10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Using Garden Cafés to engage community stakeholders in health research

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Science Cafés, informal venues to promote bidirectional dialog, inquiry and learning about science between community members, scientists, healthcare and service providers, hold promise as an innovative tool for healthcare researchers and community members to improve health outcomes, especially among populations with health disparities. However, the process of optimizing science cafés is under-studied. We describe the pilot evaluation of a series of Science Cafés, called Garden Cafés (n = 9), conducted from September 2015 through April 2016 in Olmsted County, MN and Duval County, FL to connect Mayo Clinic researchers and local service providers with the community. Selection of discussion topics was guided by a county health needs assessment, which identified community priorities. Before leaving the events, community participants completed a brief anonymous survey assessing sociodemographics and their knowledge of research benefits, readiness to participate as a partner in health research, and health and science literacy confidence. Of the 112 attendees who responded, 51% were female and 51% were Black. Respondents reported that participating in the event significantly improved (all at p<0.001) their understanding on all three measures. Preliminary findings suggest that Garden Cafés are an effective forum to increase community understanding and disposition to collaborate in health research, especially in members from diverse backgrounds.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Community Engagement Studios: A Structured Approach to Obtaining Meaningful Input From Stakeholders to Inform Research

          Problem Engaging communities in research increases its relevance and may speed the translation of discoveries into improved health outcomes. Many researchers lack training to effectively engage stakeholders, whereas academic institutions lack infrastructure to support community engagement. Approach In 2009, the Meharry-Vanderbilt Community-Engaged Research Core began testing new approaches for community engagement, which led to the development of the Community Engagement Studio (CE Studio). This structured program facilitates project-specific input from community and patient stakeholders to enhance research design, implementation, and dissemination. Developers used a team approach to recruit and train stakeholders, prepare researchers to engage with stakeholders, and facilitate an in-person meeting with both. Outcomes The research core has implemented 28 CE Studios that engaged 152 community stakeholders. Participating researchers, representing a broad range of faculty ranks and disciplines, reported that input from stakeholders was valuable and that the CE Studio helped determine project feasibility and enhanced research design and implementation. Stakeholders found the CE Studio to be an acceptable method of engagement and reported a better understanding of research in general. A tool kit was developed to replicate this model and to disseminate this approach. Next Steps The research core will collect data to better understand the impact of CE Studios on research proposal submissions, funding, research outcomes, patient and stakeholder engagement in projects, and dissemination of results. They will also collect data to determine whether CE Studios increase patient-centered approaches in research and whether stakeholders who participate have more trust and willingness to participate in research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Strategies addressing barriers to clinical trial enrollment of underrepresented populations: a systematic review.

            Underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials remains a reality while they have disproportionately higher rates of health disparities. The purpose of this study was to identify successful community-engaged interventions that included health care providers as a key strategy in addressing barriers to clinical trial enrollment of underrepresented patients. A systematic review of the literature on interventions addressing enrollment barriers to clinical trials for racial and ethnic minorities was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, EBSCO Megafile, and EBSCO CINAHL. The systematic review identified 360 studies, and 20 were selected using the inclusion criteria. An iterative process extracted information from the eligible studies. The 20 selected studies were analyzed and then grouped by first author, nature of the clinical research initiative, priority populations, key strategies, and study outcomes. Nine of the studies addressed cancer clinical trials and 11 related to chronic medical conditions, including diabetes, hypertension management, and chronic kidney disease. The key strategies employed were categorized according to their presumed impact on barriers incurred at distinct steps in study recruitment: clinical trial awareness, opportunity to participate, and acceptance of enrollment. The strategies were further categorized by whether they would address barriers associated with minority perceptions of the research process and barriers related to how studies were designed and implemented. Multiple and flexible strategies targeting providers and participants at provider sites and within communities might be needed to enroll underrepresented populations into clinical trials. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Aligning the goals of community-engaged research: why and how academic health centers can successfully engage with communities to improve health.

              Community engagement (CE) and community-engaged research (CEnR) are increasingly viewed as the keystone to translational medicine and improving the health of the nation. In this article, the authors seek to assist academic health centers (AHCs) in learning how to better engage with their communities and build a CEnR agenda by suggesting five steps: defining community and identifying partners, learning the etiquette of CE, building a sustainable network of CEnR researchers, recognizing that CEnR will require the development of new methodologies, and improving translation and dissemination plans. Health disparities that lead to uneven access to and quality of care as well as high costs will persist without a CEnR agenda that finds answers to both medical and public health questions. One of the biggest barriers toward a national CEnR agenda, however, are the historical structures and processes of an AHC-including the complexities of how institutional review boards operate, accounting practices and indirect funding policies, and tenure and promotion paths. Changing institutional culture starts with the leadership and commitment of top decision makers in an institution. By aligning the motivations and goals of their researchers, clinicians, and community members into a vision of a healthier population, AHC leadership will not just improve their own institutions but also improve the health of the nation-starting with improving the health of their local communities, one community at a time.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Resources
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: Methodology
                Role: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                10 August 2018
                2018
                : 13
                : 8
                : e0200483
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Center for Clinical and Translational Science, Office for Community Engagement in Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America
                [2 ] Department of Health Sciences Research, Division of Epidemiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America
                [3 ] Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America
                [4 ] Office of Health Disparities Research, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, United States of America
                [5 ] RNeighbors, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America
                [6 ] Department of Health Sciences Research, Division of Biostatics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America
                [7 ] Department of Community Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Children’s Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America
                Telethon Kids Institute, AUSTRALIA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7194-8160
                Article
                PONE-D-17-29715
                10.1371/journal.pone.0200483
                6086403
                30096153
                a6192786-479c-4668-a7e5-8e4921b04b51
                © 2018 Balls-Berry et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 27 August 2017
                : 27 June 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 3, Pages: 13
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100006108, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences;
                Award ID: UL1 TR000135
                This publication was made possible by CTSA Grant Number UL1TR002377 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of NIH. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Services Research
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Academic Skills
                Literacy
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Academic Skills
                Literacy
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Academic Skills
                Literacy
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Education and Awareness
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Communications
                Social Communication
                Social Media
                Computer and Information Sciences
                Network Analysis
                Social Networks
                Social Media
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Social Networks
                Social Media
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Socioeconomic Aspects of Health
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Socioeconomic Aspects of Health
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article