Cargando…

The community voices program to facilitate community–academic researcher partnerships: Stakeholder perspectives on the program’s usefulness

INTRODUCTION: The Institute of Translational Health Sciences (Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program hub) developed a program coined Community Voices to invite communities to submit project ideas and be matched with academic researchers. We describe formative research to understand commun...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ramirez, Magaly, Wool, Jenny, Bishop, Sonia, Hara-Hubbard, KeliAnne K., Jang, Sou Hyun, Leong, Judy, Hassell, Laurie, Ko, Linda K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10663767/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38028353
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2023.657
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: The Institute of Translational Health Sciences (Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program hub) developed a program coined Community Voices to invite communities to submit project ideas and be matched with academic researchers. We describe formative research to understand community and academic researcher perspectives on how the program could facilitate collaborations addressing community priorities. METHODS: We conducted four focus groups with 31 community-based organization (CBO) representatives and 11 semi-structured interviews with academic researchers in the Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho regions. Questions included the appeal of Community Voices to engage community and academic partners, potential program usefulness, and Community Voices’ potential role in building community–academic partnerships. We used an inductive, constant comparison approach to code transcripts and thematic analysis to generate themes. RESULTS: Most CBO representatives were female (87.1%) and Hispanic/Latino (61.3%). Most academic researchers had a PhD (63.6%) and worked at a university (81.8%). The themes were: (1) community–academic partnerships built on trust will offer mutual benefit, (2) community-initiated project ideas should prioritize community needs, (3) matchmaking will accelerate connections but should not replace time to foster partnership, (4) Community Voices should go beyond matchmaking and provide ongoing support/training, and (5) fostering effective communication is key to partnership success. CONCLUSIONS: Community Voices is a novel, bidirectional community engagement program model that advances current practices of prioritizing researchers’ project ideas. This community-driven program may shift the future direction of community engagement practices where prioritizing community’s ideas becomes the norm of community–academic partnerships in clinical and translational science.