaged research literature describes metrics related to community-academic grant submissions, funds awarded, and peer-reviewed publications. Experts that work in the arena of providing community engagement support recognize that these metrics are sufficient in understanding the spectrum of engagement opportunities. Community engagement (CE) teams nationally can utilize these metrics in developing their evaluation infrastructure. At the national level, NCATS can utilize the metrics for CE common metrics related to these programs and services. Critical to this process:. Leveraging resources that will facilitate collecting generalizable data (national metrics) while allowing sites to continue collecting nuanced data (local programs and services). Gathering input from CE teams, stakeholders, and researchers to further refine these metrics and data collection methods. Utilizing REDCap, Tableau and other resources that can facilitate data collection and analysis efforts.
3372 Developing a REDCap Database to Understand Partnership Cultivation Efforts
- Grisel M. Robles-Schrader, Gina Curry, Josefina Serrato, Jen Brown, Keith A Herzog
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 3 / Issue s1 / March 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 March 2019, p. 87
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS:.Outline the development and purpose of the partnership brokering database in REDCap. Provide an overview of the tool and how it works. Discuss how this tool facilitates partnership-brokering activities and discuss plans for future use METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) is a secure, web-based application developed at Vanderbilt University to assist with systematic data management of small and medium sized projects. CCH utilized REDCap to build a custom data management warehouse entitled the Partnership Brokering Tool. Information compiled in various formats (handwritten notes, spreadsheets, etc.) over the past 10 years by CCH staff, was then systematically organized and entered into the Partnership Brokering Tool. The tool captures information such as individual contact information, organizational affiliation (academic, community, faith, government etc.), research interests (35 categories - asthma, diabetes, heart disease, etc.), communities of foci (children, elderly, LGBTQ, ethnicity, etc.), and target geographic community served (Chicago north, south, suburban, Illinois, etc.). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Data was compiled on 451 community groups and organizations and 77 partners in academia thus far. Community organizations represent a range of community sectors including advocacy and policy groups, community-based, faith-based organizations, foundations, media, schools, etc. throughout the Chicagoland area. Data analysis activities are underway, however, results will also be shared regarding characteristics of the communities these organizations serve including:. Age range. Special populations (as defined by the CSTI grant). Underrepresented racial and ethnic communities. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The Partnership Brokering Tool has provided a format for CCH to systematically gather information about the relationships staff have cultivated with community groups and organizations. Unlike an email management system, this REDCap project is highly useful in capturing the parameters of our partner pool, identifying partnership gaps, and matching individuals interested in collaborating with researchers or community organizations that have a particular skill set or research interest. The Partnership Brokering Tool has also facilitated stakeholder engagement dedicated to guiding the centers’ overall goals, objectives, and programming. Finally, utilizing REDCap has streamlined efforts in reporting quantitative and qualitative data about these organizations. In the next phase of this project, CCH will utilize the database to assess the nature of the relationship between CCH and community groups and organizations.