281 在研究中促进社区和利益相关者的参与(CSE):科学家和利益相关者的经验视角

IF 2.1 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Siyu Chen, Sarah K. Brewer, Robert Sege, Aviva Must, Nadia Prokofieva, Thomas W. Concannon, Alice Rushforth, Lisa Welch
{"title":"281 在研究中促进社区和利益相关者的参与(CSE):科学家和利益相关者的经验视角","authors":"Siyu Chen, Sarah K. Brewer, Robert Sege, Aviva Must, Nadia Prokofieva, Thomas W. Concannon, Alice Rushforth, Lisa Welch","doi":"10.1017/cts.2024.257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Community and other stakeholder engagement (CSE) is critical for relevant and equitable clinical research, yet implementation poses challenges. This study delineates the perspectives of scientists and diverse stakeholders regarding facilitators and challenges in CSE, its perceived value, and their recommendations for successful CSE. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Tufts CTSI Pilot Studies Program requires applicants to propose a plan for CSE while implementing the award, including which stakeholders (SHs)—community members, clinicians, and others affected by the research--will be involved and at what stages. This qualitative study assessed the experiences of both Principal Investigators (PIs) and SHs engaged in pilot projects from three cohorts of awardees (2019-21). Recruitment targeted one PI and one SH per project. Semi-structured interviews explored their CSE experiences, including facilitators, challenges, meaningfulness, perceived impact, intent to participate in CSE in future studies, as well as recommendations for funders, research support organizations, and investigators. Inductive consensus-based coding and thematic analysis was employed. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Fourteen PIs from different pilot projects and a SH from five of these projects participated. Almost all PIs (92%) had over six years of experience, but two-thirds (67%) had little or no experience with CSE. Four SHs self-identified as representatives of community organizations and one as a clinician scientist. CSE was a “win-win” for both PIs and SHs, and all PIs intended to involve SHs in other research studies. Three facilitators were identified as fostering effective CSE (e.g., PI access to CSE expertise while conducting the project), while four challenges hindered it (e.g., limits on SH capacity and CSE funding). SHs advised scientists to build authentic, sustained relationships, and PIs and SHs provided three actionable recommendations for funders and research support organizations to deepen and expand CSE. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Perspectives of scientists and SHs engaged in research projects are vital for expanding and sustaining effective CSE in research. Funders and research support organizations can enhance their strategies for CSE integration in clinical and translational research by incorporating these diverse views to ensure the research achieves maximal impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"281 Catalyzing Community and Stakeholder Engagement (CSE) in Research: Perspectives from Scientist and Stakeholder Experience\",\"authors\":\"Siyu Chen, Sarah K. Brewer, Robert Sege, Aviva Must, Nadia Prokofieva, Thomas W. Concannon, Alice Rushforth, Lisa Welch\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cts.2024.257\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Community and other stakeholder engagement (CSE) is critical for relevant and equitable clinical research, yet implementation poses challenges. This study delineates the perspectives of scientists and diverse stakeholders regarding facilitators and challenges in CSE, its perceived value, and their recommendations for successful CSE. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Tufts CTSI Pilot Studies Program requires applicants to propose a plan for CSE while implementing the award, including which stakeholders (SHs)—community members, clinicians, and others affected by the research--will be involved and at what stages. This qualitative study assessed the experiences of both Principal Investigators (PIs) and SHs engaged in pilot projects from three cohorts of awardees (2019-21). Recruitment targeted one PI and one SH per project. Semi-structured interviews explored their CSE experiences, including facilitators, challenges, meaningfulness, perceived impact, intent to participate in CSE in future studies, as well as recommendations for funders, research support organizations, and investigators. Inductive consensus-based coding and thematic analysis was employed. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Fourteen PIs from different pilot projects and a SH from five of these projects participated. Almost all PIs (92%) had over six years of experience, but two-thirds (67%) had little or no experience with CSE. Four SHs self-identified as representatives of community organizations and one as a clinician scientist. CSE was a “win-win” for both PIs and SHs, and all PIs intended to involve SHs in other research studies. Three facilitators were identified as fostering effective CSE (e.g., PI access to CSE expertise while conducting the project), while four challenges hindered it (e.g., limits on SH capacity and CSE funding). SHs advised scientists to build authentic, sustained relationships, and PIs and SHs provided three actionable recommendations for funders and research support organizations to deepen and expand CSE. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Perspectives of scientists and SHs engaged in research projects are vital for expanding and sustaining effective CSE in research. Funders and research support organizations can enhance their strategies for CSE integration in clinical and translational research by incorporating these diverse views to ensure the research achieves maximal impact.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.257\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.257","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的/目标:社区和其他利益相关者的参与(CSE)对于相关和公平的临床研究至关重要,但在实施过程中却面临挑战。本研究阐述了科学家和不同利益相关者对 CSE 的促进因素和挑战、其认知价值的看法,以及他们对成功 CSE 的建议。方法/研究对象:塔夫茨 CTSI 试点研究计划要求申请者在获奖的同时提出 CSE 计划,包括哪些利益相关者(SHs)--社区成员、临床医生和其他受研究影响的人--将参与其中,以及在哪些阶段参与。本定性研究评估了三批获奖者(2019-21 年)中参与试点项目的首席研究员 (PI) 和 SHs 的经验。每个项目招募一名首席研究员和一名高级研究员。半结构式访谈探讨了他们的 CSE 经验,包括促进因素、挑战、意义、感知的影响、在未来研究中参与 CSE 的意向,以及对资助者、研究支持机构和研究人员的建议。研究采用了基于共识的归纳编码和主题分析方法。结果/预期结果:来自不同试点项目的 14 位首席研究员和其中 5 个项目的一位 SH 参与了研究。几乎所有首席研究员(92%)都有六年以上的工作经验,但三分之二(67%)的首席研究员几乎没有或根本没有 CSE 经验。四位 SH 自认为是社区组织的代表,一位是临床科学家。CSE 对首席研究员和 SHs 来说是 "双赢 "的,所有首席研究员都打算让 SHs 参与其他研究。有三个促进因素被认为有助于有效地开展 CSE(例如,首席研究员在开展项目的同时可以获得 CSE 的专业知识),而有四个挑战则阻碍了 CSE 的开展(例如,对 SH 能力和 CSE 资金的限制)。科研人员建议科学家建立真实、持续的关系,而首席研究员和科研人员则为资助者和研究支持机构提供了三项可行建议,以深化和扩大 CSE。讨论/意义:参与研究项目的科学家和 SHs 的观点对于在研究中扩大和维持有效的 CSE 至关重要。资助者和研究支持机构可以通过采纳这些不同的观点,加强其在临床和转化研究中整合 CSE 的策略,以确保研究取得最大的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
281 Catalyzing Community and Stakeholder Engagement (CSE) in Research: Perspectives from Scientist and Stakeholder Experience

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Community and other stakeholder engagement (CSE) is critical for relevant and equitable clinical research, yet implementation poses challenges. This study delineates the perspectives of scientists and diverse stakeholders regarding facilitators and challenges in CSE, its perceived value, and their recommendations for successful CSE. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Tufts CTSI Pilot Studies Program requires applicants to propose a plan for CSE while implementing the award, including which stakeholders (SHs)—community members, clinicians, and others affected by the research--will be involved and at what stages. This qualitative study assessed the experiences of both Principal Investigators (PIs) and SHs engaged in pilot projects from three cohorts of awardees (2019-21). Recruitment targeted one PI and one SH per project. Semi-structured interviews explored their CSE experiences, including facilitators, challenges, meaningfulness, perceived impact, intent to participate in CSE in future studies, as well as recommendations for funders, research support organizations, and investigators. Inductive consensus-based coding and thematic analysis was employed. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Fourteen PIs from different pilot projects and a SH from five of these projects participated. Almost all PIs (92%) had over six years of experience, but two-thirds (67%) had little or no experience with CSE. Four SHs self-identified as representatives of community organizations and one as a clinician scientist. CSE was a “win-win” for both PIs and SHs, and all PIs intended to involve SHs in other research studies. Three facilitators were identified as fostering effective CSE (e.g., PI access to CSE expertise while conducting the project), while four challenges hindered it (e.g., limits on SH capacity and CSE funding). SHs advised scientists to build authentic, sustained relationships, and PIs and SHs provided three actionable recommendations for funders and research support organizations to deepen and expand CSE. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Perspectives of scientists and SHs engaged in research projects are vital for expanding and sustaining effective CSE in research. Funders and research support organizations can enhance their strategies for CSE integration in clinical and translational research by incorporating these diverse views to ensure the research achieves maximal impact.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
26.90%
发文量
437
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信