Rebekka M Lee, Kamini Mallick, James G Daly, Vetta Sanders Thompson, Elise Hoffman, Maria Papadopoulos, Stacey Curry
{"title":"Community advisory boards as implementation strategies to center partner and patient voice in community health centers.","authors":"Rebekka M Lee, Kamini Mallick, James G Daly, Vetta Sanders Thompson, Elise Hoffman, Maria Papadopoulos, Stacey Curry","doi":"10.1017/cts.2024.679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Community advisory boards (CABs) are a promising approach for strengthening patient and partner voices in community health center (CHC) evidence-based decision-making. This paper aims to describe how CHCs used CABs during the COVID-19 pandemic to improve the reach of testing among populations experiencing health disparities and identify transferable lessons for future implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This mixed methods study integrates brief quantitative surveys of community engagement (<i>N</i> = 20) and one-on-one qualitative interviews (<i>N</i> = 13) of staff and community partners engaged in CHC CABs with a cost analysis and qualitative feedback from CHC staff participating in an online learning community (<i>N</i> = 17).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Community partners and staff engaged in the CHC CABs reported high ratings of engagement, with all mean ratings of community engagement principles above a 4 (\"very good\" or \"often\") out of 5. Qualitative findings provided a more in-depth understanding of experiences serving on the CHC CAB and highlighted how engagement principles such as trust and mutual respect were reflected in CAB practices. We developed a CHC CAB toolkit with strategies for governance and prioritization, cost estimates to ensure sustainment, guidance on integrating quality improvement expertise, testimonies from community members on the benefits of joining, and template agendas and facilitator training to ensure meeting success.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In alignment with the Translational Science Benefits Model, this study expands research impact through comprehensive mixed methods measurement of community engagement and by transforming findings into an action-orientated guide for CHCs to implement CABs to guide evidence-based decision-making for community and public health impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"e14"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11795859/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.679","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Community advisory boards (CABs) are a promising approach for strengthening patient and partner voices in community health center (CHC) evidence-based decision-making. This paper aims to describe how CHCs used CABs during the COVID-19 pandemic to improve the reach of testing among populations experiencing health disparities and identify transferable lessons for future implementation.
Methods: This mixed methods study integrates brief quantitative surveys of community engagement (N = 20) and one-on-one qualitative interviews (N = 13) of staff and community partners engaged in CHC CABs with a cost analysis and qualitative feedback from CHC staff participating in an online learning community (N = 17).
Results: Community partners and staff engaged in the CHC CABs reported high ratings of engagement, with all mean ratings of community engagement principles above a 4 ("very good" or "often") out of 5. Qualitative findings provided a more in-depth understanding of experiences serving on the CHC CAB and highlighted how engagement principles such as trust and mutual respect were reflected in CAB practices. We developed a CHC CAB toolkit with strategies for governance and prioritization, cost estimates to ensure sustainment, guidance on integrating quality improvement expertise, testimonies from community members on the benefits of joining, and template agendas and facilitator training to ensure meeting success.
Conclusion: In alignment with the Translational Science Benefits Model, this study expands research impact through comprehensive mixed methods measurement of community engagement and by transforming findings into an action-orientated guide for CHCs to implement CABs to guide evidence-based decision-making for community and public health impact.