316 Training researchers in community-engaged research: A protocol to update a 2020 systematic review of current curricula

Objectives/Goals: Update a 2020 systematic review evaluating comprehensiveness of curricula on community-engaged research (CEnR) principles. Our protocol assesses CEnR training at academic medical centers on inclusion of topics critical in building community-researcher trust, such as self-evaluation of personal traits and understanding power dynamics. Methods/Study Population: Researchers’ well-intentioned interest in CEnR may contribute to mistrust if executed without adequate training in three key domains: 1) community dynamics (e.g., power imbalances, local context), 2) self-evaluation of personal traits (e.g., implicit bias), and 3) dissemination and advocacy. Piasecki et al.’s systematic review found that CEnR trainings at institutions funded by the Clinical and Translational Science Award program inadequately covered these domains. Our protocol builds upon theirs by 1) linking domains to community-researcher trust, as Hallmark et al. recommend; 2) comparing faculty versus community partner CEnR trainings (from CTSA-funded institutions); and 3) including National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers’ trainings. Results/Anticipated Results: Data collection is underway with analyses to be completed by March 2024. We will determine if programs fortified trainings in Piasecki et al.’s 8 domains (>20% with documented learning objectives, didactic presentations, and experiential learning activities). We will identify exemplar programs to provide recommendations for optimizing curricula. This updated review will gauge progress in the field of CEnR training and guide development of more robust modules, particularly seeking thoughtful, intentional engagement with the target community to cultivate and sustain trust. Strong CEnR training programs are critical for forming inclusive, long-lasting partnerships that benefit researchers and communities alike. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Monitoring and evaluating progress of CEnR training programs ensures the next generation of researchers are prepared to sustain partnerships that benefit individual and community health. Institutional investment in improving CEnR practices is essential to correct historical and prevent future injustices.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Published
2025-03-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.948
Primary Topic
Health and Medical Research Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

316 Training researchers in community-engaged research: A protocol to update a 2020 systematic review of current curricula

Jenna Nimer, Tiro Jasmin
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Health and Medical Research Impacts
article

316 Training researchers in community-engaged research: A protocol to update a 2020 systematic review of current curricula

Jenna Nimer, Tiro Jasmin
article en

Abstract

Objectives/Goals: Update a 2020 systematic review evaluating comprehensiveness of curricula on community-engaged research (CEnR) principles. Our protocol assesses CEnR training at academic medical centers on inclusion of topics critical in building community-researcher trust, such as self-evaluation of personal traits and understanding power dynamics. Methods/Study Population: Researchers’ well-intentioned interest in CEnR may contribute to mistrust if executed without adequate training in three key domains: 1) community dynamics (e.g., power imbalances, local context), 2) self-evaluation of personal traits (e.g., implicit bias), and 3) dissemination and advocacy. Piasecki et al.’s systematic review found that CEnR trainings at institutions funded by the Clinical and Translational Science Award program inadequately covered these domains. Our protocol builds upon theirs by 1) linking domains to community-researcher trust, as Hallmark et al. recommend; 2) comparing faculty versus community partner CEnR trainings (from CTSA-funded institutions); and 3) including National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers’ trainings. Results/Anticipated Results: Data collection is underway with analyses to be completed by March 2024. We will determine if programs fortified trainings in Piasecki et al.’s 8 domains (>20% with documented learning objectives, didactic presentations, and experiential learning activities). We will identify exemplar programs to provide recommendations for optimizing curricula. This updated review will gauge progress in the field of CEnR training and guide development of more robust modules, particularly seeking thoughtful, intentional engagement with the target community to cultivate and sustain trust. Strong CEnR training programs are critical for forming inclusive, long-lasting partnerships that benefit researchers and communities alike. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Monitoring and evaluating progress of CEnR training programs ensures the next generation of researchers are prepared to sustain partnerships that benefit individual and community health. Institutional investment in improving CEnR practices is essential to correct historical and prevent future injustices.

Journal of Clinical and Translational ScienceVol. 9(s1)
University of Chicago (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 92%
Health and Medical Research Impacts
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.