Cargando…
Researchers’ experiences working with community advisory boards: How community member feedback impacted the research
INTRODUCTION: To assess researchers’ experiences working with community advisory boards (CABs) and perceptions of how community member stakeholder feedback impacted the research. METHODS: Individual interviews were conducted with researchers (n= 34) who had presented their research to a Mayo Clinic...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cambridge University Press
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8223174/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34221459 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.22 |
_version_ | 1783711639042785280 |
---|---|
author | Brockman, Tabetha A. Balls-Berry, Joyce E. West, Ian W. Valdez-Soto, Miguel Albertie, Monica L. Stephenson, Noreen A. Omar, Farhia M. Moore, Mitch Alemán, Marty Berry, Pastor Albert Karuppana, Suganya Patten, Christi A. |
author_facet | Brockman, Tabetha A. Balls-Berry, Joyce E. West, Ian W. Valdez-Soto, Miguel Albertie, Monica L. Stephenson, Noreen A. Omar, Farhia M. Moore, Mitch Alemán, Marty Berry, Pastor Albert Karuppana, Suganya Patten, Christi A. |
author_sort | Brockman, Tabetha A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: To assess researchers’ experiences working with community advisory boards (CABs) and perceptions of how community member stakeholder feedback impacted the research. METHODS: Individual interviews were conducted with researchers (n= 34) who had presented their research to a Mayo Clinic CAB (at MN, AZ, or FL) from 2014 to 2017, with an average interview duration of 10–15 min. Researchers were asked “In what ways did the feedback you received from the CAB influence your research?” A validated, structured, 7-item interview was used to assess domains of the potential influence that CABs had on the research: (1) pre-research (e.g., generated ideas), (2) infrastructure (e.g., budget preparation), (3) research design, (4) implementation (e.g., research recruitment), (5) analysis, (6) dissemination, and (7) post-research. A total mean score was calculated with a possible range of 0–7. In addition, open-ended examples and feedback from researchers in response to each domain were summarized for themes using content analysis. RESULTS: Researchers reported that the CAB influenced research in the following domains: pre-research (24%), infrastructure (24%), study design (41%), implementation (41%), analysis (6%), dissemination (24%), and post-research activities (18%). The mean total score was = 1.8 (SD = 1.7, range: 0–6). Open-ended responses revealed major themes of CAB helpfulness in generating/refining ideas, identifying community partners, culturally tailored and targeted recruitment strategies, intervention design and delivery, and dissemination. CONCLUSION: Findings from this preliminary evaluation indicate that despite positive experiences noted in open-ended feedback, the perceived quantitative impact of CAB feedback on the research was moderate. Bidirectional communication between researchers and community member stakeholders has the potential to make clinical and translational research more relevant and appropriate. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8223174 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Cambridge University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82231742021-07-01 Researchers’ experiences working with community advisory boards: How community member feedback impacted the research Brockman, Tabetha A. Balls-Berry, Joyce E. West, Ian W. Valdez-Soto, Miguel Albertie, Monica L. Stephenson, Noreen A. Omar, Farhia M. Moore, Mitch Alemán, Marty Berry, Pastor Albert Karuppana, Suganya Patten, Christi A. J Clin Transl Sci Research Article INTRODUCTION: To assess researchers’ experiences working with community advisory boards (CABs) and perceptions of how community member stakeholder feedback impacted the research. METHODS: Individual interviews were conducted with researchers (n= 34) who had presented their research to a Mayo Clinic CAB (at MN, AZ, or FL) from 2014 to 2017, with an average interview duration of 10–15 min. Researchers were asked “In what ways did the feedback you received from the CAB influence your research?” A validated, structured, 7-item interview was used to assess domains of the potential influence that CABs had on the research: (1) pre-research (e.g., generated ideas), (2) infrastructure (e.g., budget preparation), (3) research design, (4) implementation (e.g., research recruitment), (5) analysis, (6) dissemination, and (7) post-research. A total mean score was calculated with a possible range of 0–7. In addition, open-ended examples and feedback from researchers in response to each domain were summarized for themes using content analysis. RESULTS: Researchers reported that the CAB influenced research in the following domains: pre-research (24%), infrastructure (24%), study design (41%), implementation (41%), analysis (6%), dissemination (24%), and post-research activities (18%). The mean total score was = 1.8 (SD = 1.7, range: 0–6). Open-ended responses revealed major themes of CAB helpfulness in generating/refining ideas, identifying community partners, culturally tailored and targeted recruitment strategies, intervention design and delivery, and dissemination. CONCLUSION: Findings from this preliminary evaluation indicate that despite positive experiences noted in open-ended feedback, the perceived quantitative impact of CAB feedback on the research was moderate. Bidirectional communication between researchers and community member stakeholders has the potential to make clinical and translational research more relevant and appropriate. Cambridge University Press 2021-03-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8223174/ /pubmed/34221459 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.22 Text en © The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Brockman, Tabetha A. Balls-Berry, Joyce E. West, Ian W. Valdez-Soto, Miguel Albertie, Monica L. Stephenson, Noreen A. Omar, Farhia M. Moore, Mitch Alemán, Marty Berry, Pastor Albert Karuppana, Suganya Patten, Christi A. Researchers’ experiences working with community advisory boards: How community member feedback impacted the research |
title | Researchers’ experiences working with community advisory boards: How community member feedback impacted the research |
title_full | Researchers’ experiences working with community advisory boards: How community member feedback impacted the research |
title_fullStr | Researchers’ experiences working with community advisory boards: How community member feedback impacted the research |
title_full_unstemmed | Researchers’ experiences working with community advisory boards: How community member feedback impacted the research |
title_short | Researchers’ experiences working with community advisory boards: How community member feedback impacted the research |
title_sort | researchers’ experiences working with community advisory boards: how community member feedback impacted the research |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8223174/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34221459 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.22 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT brockmantabethaa researchersexperiencesworkingwithcommunityadvisoryboardshowcommunitymemberfeedbackimpactedtheresearch AT ballsberryjoycee researchersexperiencesworkingwithcommunityadvisoryboardshowcommunitymemberfeedbackimpactedtheresearch AT westianw researchersexperiencesworkingwithcommunityadvisoryboardshowcommunitymemberfeedbackimpactedtheresearch AT valdezsotomiguel researchersexperiencesworkingwithcommunityadvisoryboardshowcommunitymemberfeedbackimpactedtheresearch AT albertiemonical researchersexperiencesworkingwithcommunityadvisoryboardshowcommunitymemberfeedbackimpactedtheresearch AT stephensonnoreena researchersexperiencesworkingwithcommunityadvisoryboardshowcommunitymemberfeedbackimpactedtheresearch AT omarfarhiam researchersexperiencesworkingwithcommunityadvisoryboardshowcommunitymemberfeedbackimpactedtheresearch AT mooremitch researchersexperiencesworkingwithcommunityadvisoryboardshowcommunitymemberfeedbackimpactedtheresearch AT alemanmarty researchersexperiencesworkingwithcommunityadvisoryboardshowcommunitymemberfeedbackimpactedtheresearch AT berrypastoralbert researchersexperiencesworkingwithcommunityadvisoryboardshowcommunitymemberfeedbackimpactedtheresearch AT karuppanasuganya researchersexperiencesworkingwithcommunityadvisoryboardshowcommunitymemberfeedbackimpactedtheresearch AT pattenchristia researchersexperiencesworkingwithcommunityadvisoryboardshowcommunitymemberfeedbackimpactedtheresearch |