社区/患者组冠军团队回顾性观察参与公平性PLUS:干预后冠军团队焦点小组的结果。

IF 2 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2025-07-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1017/cts.2025.10092
Michael Muhammad, Paige Castro-Reyes, Marty Chakoian, Ysabel Duron, Starla Gay, Howard Grant, Bridgette Hempstead, LaShawn Hoffman, Diane Mapes
{"title":"社区/患者组冠军团队回顾性观察参与公平性PLUS:干预后冠军团队焦点小组的结果。","authors":"Michael Muhammad, Paige Castro-Reyes, Marty Chakoian, Ysabel Duron, Starla Gay, Howard Grant, Bridgette Hempstead, LaShawn Hoffman, Diane Mapes","doi":"10.1017/cts.2025.10092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Community/patient voice has long been stifled in favor of the priorities of powerful health organizations that set the agenda for institutional practices and policies shaping health equity research. Academic Health Centers (AHC) and Clinical Translational Science Centers (CTSC) promote missions that are often unaligned with the realities of community and patient experiences when interacting with researchers and representatives from these institutions. Implementation science has increasingly adopted collaborative and participatory approaches to the design and implementation of health interventions co-created with community/patient group members as equal participants within community-academic partnerships. Community-based participatory research/community-engaged research are widely recognized as approaches to health intervention research that offers the potential for community-patient voice to be heard when the principles of authentic participatory research are adhered to throughout all aspects of the project. For AHC's and CTSC's to be fully engaged, the populations they serve must have access to institutional leadership and influence over decision-making about the organizational resources allocated to community/patient groups beyond efforts to cultivate a positive public image. The E2 community/patient champion team focus groups provide unique perspectives on how equitable institutional transformation can be accomplished in a retrospective assessment of the E2 PLUS Intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"e179"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12444717/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Community/patient group champion team retrospective look at engage for equity PLUS: Results from a post-intervention champion team focus group.\",\"authors\":\"Michael Muhammad, Paige Castro-Reyes, Marty Chakoian, Ysabel Duron, Starla Gay, Howard Grant, Bridgette Hempstead, LaShawn Hoffman, Diane Mapes\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cts.2025.10092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Community/patient voice has long been stifled in favor of the priorities of powerful health organizations that set the agenda for institutional practices and policies shaping health equity research. Academic Health Centers (AHC) and Clinical Translational Science Centers (CTSC) promote missions that are often unaligned with the realities of community and patient experiences when interacting with researchers and representatives from these institutions. Implementation science has increasingly adopted collaborative and participatory approaches to the design and implementation of health interventions co-created with community/patient group members as equal participants within community-academic partnerships. Community-based participatory research/community-engaged research are widely recognized as approaches to health intervention research that offers the potential for community-patient voice to be heard when the principles of authentic participatory research are adhered to throughout all aspects of the project. For AHC's and CTSC's to be fully engaged, the populations they serve must have access to institutional leadership and influence over decision-making about the organizational resources allocated to community/patient groups beyond efforts to cultivate a positive public image. The E2 community/patient champion team focus groups provide unique perspectives on how equitable institutional transformation can be accomplished in a retrospective assessment of the E2 PLUS Intervention.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"e179\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12444717/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.2025.10092\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.10092","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

摘要

长期以来,社区/患者的声音一直被压制,有利于强大的卫生组织的优先事项,这些组织为形成卫生公平研究的机构实践和政策制定议程。学术卫生中心(AHC)和临床转化科学中心(CTSC)在与这些机构的研究人员和代表进行互动时,所促进的任务往往与社区和患者的现实经验不一致。实施科学越来越多地采用协作和参与的方法来设计和实施与社区/患者群体成员作为社区学术伙伴关系中的平等参与者共同创建的卫生干预措施。基于社区的参与性研究/社区参与的研究被广泛认为是保健干预研究的方法,如果在项目的所有方面都遵守真正参与性研究的原则,就有可能听到社区患者的声音。为了让AHC和CTSC充分参与,他们所服务的人群除了努力培养积极的公众形象外,还必须能够接触到机构的领导,并对分配给社区/患者群体的组织资源的决策产生影响。E2社区/患者冠军团队焦点小组为如何在对E2 PLUS干预措施的回顾性评估中实现公平的制度转型提供了独特的视角。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Community/patient group champion team retrospective look at engage for equity PLUS: Results from a post-intervention champion team focus group.

Community/patient group champion team retrospective look at engage for equity PLUS: Results from a post-intervention champion team focus group.

Community/patient group champion team retrospective look at engage for equity PLUS: Results from a post-intervention champion team focus group.

Community/patient group champion team retrospective look at engage for equity PLUS: Results from a post-intervention champion team focus group.

Community/patient voice has long been stifled in favor of the priorities of powerful health organizations that set the agenda for institutional practices and policies shaping health equity research. Academic Health Centers (AHC) and Clinical Translational Science Centers (CTSC) promote missions that are often unaligned with the realities of community and patient experiences when interacting with researchers and representatives from these institutions. Implementation science has increasingly adopted collaborative and participatory approaches to the design and implementation of health interventions co-created with community/patient group members as equal participants within community-academic partnerships. Community-based participatory research/community-engaged research are widely recognized as approaches to health intervention research that offers the potential for community-patient voice to be heard when the principles of authentic participatory research are adhered to throughout all aspects of the project. For AHC's and CTSC's to be fully engaged, the populations they serve must have access to institutional leadership and influence over decision-making about the organizational resources allocated to community/patient groups beyond efforts to cultivate a positive public image. The E2 community/patient champion team focus groups provide unique perspectives on how equitable institutional transformation can be accomplished in a retrospective assessment of the E2 PLUS Intervention.

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:604180095
Book学术官方微信