223 通过持续评估增强社区反馈会服务的影响力

Nixola Datta, Simone Frank, Mary E Grewe, Chloe Yang, Khadeejatul-Kubraa Lawal, Alicia Bilheimer
{"title":"223 通过持续评估增强社区反馈会服务的影响力","authors":"Nixola Datta, Simone Frank, Mary E Grewe, Chloe Yang, Khadeejatul-Kubraa Lawal, Alicia Bilheimer","doi":"10.1017/cts.2024.209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVES/GOALS: UNC-Chapel Hill’s CTSA implemented a community feedback session (CFS) service to help researchers gather actionable, authentic, and constructive feedback on their projects from community experts. Simultaneously, we conducted an ongoing, participatory evaluation process to improve the experience for researchers and community members. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Informed by the Community Engagement Studio model (Yoosten, 2015), a CFS is a 2-hour consultative session that includes facilitated discussion with community experts around topics or questions posed by a research team. UNC-Chapel Hill’s CTSA staff conducted 7 CFSs during the pilot phase of the service and collected evaluation surveys from researchers and community experts. We held a data party – a participatory evaluation method – to analyze and interpret survey data. Resulting recommendations were used to improve CFS materials and processes. We conducted 11 CFSs after the pilot phase, then analyzed survey data again to gauge improvement and make further adjustments to the service. We also surveyed researchers three months after their last CFS to assess the impact of community experts’ feedback on their studies. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Since January 2022, 108 community experts have participated in 18 CFSs spanning 9 research projects. Data party interpretations of pilot evaluation data yielded several changes in service delivery; since those changes were instituted, all researchers have highly rated the service, unanimously recommending it to colleagues. Researchers praised well-structured sessions and productive engagement, citing direct benefits to their work and significant impact on recruitment processes 3 months post CFS. Community experts also echoed satisfaction, with 100% finding CFSs worthwhile and 95% desiring to participate again, emphasizing the sessions' supportive atmosphere. A community expert reported that the sessions 'made me feel seen and allowed for a greater understanding of what I have been dealing with.' DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The CFS model allows research teams to elicit rapid and meaningful community input, which is key to improving research relevance and impact. Ongoing participatory evaluation of the service ensures continuous improvement, yielding more meaningful interactions and studies that reflect the perspectives of people affected by the research.","PeriodicalId":508693,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"66 23","pages":"68 - 68"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"223 Enhancing the Impact of a Community Feedback Session Service Through Ongoing Evaluation\",\"authors\":\"Nixola Datta, Simone Frank, Mary E Grewe, Chloe Yang, Khadeejatul-Kubraa Lawal, Alicia Bilheimer\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cts.2024.209\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVES/GOALS: UNC-Chapel Hill’s CTSA implemented a community feedback session (CFS) service to help researchers gather actionable, authentic, and constructive feedback on their projects from community experts. Simultaneously, we conducted an ongoing, participatory evaluation process to improve the experience for researchers and community members. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Informed by the Community Engagement Studio model (Yoosten, 2015), a CFS is a 2-hour consultative session that includes facilitated discussion with community experts around topics or questions posed by a research team. UNC-Chapel Hill’s CTSA staff conducted 7 CFSs during the pilot phase of the service and collected evaluation surveys from researchers and community experts. We held a data party – a participatory evaluation method – to analyze and interpret survey data. Resulting recommendations were used to improve CFS materials and processes. We conducted 11 CFSs after the pilot phase, then analyzed survey data again to gauge improvement and make further adjustments to the service. We also surveyed researchers three months after their last CFS to assess the impact of community experts’ feedback on their studies. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Since January 2022, 108 community experts have participated in 18 CFSs spanning 9 research projects. Data party interpretations of pilot evaluation data yielded several changes in service delivery; since those changes were instituted, all researchers have highly rated the service, unanimously recommending it to colleagues. Researchers praised well-structured sessions and productive engagement, citing direct benefits to their work and significant impact on recruitment processes 3 months post CFS. Community experts also echoed satisfaction, with 100% finding CFSs worthwhile and 95% desiring to participate again, emphasizing the sessions' supportive atmosphere. A community expert reported that the sessions 'made me feel seen and allowed for a greater understanding of what I have been dealing with.' DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The CFS model allows research teams to elicit rapid and meaningful community input, which is key to improving research relevance and impact. Ongoing participatory evaluation of the service ensures continuous improvement, yielding more meaningful interactions and studies that reflect the perspectives of people affected by the research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":508693,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"volume\":\"66 23\",\"pages\":\"68 - 68\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"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.2024.209\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的/目标:联合国大学教堂山分校的社区研究与培训中心(CTSA)实施了一项社区反馈会议(CFS)服务,帮助研究人员从社区专家那里收集有关其项目的可操作、真实和建设性的反馈意见。与此同时,我们还开展了一个持续的参与式评估过程,以改善研究人员和社区成员的体验。方法/研究对象:社区参与工作室模式(Yoosten,2015 年)是一个 2 小时的咨询会议,包括与社区专家围绕研究团队提出的主题或问题进行讨论。在服务的试点阶段,UNC-Chapel Hill 的 CTSA 工作人员进行了 7 次 CFS,并收集了研究人员和社区专家的评估调查。我们举行了数据聚会--一种参与式评估方法--以分析和解释调查数据。由此产生的建议被用于改进社区家庭服务中心的材料和流程。试点阶段结束后,我们举办了 11 次爱幼学校活动,然后再次分析调查数据,以衡量改进情况并进一步调整服务。我们还在研究人员参加最后一次社区学习中心三个月后对其进行了调查,以评估社区专家的反馈意见对其研究的影响。结果/预期结果:自 2022 年 1 月以来,共有 108 名社区专家参加了横跨 9 个研究项目的 18 次社区综合服务平台。数据方对试点评估数据的解读为服务提供带来了一些变化;自这些变化实施以来,所有研究人员都对服务给予了高度评价,并一致向同事推荐。研究人员对结构合理的课程和富有成效的参与大加赞赏,认为这对他们的工作有直接的益处,并对社区综合服务计划实施 3 个月后的招聘工作产生了重大影响。社区专家也表示满意,100% 的人认为社区服务中心值得参加,95% 的人希望再次参加,并强调了会议的支持氛围。一位社区专家报告说,这些会议'让我感觉自己被看见了,让我对自己一直在处理的问题有了更多的了解'。讨论/意义:"社区心理健康服务 "模式使研究团队能够迅速获得有意义的社区意见,这是提高研究相关性和影响力的关键。对服务的持续参与式评估可确保不断改进,产生更有意义的互动和研究,以反映受研究影响的人们的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
223 Enhancing the Impact of a Community Feedback Session Service Through Ongoing Evaluation
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: UNC-Chapel Hill’s CTSA implemented a community feedback session (CFS) service to help researchers gather actionable, authentic, and constructive feedback on their projects from community experts. Simultaneously, we conducted an ongoing, participatory evaluation process to improve the experience for researchers and community members. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Informed by the Community Engagement Studio model (Yoosten, 2015), a CFS is a 2-hour consultative session that includes facilitated discussion with community experts around topics or questions posed by a research team. UNC-Chapel Hill’s CTSA staff conducted 7 CFSs during the pilot phase of the service and collected evaluation surveys from researchers and community experts. We held a data party – a participatory evaluation method – to analyze and interpret survey data. Resulting recommendations were used to improve CFS materials and processes. We conducted 11 CFSs after the pilot phase, then analyzed survey data again to gauge improvement and make further adjustments to the service. We also surveyed researchers three months after their last CFS to assess the impact of community experts’ feedback on their studies. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Since January 2022, 108 community experts have participated in 18 CFSs spanning 9 research projects. Data party interpretations of pilot evaluation data yielded several changes in service delivery; since those changes were instituted, all researchers have highly rated the service, unanimously recommending it to colleagues. Researchers praised well-structured sessions and productive engagement, citing direct benefits to their work and significant impact on recruitment processes 3 months post CFS. Community experts also echoed satisfaction, with 100% finding CFSs worthwhile and 95% desiring to participate again, emphasizing the sessions' supportive atmosphere. A community expert reported that the sessions 'made me feel seen and allowed for a greater understanding of what I have been dealing with.' DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The CFS model allows research teams to elicit rapid and meaningful community input, which is key to improving research relevance and impact. Ongoing participatory evaluation of the service ensures continuous improvement, yielding more meaningful interactions and studies that reflect the perspectives of people affected by the research.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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