Report on CTSA Consortium Use of the Community Engagement Consulting Service |
| |
Authors: | Lori Carter‐Edwards Jennifer L. Cook Mary Anne McDonald Sarah M. Weaver Kemi Chukwuka Milton “Mickey” Eder |
| |
Affiliation: | 1.UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA;2.The Kenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA;3.Division of Community Health, Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA;4.Access Community Health Network and Institute for Translational Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA |
| |
Abstract: | IntroductionThe 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.MethodologyA 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsAcademic 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 |
| |
Keywords: | prevention translational research ethics |
|
|