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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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