268 Community engaged co-creation and implementation of informational sessions on biomedical research

Objectives/Goals: Research mistrust is well documented. So is community engagement’s potential to foster trust. We share the community engaged development and implementation of informational sessions on research and the protections for participants, aiming at enhancing community members’ knowledge of research. Methods/Study Population: Drawing from a pool of community members who had participated in research projects with a community engaged (CE) research center, we established a four-member Research Partner Committee (RPC) to work with the Center’s research team (CE Team) in the co-creation of materials for an informational session covering two main topics: the fundamentals of biomedical research and of protections for research participants.. The RPC and CE Team also co-developed two sets of pre- and post-tests to evaluate knowledge acquisition at session implementation. Community partners assisted in recruiting their constituents to participate in the sessions and provided convenient sites for the presentations. Results/Anticipated Results: The CE Team and RPC met 7 times to co-create the research and protections presentations (e.g., research definition, importance, inclusion of diverse populations, reasons we have protections, Institutional Review Boards, and informed consent). They also co-developed a 7- and a 9- item pre-post test, respectively. Five informational sessions, implemented by the CE Team with RPC members as observers drew 49 participants (96% African American, 73% female). 55.1% and 75.5% of participants showed a positive change in knowledge after the research and the protections presentations, respectively. 91% agreed to be notified about future research studies at the center. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Engaging community members in dialogue around research and the reasons for mistrust in research encourages relationship development. This engagement equips community members with knowledge to join in conversations around medical studies and make informed decisions about participation in research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Published
2025-03-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.911
Primary Topic
E-Learning and Knowledge Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

268 Community engaged co-creation and implementation of informational sessions on biomedical research

Martha I. Arrieta, L. Lynette Parker, Andrew Williams
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
E-Learning and Knowledge Management
article

268 Community engaged co-creation and implementation of informational sessions on biomedical research

Martha I. Arrieta, L. Lynette Parker, Andrew Williams
article en

Abstract

Objectives/Goals: Research mistrust is well documented. So is community engagement’s potential to foster trust. We share the community engaged development and implementation of informational sessions on research and the protections for participants, aiming at enhancing community members’ knowledge of research. Methods/Study Population: Drawing from a pool of community members who had participated in research projects with a community engaged (CE) research center, we established a four-member Research Partner Committee (RPC) to work with the Center’s research team (CE Team) in the co-creation of materials for an informational session covering two main topics: the fundamentals of biomedical research and of protections for research participants.. The RPC and CE Team also co-developed two sets of pre- and post-tests to evaluate knowledge acquisition at session implementation. Community partners assisted in recruiting their constituents to participate in the sessions and provided convenient sites for the presentations. Results/Anticipated Results: The CE Team and RPC met 7 times to co-create the research and protections presentations (e.g., research definition, importance, inclusion of diverse populations, reasons we have protections, Institutional Review Boards, and informed consent). They also co-developed a 7- and a 9- item pre-post test, respectively. Five informational sessions, implemented by the CE Team with RPC members as observers drew 49 participants (96% African American, 73% female). 55.1% and 75.5% of participants showed a positive change in knowledge after the research and the protections presentations, respectively. 91% agreed to be notified about future research studies at the center. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Engaging community members in dialogue around research and the reasons for mistrust in research encourages relationship development. This engagement equips community members with knowledge to join in conversations around medical studies and make informed decisions about participation in research.

Journal of Clinical and Translational ScienceVol. 9(s1)
Catholic Charities (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 95%
E-Learning and Knowledge Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.