Community-Engaged Research (CEnR) and Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) require validated measures and metrics for evaluating research partnerships and outcomes. There is a need to adapt and translate existing measures for practical use with diverse and non-English-speaking communities. This paper describes the Spanish translation and adaptation of Engage for Equity’s Community Engagement Survey (E2 CES), a nationally validated and empirically-supported CEnR evaluation tool, into the full-length “Encuesta Comunitaria,” and a pragmatic shorter version “Fortaleciendo y Uniendo EsfueRzos Transdisciplinarios para Equidad de Salud” (FUERTES).

Community and academic partners from the mainland US, Puerto Rico, and Nicaragua participated in translating and adapting E2 CES, preserving content validity, psychometric properties, and importance to stakeholders of items, scales, and CBPR constructs (contexts, partnership processes, intervention and research actions, and outcomes). Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and convergent validity was assessed via a correlation matrix among scales.

Encuesta Comunitaria respondents (N = 57) self-identified as primarily Latinos/as/x (97%), female (74%), and academics (61%). Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.72 to 0.88 for items in the context domain to 0.90–0.92 for items in the intervention/research domain. Correlations were found as expected among subscales, with the strongest relationships found for subscales within the same CBPR domain. Results informed the creation of FUERTES.

Encuenta Comunitaria and FUERTES offer CEnR/CBPR practitioners two validated instruments for assessing their research partnering practices, and outcomes. Moreover, FUERTES meets the need for shorter pragmatic tools. These measures can further strengthen CEnR/CBPR involving Latino/a/x communities within the US, Latin America, and globally.

In 2017, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR) and community partners in Flint, Michigan collaborated to launch a research funding program and evaluate the dynamics of those research partnerships receiving funding. While validated assessments for community-engaged research (CEnR) partnerships were available, the study team found none sufficiently relevant to conducting CEnR in the context of the work. MICHR faculty and staff along with community partners living and working in Flint used a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to develop and administer a locally relevant assessment of CEnR partnerships that were active in Flint in 2019 and 2021.

Surveys were administered each year to over a dozen partnerships funded by MICHR to evaluate how community and academic partners assessed the dynamics and impact of their study teams over time.

The results suggest that partners believed that their partnerships were engaging and highly impactful. Although many substantive differences between community and academic partners’ perceptions over time were identified, the most notable regarded the financial management of the partnerships.

This work contributes to the field of translational science by evaluating how the financial management of community-engaged health research partnerships in a locally relevant context of Flint can be associated with these teams’ scientific productivity and impact with national implications for CEnR. This work presents evaluation methods which can be used by clinical and translational research centers that strive to implement and measure their use of CBPR approaches.

The effectiveness of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships to address health inequities is well documented. CBPR integrates knowledge and perspectives of diverse communities throughout the research process, following principles that emphasize trust, power sharing, co-learning, and mutual benefits. However, institutions and funders seldom provide the time and resources needed for the critical stage of equitable partnership formation and development.

Since 2011, the Detroit Urban Research Center, collaborating with other entities, has promoted the development of new community–academic research partnerships through two grant programs that combine seed funding with capacity building support from community and academic instructors/mentors experienced in CBPR. Process and outcomes were evaluated using mixed methods.

From 2011 to 2021, 50 partnerships received grants ranging from $2,500 to $30,000, totaling $605,000. Outcomes included equitable partnership infrastructure and processes, innovative pilot research, translation of findings to interventions and policy change, dissemination to multiple audiences, new proposals and projects, and sustained community–academic research partnerships. All partnerships continued beyond the program; over half secured additional funding.

Keys to success included participation as community–academic teams, dedicated time for partnership/relationship development, workshops to develop equity-based skills, relationships, and projects, expert community–academic instructor guidance, and connection to additional resources. Findings demonstrate that small amounts of seed funding for newly forming community–academic partnerships, paired with capacity building support, can provide essential time and resources needed to develop diverse, inclusive, equity-focused CBPR partnerships. Building such support into funding initiatives and through academic institutions can enhance impact and sustainability of translational research toward advancing health equity.

The COVID-19 pandemic presented a challenge to established seed grant funding mechanisms aimed at fostering collaboration in child health research between investigators at the University of Minnesota (UMN) and Children’s Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota (Children’s MN). We created a “rapid response,” small grant program to catalyze collaborations in child health COVID-19 research. In this paper, we describe the projects funded by this mechanism and metrics of their success.

Using seed funds from the UMN Clinical and Translational Science Institute, the UMN Medical School Department of Pediatrics, and the Children’s Minnesota Research Institute, a rapid response request for applications (RFAs) was issued based on the stipulations that the proposal had to: 1) consist of a clear, synergistic partnership between co-PIs from the academic and community settings; and 2) that the proposal addressed an area of knowledge deficit relevant to child health engendered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Grant applications submitted in response to this RFA segregated into three categories: family fragility and disruption exacerbated by COVID-19; knowledge gaps about COVID-19 disease in children; and optimizing pediatric care in the setting of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. A series of virtual workshops presented research results to the pediatric community. Several manuscripts and extramural funding awards underscored the success of the program.

A “rapid response” seed funding mechanism enabled nascent academic-community research partnerships during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the context of the rapidly evolving landscape of COVID-19, flexible seed grant programs can be useful in addressing unmet needs in pediatric health.

Using an adaption of the Photovoice method, this study explored how food insecurity affected parents’ ability to provide food for their family, their strategies for managing household food insecurity and the impact of food insecurity on their well-being.

Parents submitted photos around their families’ experiences with food insecurity. Afterwards, they completed in-depth, semi-structured interviews about their photos. The interviews were transcribed and analysed for thematic content using the constant comparative method.

San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA.

Seventeen parents (fourteen mothers and three fathers) were recruited from a broader qualitative study on understanding the experiences of food insecurity in low-income families.

Four themes were identified from the parents’ photos and interviews. First, parents described multiple aspects of their food environment that promoted unhealthy eating behaviours. Second, parents shared strategies they employed to acquire food with limited resources. Third, parents expressed feelings of shame, guilt and distress resulting from their experience of food insecurity. And finally, parents described treating their children to special foods to cultivate a sense of normalcy.

Parents highlighted the external contributors and internal struggles of their experiences of food insecurity. Additional research to understand the experiences of the food-insecure families may help to improve nutrition interventions targeting this structurally vulnerable population.

The Rockefeller University Center for Clinical and Translational Science (RU-CCTS) and Clinical Directors Network (CDN), a Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN), fostered a community–academic research partnership involving Community Health Center (CHCs) clinicians, laboratory scientists, clinical researchers, community, and patient partners. From 2011 to 2018, the partnership designed and completed Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Project (CAMP1), an observational study funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), and CAMP2, a Comparative Effectiveness Research Study funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). We conducted a social network analysis (SNA) to characterize this Community-Engaged Research (CEnR) partnership.

Projects incorporated principles of Community-Based Participatory Research (CAMP1/2) and PCORI engagement rubrics (CAMP2). Meetings were designed to be highly interactive, facilitate co-learning, share governance, and incentivize ongoing engagement. Meeting attendance formed the raw dataset enriched by stakeholder roles and affiliations. We used SNA software (Gephi) to form networks for four project periods, characterize network attributes (density, degree, centrality, vulnerability), and create sociograms. Polynomial regression models were used to study stakeholder interactions.

Forty-seven progress meetings engaged 141 stakeholders, fulfilling 7 roles, and affiliated with 28 organizations (6 types). Network size, density, and interactions across organizations increased over time. Interactions between Community Members or Recruiters/Community Health Workers and almost every other role increased significantly across CAMP2 (P < 0.005); Community Members’ centrality to the network increased over time.

In a partnership with a highly interactive meeting model, SNA using operational attendance data afforded a view of stakeholder interactions that realized the engagement goals of the partnership.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a critical component of delivering patient-centered care. Members of vulnerable populations may play a passive role in clinical decision-making; therefore, understanding their prior decision-making experiences is a key step to engaging them in SDM.

To understand the previous healthcare experiences and current expectations of vulnerable populations on clinical decision-making regarding therapeutic options.

Clients of a local food bank were recruited to participate in focus groups. Participants were asked to share prior health decision experiences, explain difficulties they faced when making a therapeutic decision, describe features of previous satisfactory decision-making processes, share factors under consideration when choosing between treatment options, and suggest tools that would help them to communicate with healthcare providers. We used the inductive content analysis to interpret data gathered from the focus groups.

Twenty-six food bank clients participated in four focus groups. All participants lived in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. Four themes emerged: prior negative clinical decision-making experience with providers, patients preparing to engage in SDM, challenges encountered during the decision-making process, and patients’ expectations of decision aids. Participants also reported they were unable to discuss therapeutic options at the time of decision-making. They also expressed financial concerns and the need for sufficiently detailed information to evaluate risks.

Our findings suggest the necessity of developing decision aids that would improve the engagement of vulnerable populations in the SDM process, including consideration of affordability, use of patient-friendly language, and incorporation of drug–drug and drug–food interactions information.

Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) is a secure, web-based electronic data capture application for building and managing surveys and databases. It can also be used for study management, data transfer, and data export into a variety of statistical programs. REDcap was developed and supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Program and is used in over 3700 institutions worldwide. It can also be used to track and measure stakeholder engagement, an integral element of research funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Continuously and accurately tracking and reporting on stakeholder engagement activities throughout the life of a PCORI-funded trial can be challenging, particularly in complex trials with multiple types of engagement.

In this paper, we show our approach for collecting and capturing stakeholder engagement activities using a shareable REDCap tool in one of the PCORI’s first large pragmatic clinical trials (the Comprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services) to inform other investigators planning cluster-randomized pragmatic trials. Benefits and challenges are highlighted for researchers seeking to consistently monitor and measure stakeholder engagement.

We describe how REDCap can provide a time-saving approach to capturing how stakeholders engage in a PCORI-funded study and reporting how stakeholders influenced the study in progress reports back to PCORI.