Community Engagement Strategies in the Original and Renewal Applications for CTSA Grant Funding

Purpose

The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program has highlighted community engagement in research by requiring institutions to develop bidirectional relationships with communities to obtain funding. Little is known about how institutions have operationalized that requirement. This study aimed to describe the strategies proposed by the first institutions to receive CTSA funding and to undergo the CTSA renewal process.

Methods

The authors conducted a qualitative document analysis of the community engagement section of 12 original and 10 renewal grant applications of the 12 institutions awarded CTSA funding in 2006 and renewed in 2010.

Results

Institutions employed ‐ and research engagement strategies. Capacity‐building strategies included education, pilot grants, connecting potential partners, and community research centers. Research engagement strategies ranged from those that allowed for very little input from communities, such as announcements, to those that allowed for a high amount of input from communities, such as community‐researcher teams.

Conclusion

CTSA funding has supported capacity‐building for institutions and communities to partner. Engagement strategies employed by the institutions are largely known from prior community‐engaged research. Based on the grants from these institutions, the CTSA funding has largely enabled institutions to develop capacity to engage.     

Community Representatives’ Involvement in Clinical and Translational Science Awardee Activities

Objectives

To understand the formal roles of community representatives (CRs) in Clinical and Translational Science Awardee (CTSA) activities, to evaluate the extent of integration into the organizational and governance structures and to identify barriers to effective integration.

Methods

The inventory tool was distributed to each of the 60 CTSAs using a secure web application.

Results

Forty‐seven (78%) completed the inventory. The mean number of CRs per CTSA is 21.4 (SD: 14.8). Most CTSAs had community advisory boards (89%) and 94% included CRs in Community Engagement (CE) cores. Only 11% reported a CR being a member of the CTSA leadership team and 19% reported that CRs advise core programs beyond CE.CRs are compensated by 79% of CTSAs. Mean annual compensation is $753 (median: $400). Compensation directly correlated with the number of hours that CRs worked in CTSA activities (r = 0.64; P = 0.001).

Conclusions

This inventory allows CTSAs to better understand how CRs have engaged in activities and brings attention to the limited representation among cores and in leadership roles. CTSAs should, with substantive input from CRs, develop strategies to provide the resources and compensation necessary to better integrate the community in CTSA activities and fully realize the goals of the CTSA vision.     

Enhancing Dissemination,Implementation, and Improvement Science in CTSAs through Regional Partnerships

Background and Importance

Challenges in healthcare policy and practice have stimulated interest in dissemination and implementation science. The Institute of Medicine Committee on the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) program recommended expanding the CTSA program''s investment and activity in this domain. Guidance is needed to facilitate successful growth of DII science infrastructure, activity and impacts.

Objectives

Several CTSAs in Southern California collaborated to identify and respond to local challenges and opportunities to expand dissemination, implementation and improvement research by strengthening capacity and relationships between DII researchers and community, health system, and population health partners.

Main outcomes

Planning and outreach by the Southern California CTSAs increased awareness and interest in DII research and generated recommendations for growth. Recommendations include: increasing strong partnerships with healthcare and population health systems to guide policy research agendas and collaborative DII science; promoting multi‐sector partnerships that involve researchers and delivery systems throughout DII processes; bringing together multiple disciplines; and addressing national and international barriers as well as opportunities in DII science.

Implications

CTSAs through regional collaboration can increase their contributions to improved community health via skill‐building, partnership development and enhanced outreach to local healthcare and public health agencies and delivery systems.     

Promotion and Tenure for Community‐Engaged Research: An Examination of Promotion and Tenure Support for Community‐Engaged Research at Three Universities Collaborating through a Clinical and Translational Science Award

Introduction

Community‐engaged health research, an approach to research which includes the participation of communities, promotes the translation of research to address and improve social determinants of health. As a way to encourage community‐engaged research, the National Institutes of Health required applicants to the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) to include a community engagement component. Although grant‐funding may support an increase in community‐engaged research, faculties also respond to the rewards and demands of university promotion and tenure standards. This paper measures faculty perception of how three institutions funded by a CTSA support community‐engaged research in the promotion and tenure process.

Methods

At three institutions funded by a CTSA, tenure track and nontenure track faculty responded to a survey regarding perceptions of how promotion and tenure committees value community‐engaged research.

Results

Faculty view support for community‐engaged research with some reserve. Only 36% agree that community‐engaged research is valued in the promotion and tenure process.

Discussion

Encouraging community‐engaged scholarship requires changing the culture and values behind promotion and tenure decisions. Institutions will increase community‐engaged research and more faculty will adopt its principles, when it is rewarded by promotion and tenure committees.     

Assessing the Impact of the NIH CTSA Program on Institutionally Sponsored Clinical Trials

Objective

To assess the impact of the NIH CTSA program on patient enrollment in clinical trials sponsored/collaborated by CTSA consortium institutions.

Material and Methods

Using publicly available clinical trial data at ClinicalTrials.gov, we identify positive trend changes in the number of patients enrolled in clinical trials performed at CTSA consortium institutions over the years before and after their respective CTSA award dates. CTSA consortium institutions were matched with similar non‐CTSA institutions.

Results

As compared to matched non‐CTSA institutions CTSA consortium sites noted an increase in patient enrollment after the CTSA awards. In particular, we detected a change‐point, where a new enrollment trend emerged, 338 days after the CTSA award. No such trend was noted over the same period in the non‐CTSA institutions.

Conclusion

Our analysis provides evidence that the NIH CTSA funding program made a positive impact on patient enrollment.     

Faculty Perceptions of How Community‐Engaged Research Is Valued in Tenure,Promotion, and Retention Decisions

Purpose

We assessed the perceptions of community core faculty in academic medical center institutions that received Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) about how these institutions consider community‐engaged scholarship (CES) when tenure, promotion, and retention decisions are made.

Method

An assessment tool was adapted to create an 18‐item survey that was sent during November and December 2011 via the Internet to the 369 members of the community‐engagement core mailing list of the CTSA.

Results

Fifty‐nine responses were received which represented 37 of the possible 60 different funded institutions. The mean score was 48.14 (SD = 11.18); range of 23–74; and Cronbach''s alpha was .91 About half reported that support for CES and its inclusion in the academic decision process increased since the institution was awarded a CTSA. Open‐ended responses indicated some confusion with terminology although a definition of CES had been provided in the instrument instructions.

Conclusion

Respondents overall agreed there was moderate support for CES in tenure, promotion, and retention decisions which may have been influenced by the CTSA application requirements. This survey could be used to identify if there are differences in institutional and departments and measure changes over time.     

Report on CTSA Consortium Use of the Community Engagement Consulting Service

Introduction

The CTSA Community Engagement Consultative Service (CECS) is a national partnership designed to improve community engaged research (CEnR) through expert consultation. This report assesses the feasibility of CECS and presents findings from 2008 to 2009.

Methodology

A coordinating center and five regional coordinating sites managed the service. CTSAs identified a primary previsit CE best practice for consultants to address and completed self‐assessments, postvisit evaluations, and action plans. Feasibility was assessed as the percent of CTSAs participating and completing evaluations. Frequencies were calculated for evaluation responses.

Results

Of the 38 CTSAs, 36 (95%) completed a self‐assessment. Of these 36 sites, 83%, 53%, and 44% completed a consultant visit, evaluation, and action plan, respectively, and 56% of the consultants completed an evaluation. The most common best practice identified previsit was improvement in CEnR (addressing outcomes that matter); however, relationship building with communities was most commonly addressed during consulting visits. Although 90% of the consultants were very confident sites could develop an action plan, only 35% were very confident in the CTSAs’ abilities to implement one.

Conclusions

Academic medical centers interested in collaborating with communities and translating research to improve health need to further develop their capacity for CE and CEnR within their institutions. Clin Trans Sci 2013; Volume 6: 34–39     

Assessing Research Interest and Capacity in Community Health Centers

Objective

Community health centers (CHCs) have great potential to participate in the development of evidence‐based primary care but face obstacles to engagement in clinical translational research.

Methods

To understand factors associated with CHC interest in building research infrastructure, Harvard Catalyst and the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers conducted an online survey of medical directors in all 50 Massachusetts CHC networks.

Results

Thirty‐two (64%) medical directors completed the survey representing 126 clinical sites. Over 80% reported that their primary care providers (PCPs) were slightly to very interested in future clinical research and that they were interested in building research infrastructure at their CHC. Frequently cited barriers to participation in research included financial issues, lack of research skills, and lack of research infrastructure. In bivariate analyses, PCP interest in future clinical research and a belief that involvement in research contributed to PCP retention were significantly associated with interest in building research infrastructure.

Conclusion

CHCs critical role in caring for vulnerable populations ideally positions them to raise relevant research questions and translate evidence into practice. Our findings suggest a high interest in engagement in research among CHC leadership. CTSAs have a unique opportunity to support local CHCs in this endeavor.     

Public Participation in,and Awareness about,Medical Research Opportunities in the Era of Clinical and Translational Research

Context

In the United States, levels of public participation in medical research in the era of Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) are unknown.

Methods

In 2011, a household survey was administered to a sample of U.S. adults, asking whether they (and children <18 years old) had participated, or were aware of opportunities to participate, in medical research. Respondents living within 100 miles of CTSA sites were identified. Regression analyses of participation and awareness (PA) were performed, applying sampling weights to permit nationally representative inferences.

Results

Overall, 2,150 individuals responded (completion rate = 60%); 65% of adults and 63% of families with children resided within 100 miles of ≥1 CTSA location. Research participation rates were 11% among adults and 5% among children. Among nonparticipants, awareness rates were 64% among adults and 12% among parents of children. PA among adults was associated with higher income and education, older age, presence of chronic conditions, and living within 100 miles of four specific CTSA locations. For children, PA was associated with higher household income and parents’ chronic health conditions.

Conclusions

PA of medical research opportunities is substantially higher for adults than children. Higher PA levels near specific CTSAs merit investigation to identify their successful approaches.     

Dissemination,Implementation, and Improvement Science Research in Population Health: Opportunities for Public Health and CTSAs

Importance

The complex, dynamic nature of health systems requires dissemination, implementation, and improvement (DII) sciences to effectively translate emerging knowledge into practice. Although they hold great promise for informing multisector policies and system‐level changes, these methods are often not strategically used by public health.

Objectives and Methods

More than 120 stakeholders from Southern California, including the community, federal and local government, university, and health services were convened to identify key priorities and opportunities for public health departments and Clinical and Translational Science Awards programs (CTSAs) to advance DII sciences in population health.

Main Outcomes

Participants identified challenges (mismatch of practice realities with narrowly focused research questions; lack of iterative learning) and solutions (using methods that fit the dynamic nature of the real world; aligning theories of change across sectors) for applying DII science research to public health problems. Pragmatic steps that public health and CTSAs can take to facilitate DII science research include: employing appropriate study designs; training scientists and practicing professionals in these methods; securing resources to advance this work; and supporting team science to solve complex‐systems issues.

Conclusions

Public health and CTSAs represent a unique model of practice for advancing DII research in population health. The partnership can inform policy and program development in local communities.     

A Novel Approach to Measuring Efficiency of Scientific Research Projects: Data Envelopment Analysis

Purpose

Measuring the efficiency of resource allocation for the conduct of scientific projects in medical research is difficult due to, among other factors, the heterogeneity of resources supplied (e.g., dollars or FTEs) and outcomes expected (e.g., grants, publications). While this is an issue in medical science, it has been approached successfully in other fields by using data envelopment analysis (DEA). DEA has a number of advantages over other techniques as it simultaneously uses multiple heterogeneous inputs and outputs to determine which projects are performing most efficiently, referred to as being at the efficiency frontier, when compared to others in the data set.

Method

This research uses DEA for the evaluation of supported translational science projects by the Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute (OCTRI), a NCATS Clinical & Translational Science Award (CTSA) recipient.

Results

These results suggest that the primary determinate of overall project efficiency at OCTRI is the amount of funding, with smaller amounts of funding providing more efficiency than larger funding amounts.

Conclusion

These results, and the use of DEA, highlight both the success of using this technique in helping determine medical research efficiency and those factors to consider when distributing funds for new projects at CTSAs.     

Federally Qualified Health Centers’ Capacity and Readiness for Research Collaborations: Implications for Clinical‐Academic‐Community Partnerships

Background:

Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) provide a health care safety net for underserved populations and contribute unique expertise to research that could further enhance quality of patient care. The purpose of this research was to assess interest in, readiness to, and capacity for conducting research in FQHCs in South Carolina (SC).

Methods:

A Web‐based survey was administered to 20 FQHCs across SC. Fourteen representatives of FQHCs completed the 39‐item survey that assessed research experience and interest, partnerships and funding, barriers and benefits to research participation, training and technical assistance needs, and research capacity.

Results:

FQHCs are interested in conducting research. FQHCs reported that health center leadership, organizational benefit, active engagement of staff, and clear roles for partners were important factors for successful partnerships. Inequity of budget and resources were the greatest challenges encountered. Improved patient outcomes, additional resources for the center, reduction in disparities, and academic partnerships were considered benefits for participation. FQHCs were interested in training and technical assistance opportunities for research funding and best practices for the use of research to inform programs and services.

Conclusions:

FQHCs are willing to collaborate on research. For successful research partnerships, collaborators should understand FQHCs’ challenges and barriers to participation.     

Developing the Translational Research Workforce: A Pilot Study of Common Metrics for Evaluating the Clinical and Translational Award KL2 Program

Purpose

This pilot study describes the career development programs (i.e., NIH KL2 awards) across five Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) institutions within the University of California (UC) system, and examines the feasibility of a set of common metrics for evaluating early outcomes.

Methods

A survey of program administrators provided data related to the institutional environment within which each KL2 program was implemented. Application and progress report data yielded a combined data set that characterized KL2 awardees, their initial productivity, and early career outcomes.

Results

The pilot project demonstrated the feasibility of aggregating common metrics data across multiple institutions. The data indicated that KL2 awardees were an accomplished set of investigators, both before and after the award period, representing a wide variety of disciplines. Awardees that had completed their trainee period overwhelmingly remained active in translational research conducted within an academic setting. Early indications also suggest high rates of success with obtaining research funding subsequent to the KL2 award.

Conclusion

This project offers a model for how to collect and analyze common metrics related to the education and training function of the CTSA Consortium. Next steps call for expanding participation to other CTSA sites outside of the University of California system.     

Provider's Perspectives on Building Research and Quality Improvement Capacity in Primary Care: A Strategy to Improve Workforce Satisfaction

Objectives

Safety‐net populations are underrepresented in research and quality improvement (QI) studies despite the fact that safety‐net providers are uniquely positioned to engage in translational research. This study aimed to understand the current level of interest in, experience with, predicted career satisfaction associated with, and barriers experienced in conducting research and QI among primary care providers (PCPs) at 18 safety‐net practices in the Boston, Massachusetts area.

Methods

The Harvard Catalyst Safety‐net Infrastructure Initiative partnered with staff at a large academic public hospital system, including 15 primary care sites, to develop and administer an online survey. This survey was then adapted and administered at three other academically affiliated community health centers.

Results

Of the 260 providers surveyed, 136 (52%) responded. Nearly 80% reported interest in conducting either QI projects or clinical research and 95% of them believed it would enhance their career satisfaction. However, 63% did not report prior experience or training in research or QI and 93% reported at least one barrier to engagement.

Conclusion

While supporting safety‐net PCPs’ engagement in research and/or QI may improve career satisfaction there are numerous barriers that must be addressed to achieve this goal.     

Researching Together: A CTSA Partnership of Academicians and Communities for Translation

Background

The Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CCTSI) aims to translate discovery into clinical practice. The Partnership of Academicians and Communities for Translation (PACT) represents a robust campus–community partnership.

Methods

The CCTSI collected data on all PACT activities including meeting notes, staff activity logs, stakeholder surveys and interviews, and several key component in‐depth evaluations. Data analysis by Evaluation and Community Engagement Core and PACT Council members identified critical shifts that changed the trajectory of community engagement efforts.

Results

Ten “critical shifts” in six broad rubrics created change in the PACT. Critical shifts were decision points in the development of the PACT that represented quantitative and qualitative changes in the work and trajectory. Critical shifts occurred in PACT management and leadership, financial control and resource allocation, and membership and voice.

Discussion

The development of a campus–community partnership is not a smooth linear path. Incremental changes lead to major decision points that represent an opportunity for critical shifts in developmental trajectory. We provide an enlightening, yet cautionary, tale to others considering a campus–community partnership so they may prepare for crucial decisions and critical shifts. The PACT serves as a genuine foundational platform for dynamic research efforts aimed at eliminating health disparities.     

Patient Engagement in Neurological Clinical Trials Design: A Conference Summary

Objectives

The conference objectives included educating patients and advocates about clinical trials, educating the clinical research community about patient perspectives on participating in clinical trial design, and identifying strategies to increase participation in clinical trial design for neurological disorders.

Design

Observations were noted during a 1‐day conference attended by patients, patient advocates, clinical trial staff, and investigators. The conference offered didactic sessions, small, and large group discussions.

Participants

Conference participants were patients, patient advocates, clinical trial staff, students, and investigators interested in engaging patients in clinical trial design for neurological disorders.

Measures

Conference participants were asked to consider lessons learned that could increase patient engagement in clinical trial design.

Results

We found that there is growing interest in including patients in the design of clinical trials for neurological disorders. Several themes emerged on how to move forward: networking; the multifaceted roles of advocates in research; training and education; creating patient–researcher partnerships; and clinical trials regulation issues.

Conclusions

The conference provided a forum for dialogue regarding stakeholder engagement in the design of clinical trials for neurological disorders. This experience provides a template for replication and dissemination of this conference and informs next steps to accelerate the pathway from dialogue to action.     

Strategies to Build Trust and Recruit African American and Latino Community Residents for Health Research: A Cohort Study

Background

This study used Community Partnered Participatory Research (CPPR) to address low participation of racial and ethnic minorities in medical research and the lack of trust between underrepresented communities and researchers.

Methods

Using a community and academic partnership in July 2012, residents of a South Los Angeles neighborhood were exposed to research recruitment strategies: referral by word‐of‐mouth, community agencies, direct marketing, and extant study participants.

Results

Among 258 community members exposed to recruitment strategies, 79.8% completed the study. Exposed individuals identified their most important method for learning about the study as referral by study participants (39.8%), community agencies (30.6%), word‐of‐mouth (17.5%), or direct marketing promotion (12.1%). Study completion rates varied by recruitment method: referral by community agencies (88.7%), referral by participants (80.4%), direct marketing promotion (86.2%), word of mouth (64.3%).

Conclusions

Although African American and Latino communities are often described as difficult to engage in research, we found high levels of research participation and completion when recruitment strategies emerged from the community itself. This suggests recruitment strategies based on CPPR principles represent an important opportunity for addressing health disparities and our high rates of research completion should provide optimism and a road map for next steps.     

Sharing of Grant Funds between Academic Institutions and -Community Partners in Community‐Based Participatory Research

Objectives

To determine how grant funds are shared between academic institutions and community partners in community‐based participatory research (CBPR).

Methods

Review of all 62 investigator‐initiated R01 CBPR grants funded by the National Institutes of Health from January 2005 to August 2012. Using prespecified criteria, two reviewers independently categorized each budget item as being for an academic institution or a community partner. A third reviewer helped resolve any discrepancies.

Results

Among 49 evaluable grants, 68% of all grant funds were for academic institutions and 30% were for community partners. For 2% of funds, it was unclear whether they were for academic institutions or for community partners. Community partners’ share of funds was highest in the categories of other direct costs (62%) and other personnel (48%) and lowest in the categories of equipment (1%) and indirect costs (7%).

Conclusions

A majority of CBPR grant funds are allocated to academic institutions. In order to enhance the share that community partners receive, funders may wish to specify a minimum proportion of grant funds that should be allocated to community partners in CBPR projects.