Advertisement

Translational Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 773–782 | Cite as

Bridging the divide: building infrastructure to support community-academic partnerships and improve capacity to conduct patient-centered outcomes research

  • Jennifer HuangEmail author
  • Paula Darby Lipman
  • C. Daniel Mullins
Original Research

Abstract

For research to be useful, trustworthy, and ultimately lead to greater dissemination of findings to patients and communities, it is important to train and mentor academic researchers to meaningfully engage community members in patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR). Thus, it is necessary for research institutions to strengthen their underlying infrastructure to support PCOR. PATIENTS—PATient-centered Involvement in Evaluating effectiveNess of TreatmentS—at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, focuses on improving PCOR methods and addressing health disparities. It relies on evidence-based engagement methods to sustain and leverage innovative partnerships so patients, health care providers, and academic partners are motivated to participate in the conduct and dissemination of PCOR. Program components address training needs, bi-directional engagement, cultural competency, and dissemination and implementation. Activities (guided by community representatives, leadership from university schools, patient advocates, and PCOR experts) include providing resources, conducting PCOR projects, engaging community members, and disseminating PCOR findings. With its emphasis on the broad range of PCOR topics and methods, and through fostering sustainable relationships with community members and researchers, PATIENTS has successfully cultivated bi-directional partnerships and provided operational and scientific support for a new generation of skilled PCOR researchers. Early evidence of effectiveness includes progress in training and mentoring students and investigators, an increase in submission of PCOR proposals, and community-informed strategies for dissemination. Programs such as PATIENTS reinforce the value of bridging the traditional divide between academia and communities to support patient- and community-engaged dissemination and implementation research and foster sustainable PCOR infrastructure.

Keywords

Community-engagement Patient-centered outcomes Dissemination research Comparative effectiveness research 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Westat serves on the PATIENTS internal steering committee and as the internal evaluators of the program. The authors gratefully acknowledge Liz Jansky for her feedback and Nora Dluzak for manuscript preparation. They would also like to thank the community partners and trainees who participated in the interviews as well as the staff and partners of the PATIENTS program.

Compliance with ethical standards

Reported findings and data

The findings reported have not been previously published and the manuscript is not being simultaneously submitted elsewhere. These data have not been reported elsewhere. Authors have full control of all primary data and agree to allow the journal to review these data if requested.

Funding

This study was funded by AHRQ Grant Number: R24 HS022135.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

IRB

The described study has received IRB approval from University of Maryland, Baltimore and Westat.

References

  1. 1.
    Horowitz, C. R., Robinson, M., & Sarena, S. (2009). Community-based participatory research from the margin to the mainstream: are researchers prepared? Circulation, 119, 2633–2642.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hartwig K, Calleson D, Williams M. Unit 1: Community-based participatory research: getting grounded. In: The examining community-institutional partnerships for prevention research group. Developing and sustaining community-based participatory research partnerships: a skill-building curriculum. www.cbprcurriculum.info. 2006. Accessed May 15, 2016.
  3. 3.
    Minkler, M. (2000). Using participatory action research to build health communities. Public Health Reports, 115(2–3), 191–197.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tavernise S. Health problems take root in a west Baltimore neighborhood that is sick of neglect. The New York Times. April 29, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/health-problems-take-root-in-a-west-baltimore-neighborhood-that-is-sick-of-neglect.html?emc=eta1&_r=1 Accessed May 30, 2016.
  5. 5.
    McDaniels, A.K. Collateral damage: advocates aim to save Baltimore children from impact of violence. The Baltimore Sun., 2014. http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-md-health-violence-121114-story.html. Accessed May 31, 2016.
  6. 6.
    Mullins, C. D., Abdulhalim, A. M., & Lavallee, D. C. (2012). Continuous patient engagement in comparative effectiveness research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 307(15), 1587–1588.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ahmed, S. M., & Palermo, A. G. (2010). Community engagement in research: frameworks for education and peer review. American Journal of Public Health, 100(8), 1380–1387.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carter-Edwards, L., Cook, J. L., McDonald, M. A., Weaver, S. M., Chukwuka, K., & Eder, M. M. (2013). Report on CTSA consortium use of the community engagement consulting service. Clinical and Translational Science, 6(1), 34–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Handley M, Pasick R, Potter M, Oliva G, Goldstein E, Nguyen T. Community engaged research: a quick-start guide for researchers. From the Series: UCSF Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) resource manuals and guides to community-engaged research, P. Fleisher, ed. Published by Clinical Translational Science Institute Community Engagement Program, University of California San Francisco. https://accelerate.ucsf.edu/files/CE/guide_for_researchers.pdf. Accessed June 7, 2016.
  10. 10.
    Kauffman, K., dosReis, S., Ross, M., Barnet, B., Onukwugha, E., & Mullins, C. D. (2013). Engaging hard-to-reach patients in patient-centered outcomes research. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research., 2(3), 313–324.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faridi, Z., Grunbaum, J. A., Gray, B. S., Franks, A., & Simoes, E. (2007). Community-based participatory research: necessary next steps. Preventing Chronic Disease, 4(3), A70.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fadem, P., Minkler, M., Perry, M., Blum, K., Moore, I., & Rogers, J. (2003). Ethical challenges in community based participatory research. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community based participatory research for health (pp. 242–262). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lavallee, D. C., Wicks, P., Alfonso, C. R., & Mullins, C. D. (2014). Stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research: high-touch or high-tech? Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research., 14(3), 335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sofolahan-Oladeinde, Y., Mullins, C. D., & Baquet, C. R. (2015). Using community-based participatory research in patient-centered outcomes research to address health disparities in under-represented communities. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research., 4(5), 515–523.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mullins, C. D., Vandigo, J., Zheng, Z., & Wicks, P. (2014). Patient-centeredness in the design of clinical trials. Value in Health., 17(4), 471–475.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mullins CD, Chiauzzi E, Frye D, Mack M. Continuous patient engagement: how do we partner with patients throughout the research life cycle? Issues Panel, ISPOR 20 th International Annual Meeting. Philadelphia. 2015.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chauhan, C. (2016). Patients’ views can improve clinical trials for participants. BMJ, 353.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Behavioral Medicine (outside the US) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Huang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paula Darby Lipman
    • 1
  • C. Daniel Mullins
    • 2
  1. 1.WestatRockvilleUSA
  2. 2.University of MarylandBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations