To learn about the activities of the community engagement cores and the role of community partners across the consortium, and how the cores measure success.
On October 7, 2019, PIs from 66 CTSA Program Hubs were emailed a REDCap survey link about community engagement to either complete or forward to the appropriate individual to complete. The purpose of the survey was to learn about the activities of the community engagement cores, the role of community partners within the community engagement cores, and how the cores measure success. Responses were received from 55 hubs, an 83.3% response rate. The majority (70.9%) of individuals who completed the survey were Community Engagement Core directors.
The program hubs were asked to list their Community Engagement Core primary and secondary aims as well as to describe how their CTSA has benefitted from stakeholder/partner participation. These responses were theme coded and a table of the aggregate results can be found in this report. A full table of all coded comments can be found in the appendix.
For primary goals, the majority of qualitative responses from the Community Engagement Cores for were coded as “stakeholder engaged research” (49.1%) and th majority of secondary goals were coded as “workforce development” (55.8%). Theme codes for the question about benefits from stakeholder/partner participation were adapted from an article by Foster-Fishman, Berkowitz, Lounsbury et al. (2001). The majority of responses for this questions were coded as “build Positive intergroup interactions” (37.5%) and build external relationships (27.1%).
The most commonly reported responsibilities of the Community Engagement Core include “participating in the CTSA Consortium” (90.9%), “assisting with development/mentorship of community based work” (89.1%), “researcher training” (89.1%), “facilitating academic-community partnerships” (100.0%), and “trainings on research methods” (89.1%). Respondents indicated that the largest average portion of their time was spent on “facilitating academic-community partnerships” (15.0%), “outreach” (13.0%), and “reducing health disparities” (12.0%).
On metrics of productivity, respondents indicated that the most common metrics were “stakeholder individuals and/or organizations engaged” (94.5%) and “number of educational workshops/presentations” (96.4%). Hubs indicated that their CTSA demonstrated their commitment to community engagement through “promoting workforce development for community engaged researchers” and through the “CTSA supporting and incorporating feedback from stakeholders into its programming” (83.6%). Respondents indicated that “readiness to participate among key stakeholders” (40.0%) was the strongest facilitator to community engagement and that “level of funding” (14.5%) and “complexity of project/program design” were the strongest barriers (14.8%).
The most common type of monetary compensation hubs reported their community partners received was “stipends per meetings attended” (56.5%) however, only 26 hubs chose this option. Overall, respondents were more likely to say that community partners were given access to other benefits (55 responses) with “increased capacity to conduct/participate in research” and “access to researchers” (87.3%) as the most common responses.
Hubs were asked to provide names of community partners to whom they would wish to send a companion survey. Thirty-one hubs provided information for at least one community partner, but the majority (10) provided information for a maximum amount of 5 community partners. Some did not provide information, reporting that they did not want to burden their partners with additional surveys. Several hubs expressed discomfort at having CLIC contact their community partners directly and requested that their partners complete the survey via public survey link, which was provided. A total of 41 community partners completed the companion survey.
Please log in to access this content