Search

People experiencing incarceration are often invisible to the public due to the restricted settings in which they reside and receive services. Limited access to criminal justice settings leaves policymakers and healthcare professionals with sparse information to understand the unique needs of this population. The unmet needs of justice-involved individuals are more likely observed by professionals who provide services in correctional settings. We provide three distinct examples of projects conducted within correctional settings and how they formed pathways to interdisciplinary research and community partnerships to address the unique health and social needs of incarcerated individuals. Our partnerships in a variety of correctional settings led to exploratory research of women and men’s prepregnancy health needs, participatory workplace health interventions, and process evaluation of reentry programming. The limitations and challenges to research in correctional settings are considered along with the clinical and policy implications of these projects.

Abstract Introduction: People aging with long-term physical disabilities (PAwLTPD), meaning individuals with onset of disability from birth through midlife, often require long-term support services (LTSS) to remain independence. The LTSS system is fragmented into aging and disability organizations with little communication between them. In addition, there are currently no evidence-based LTSS-type programs listed on the Administration for Community Living website that have been demonstrated to be effective for PAwLTPD. Because of these gaps, we have developed a community-based research network (CBRN), drawing on the practice-based research network model (PBRN), to bring together aging and disability organizations to address the lack of evidence-based programs for PAwLTPD. Materials and Methods: Community-based organizations serving PAwLTPD across the state of Missouri were recruited to join the CBRN. A formative process evaluation of the network was conducted after a year to evaluate the effectiveness of the network. Results: Nine community-based organizations across the state of Missouri joined the CBRN. CBRN members include three centers for independent living (CILs), three area agencies on aging (AAAs), one CIL/AAA hybrid, one non-CIL disability organization, and one non-AAA aging organization. To date, we have held seven meetings, provided educational opportunities for CBRN members, and launched an inaugural research study within the CBRN. Formative evaluation data indicate that CBRN members feel that participation in the CBRN is beneficial. Conclusion: The PBRN model appears to be a feasible framework for use with community-based organizations to facilitate communication between agencies and to support research aimed at addressing the needs of PAwLTPD.

Community advisory boards (CABs) are a valuable strategy for engaging and partnering with communities in research. Eighty-nine percent of Clinical and Translational Science Awardees (CTSA) responding to a 2011 survey reported having a CAB. CTSAs’ experiences with CABs are valuable for informing future practice. This study was conducted to describe common CAB implementation practices among CTSAs; document perceived benefits, challenges, and contributions; and examine their progress toward desirable outcomes. A cross-CTSA collaborative team collected survey data from respondents representing academic and/or community members affiliated with CTSAs with CABs. Data representing 44 CTSAs with CABs were analyzed using descriptive statistics. A majority of respondents reported practices reflecting respect for CAB members’ expertise and input such as compensation (75%), advisory purview beyond their CTSA’s Community Engagement program (88%), and influence over CAB operations. Three-quarters provide members with orientation and training on roles and responsibilities and 89% reported evaluating their CAB. Almost all respondents indicated their CTSA incorporates the feedback of their CABs to some degree; over half do so a lot or completely. This study profiles practices that inform CTSAs implementing a CAB and provide an evaluative benchmark for those with existing CABs.

AbstractIntroduction:This study employed the Delphi method, an exploratory method used for group consensus building, to determine the benefits and challenges associated with community engagement in patient-centered outcomes research.Methods:A series of email surveys were sent to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)-funded researchers (n = 103) in New England. Consensus was achieved through gathering themes and engaging participants in ranking their level of agreement over three rounds. In round one, participant responses were coded thematically and then tallied. In round two participants were asked to state their level of agreement with each of the themes using a Likert scale. Finally, in round three, the group was asked to rank the round two themes based on potential impact.Results:Results suggested the greatest benefit of community engagement is that it brings multiple perspectives to the table, with 92% ranking it as the first or second most important contribution. Time was ranked as the most significant barrier to engaging community. Strategies to overcome barriers to community engagement include engaging key stakeholders early in the research, being kind and respectful and spending time with stakeholders. The most significant finding was that no researchers reported having specific measures to evaluate community engagement.Conclusion:Community engagement can enhance both research relevance and methodology when researchers are engaged in meaningful collaborations. Advancing the science of community engagement will require the development of evaluation metrics to examine the multiple domains of partnership.

People experiencing incarceration are often invisible to the public due to the restricted settings in which they reside and receive services. Limited access to criminal justice settings leaves policymakers and healthcare professionals with sparse information to understand the unique needs of this population. The unmet needs of justice-involved individuals are more likely observed by professionals who provide services in correctional settings. We provide three distinct examples of projects conducted within correctional settings and how they formed pathways to interdisciplinary research and community partnerships to address the unique health and social needs of incarcerated individuals. Our partnerships in a variety of correctional settings led to exploratory research of women and men's prepregnancy health needs, participatory workplace health interventions, and process evaluation of reentry programming. The limitations and challenges to research in correctional settings are considered along with the clinical and policy implications of these projects., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

Introduction: People aging with long-term physical disabilities (PAwLTPD), meaning individuals with onset of disability from birth through midlife, often require long-term support services (LTSS) to remain independence. The LTSS system is fragmented into aging and disability organizations with little communication between them. In addition, there are currently no evidence-based LTSS-type programs listed on the Administration for Community Living website that have been demonstrated to be effective for PAwLTPD. Because of these gaps, we have developed a community-based research network (CBRN), drawing on the practice-based research network model (PBRN), to bring together aging and disability organizations to address the lack of evidence-based programs for PAwLTPD., Materials and Methods: Community-based organizations serving PAwLTPD across the state of Missouri were recruited to join the CBRN. A formative process evaluation of the network was conducted after a year to evaluate the effectiveness of the network., Results: Nine community-based organizations across the state of Missouri joined the CBRN. CBRN members include three centers for independent living (CILs), three area agencies on aging (AAAs), one CIL/AAA hybrid, one non-CIL disability organization, and one non-AAA aging organization. To date, we have held seven meetings, provided educational opportunities for CBRN members, and launched an inaugural research study within the CBRN. Formative evaluation data indicate that CBRN members feel that participation in the CBRN is beneficial., Conclusion: The PBRN model appears to be a feasible framework for use with community-based organizations to facilitate communication between agencies and to support research aimed at addressing the needs of PAwLTPD., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (© The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2020.)

Community advisory boards (CABs) are a valuable strategy for engaging and partnering with communities in research. Eighty-nine percent of Clinical and Translational Science Awardees (CTSA) responding to a 2011 survey reported having a CAB. CTSAs' experiences with CABs are valuable for informing future practice. This study was conducted to describe common CAB implementation practices among CTSAs; document perceived benefits, challenges, and contributions; and examine their progress toward desirable outcomes. A cross-CTSA collaborative team collected survey data from respondents representing academic and/or community members affiliated with CTSAs with CABs. Data representing 44 CTSAs with CABs were analyzed using descriptive statistics. A majority of respondents reported practices reflecting respect for CAB members' expertise and input such as compensation (75%), advisory purview beyond their CTSA's Community Engagement program (88%), and influence over CAB operations. Three-quarters provide members with orientation and training on roles and responsibilities and 89% reported evaluating their CAB. Almost all respondents indicated their CTSA incorporates the feedback of their CABs to some degree; over half do so a lot or completely. This study profiles practices that inform CTSAs implementing a CAB and provide an evaluative benchmark for those with existing CABs., (© The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2019.)

Introduction: This study employed the Delphi method, an exploratory method used for group consensus building, to determine the benefits and challenges associated with community engagement in patient-centered outcomes research., Methods: A series of email surveys were sent to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)-funded researchers ( n = 103) in New England. Consensus was achieved through gathering themes and engaging participants in ranking their level of agreement over three rounds. In round one, participant responses were coded thematically and then tallied. In round two participants were asked to state their level of agreement with each of the themes using a Likert scale. Finally, in round three, the group was asked to rank the round two themes based on potential impact., Results: Results suggested the greatest benefit of community engagement is that it brings multiple perspectives to the table, with 92% ranking it as the first or second most important contribution. Time was ranked as the most significant barrier to engaging community. Strategies to overcome barriers to community engagement include engaging key stakeholders early in the research, being kind and respectful and spending time with stakeholders. The most significant finding was that no researchers reported having specific measures to evaluate community engagement., Conclusion: Community engagement can enhance both research relevance and methodology when researchers are engaged in meaningful collaborations. Advancing the science of community engagement will require the development of evaluation metrics to examine the multiple domains of partnership.