The partnership between a research community engagement team (CE Team) and a community advisory board (CAB) formed the basis for bidirectional communication in developing resources for participant recruitment in a DNA integrity study. Engaging with a minoritized community, this partnership focused on respect, accessibility, and expanded engagement.

A ten-member CAB, working in two groups defined by meeting time convenience, provided insight and feedback to the CE Team in the creation of recruitment and consent materials, via an iterative design process in which one CAB group reviewed and enhanced materials, and the second group tested and refined them further. The continuous analysis of CE Team notes from CAB meetings captured information needed both for materials refinement and implementation of CAB-suggested activities.

The partnership resulted in the co-creation of recruitment and consent materials that facilitated the enrollment of 191 individuals into the study. The CAB encouraged and assisted in expanded engagement inclusive of community leaders. This broader engagement provided information about the DNA integrity study to community decision-makers as well as responded to questions and concerns about the research. The bidirectional communication between the CAB and the CE Team encouraged the researchers to consider topics and research interests related to the current study but also responsive to community concerns.

The CAB helped the CE Team develop a better understanding of the language of partnership and respect. In this way, the partnership opened doors for expanded community engagement and effective communication with potential study participants.

The NIH Inclusion Across the Lifespan policy has implications for increasing older adult (OA) participation in research. This study aimed to understand influential factors and facilitators to rural OA research participation.

Thirty-seven rural adults aged ≥66 years participated in focus groups in community centers in four Oregon “non-metro” counties. Transcribed discussions were coded using open-axial coding by an interdisciplinary analytical team.

Ages were 66–96 (mean 82.2) years. Majority were women (64%) and white (86%). Primary, interrelated discussion themes were Motivation and Facilitators, Perceptions of Research, and Barriers to Research Participation. Participants were motivated to engage in research because they believed research had implications for improved longevity and quality of life and potentially benefited future generations. Motivational factors influencing participation included self-benefit and improving others’ lives, opportunities to socialize and learn about current research, research transparency (funding, time commitment, and requirements), and financial compensation. Perceptions influencing trustworthiness in research included funding source (industry/non-industry) and familiarity with the research institution. Barriers to research participation included transportation and concern about privacy and confidentiality. Suggestions for making research participation easier included researchers coming to rural communities and meeting participants in places where OAs gather and providing transportation and hotel accommodations.

Lessons learned offer practical guidance for research teams as they address the new NIH Inclusion Across the Lifespan policy. Including OAs in research in ways that motivate and facilitate participation will be critical for a robust representation across the lifespan and in tailoring treatments to the specific needs of this population.