Anti-CTSA monoclonal antibody, clone FQS21546

Community engagement is an innovative and required component for Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). However, the extent of community engagement in NIH-funded research has not been previously examined. This study assessed baseline prevalence of community engagement activities among NIH-funded studies at a large Midwestern university with a CTSA. An online survey was e-mailed to principal investigators of recent NIH-funded studies (N = 480). Investigators were asked to identify what types of community engagement activities had occurred for each study. Responses were received for 40.4% (194/480) of studies. Overall, 42.6% reported any community engagement activities. More collaborative types of engagement (e.g., community advisory board) were less common than activities requiring less engagement (e.g., sharing study results with community members). Studies with more collaborative community engagement were less likely to be described as basic or preclinical research compared to all other studies. Given NIH's inclusive call for community engagement in research, relatively few NIH-funded studies reported community engagement activities, although this study used a broad definition of community and a wide range of types of engagement. These findings may be used to inform the goals of CTSA community engagement programs. Clin Trans Sci 2010; Volume *: 1-4.

Background: The institutions that comprise the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences continue to explore and develop community-engaged research strategies and to study the role of community academic partnerships in advancing the science of community engagement. Objectives: To explore CTSA institutions in relation to an Institute of Medicine recommendation that community engagement occur in all stages of translational research and be defined and evaluated consistently. Methods: A sequential multimethods study starting with an online pilot survey followed by survey respondents and site informant interviews. A revised survey was sent to the community engagement and evaluation leads at each CTSA institution, requesting a single institutional response about the definitions, indicators, and metrics of community engagement and community-engaged research Results: A plurality of CTSA institutions selected the definition of community engagement from the Principles of Community Engagement. Although claiming unique institutional priorities create barriers to developing shared metrics, responses indicate an overall lack of attention to the development and deployment of metrics to assess community engagement in and contributions to research. Conclusions: Although definitions of community engagement differ among CTSAs, there seem to be more similarities than differences in the indicators and measures tracked and reported on across all definitions, perhaps owing to commonalities among program infrastructures and goals. Metrics will likely need to be specific to translational research stages. The assessment of community engagement within translational science will require increased institutional commitment.