Explore the vast range of titles available.

While providing compensation for participation in research studies is common, there is an ongoing debate surrounding compensation models and how they can be equitably applied. This work attempts to better understand the landscape of research compensation by evaluating factors associated with compensation of research study participants across instiutional review board (IRB)-approved studies at a single academic institution in California. We extracted all IRB applications for social, behavioral, educational, and public policy research studies between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2021, at the University of California, San Francisco. Compensation amounts, time estimates for participation, and location of study activities (hybrid, remote, in-person) were extracted from free text entries in the IRB application and reorganized into discrete variables. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with receiving payment after adjusting for time. We analyzed 403 unique IRB applications. Studies held at public hospitals and clinics were more likely to provide compensation to study participants, whereas studies held at the university hospitals and clinics were less likely to provide compensation. Unfunded studies also were less likely to provide compensation to research study participants. While participants that were classified as \"economically/educationally disadvantaged\" and \"unable to read, speak, or understand English\" within the institution's IRB application were more likely to receive compensation, those that had \"diminished capacity to consent\" were less likely to receive compensation. While there are multiple frameworks for compensation, there is still significant variability in compensation strategies. Institutions should center equity in considering standardized approaches to compensation for research participation.

Community health centers (CHCs) and those most burdened by disease are important partners in setting research agendas to address the needs of people who are medically underserved. Identify and prioritize health equity-focused research priorities using a collaborative approach to community engagement of key informants. We used five stepwise phases from January 2021 to February 2023 to formulate and prioritize a set of health equity-focused research topics among CHC staff (leaders, clinicians), their key advisors (patients and community members), and researchers from academic medical centers in California. Phases included: (1) community advisory board formation, (2) key informant identification, (3) individual/small group interview guide development and administration, (4) initial health equity-focused topic categorization, and (5) in-person meeting with community advisors for final topic prioritization using nominal group technique. Twenty individual or small group interviews were completed with 44 diverse participants, along with engagement from our community advisory board, which resulted in an initial list of 11 health equity-focused research topics. Ninety advisors including diverse community members, CHC staff/leaders, and researchers prioritized six overarching research topics. Final prioritized health-equity focused research topics include addressing mental health challenges, improving public's trust in healthcare and science, healthcare delivery models to increase access and utilization, build and sustain an anti-racist healthcare system, strategies and interventions to address health misinformation, and continuing and sustaining polices based on lessons learned from COVID-19. Results offer future direction for community-engaged research agendas to advance health equity among medically underserved and vulnerable patient populations.

A primary barrier to translation of clinical research discoveries into care delivery and population health is the lack of sustainable infrastructure bringing researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and communities together to reduce silos in knowledge and action. As National Institutes of Healthʼs (NIH) mechanism to advance translational research, Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) awardees are uniquely positioned to bridge this gap. Delivering on this promise requires sustained collaboration and alignment between research institutions and public health and healthcare programs and services. We describe the collaboration of seven CTSA hubs with city, county, and state healthcare and public health organizations striving to realize this vision together. Partnership representatives convened monthly to identify key components, common and unique themes, and barriers in academic–public collaborations. All partnerships aligned the activities of the CTSA programs with the needs of the city/county/state partners, by sharing resources, responding to real-time policy questions and training needs, promoting best practices, and advancing community-engaged research, and dissemination and implementation science to narrow the knowledge-to-practice gap. Barriers included competing priorities, differing timelines, bureaucratic hurdles, and unstable funding. Academic–public health/health system partnerships represent a unique and underutilized model with potential to enhance community and population health.

We created a COVID-19 Research Patient and Community Advisory Board (PCAB) to provide patient and community input into clinical and translational research studies. The purpose of this article is to describe the PCAB creation, implementation, and evaluation. We identified PCAB members who had participated in previous stakeholder engaged activities at our institution and invited their participation. We created a systematic consultation process where researchers could submit plain language research summaries and questions for the PCAB. A facilitated 1-hour virtual consultation was then held where PCAB members provided feedback. We assessed satisfaction of PCAB members and researchers who received consultations using surveys. We also reviewed video recordings of PCAB consultations and reflections from team meetings to identify key lessons learned. Twenty-seven PCAB members took part in 23 consultation sessions. Twenty-two completed an evaluation survey (81% response rate). Most members agreed or strongly agreed their opinions were valued (86%), it was a productive use of time (86%) and were satisfied (86%). Nineteen researchers completed an evaluation survey (83% response rate). Researchers reported positive experiences of working with the PCAB. Additional insights include limited funding in COVID-19 research for equitable community engagement, deficiencies in researcher communication skills, and a lack of cultural humility incorporated into study activities. PCAB members provided recommendations that maximized the patient-centeredness and health equity focus of COVID-19 research. The detailed description of the process of developing, implementing, and evaluating our PCAB can be used as a template for others wishing to replicate this engagement model.

Background: Although studies have described the power imbalance in academic-community partnerships, little has been published describing how community-based participatory research–informed practitioners can change academic institutions to promote more effective community-engaged research. Objectives: This paper describes a university-funded community-based participatory project in which academic researchers and their community partners worked together to articulate, develop and advocate for institutionalizing best practices for equitable partnerships throughout the university. Methods: Findings derive from a collaborative ethnographic process evaluation. Results: The study describes the integral steps proposed to promote equitable community–university research collaboration, the process by which these principles and best practice recommendations were developed, and the institutional change outcomes of this process. Conclusions: When universities make even small investments toward promoting and nurturing community-engaged research, the quality of the science can be enhanced to advance health equity and community–university relationships can improve, particularly if based on trust, mutual respect, and openness to accomplish a shared vision.

Clinical and Translational Science Award Program (CTSA)-funded institutions were charged with developing clinical and translational science programs and transforming clinical research at their institutions. Community engagement (CE) was recognized as a key component and catalyst of that transformation. CE hub capacities for working with communities and translating knowledge into practice have been illustrated through their COVID-19 responses. CE hub leaders met and discussed their CTSA's early responses regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2-hour discussion was distilled into themes which were sent to the CE hub leaders with a request for written accounts describing actions taken to engage local partners, communities, and institutions. The written reports form the basis for this compendium. Eighteen institutions submitted written reports describing activities in relation to six themes: (1) listen to the community and respond to concerns, (2) collect data to understand the impact of COVID-19 on distinct communities and groups, (3) communicate science and address misinformation, (4) collaborate with health departments, (5) engage hubs and underrepresented populations in COVID-19 research, and (6) support our own well-being and that of others. Bidirectional interactions comprise the foundation of CE, which requires trusted partnerships that sustain communication through a series of activities and goals. The nimble responses to the pandemic substantiate the need for CE programs to maintain the infrastructure necessary to achieve the primary CTSA goals of improving health within and across communities and localities as well as expanding research participation of community members.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/cts.2020.23.].

This paper explores student retention in online education as compared to student retention in the traditional face-to-face format of the coursework at a suburban community college. A quantitative study of 5,185 students engaged in online coursework and the corresponding face-to-face version of the coursework provides the empirical data for this study. Students withdraw from online education at higher rates than those student engaged in the traditional face-to-face format of the coursework. From the available models of student retention, the variables of gender, age, ethnicity, GPA, and subject matter are compared in order to determine any further effects of these factors on student retention in the two formats of the coursework. Being a male student, a younger student (28 years of age or less), an ethnic minority, or a student with a higher GPA (2.34 and higher) is found to be the highest risk of withdraw from the online format of the coursework. Humanities courses such as criminal justice and psychology experience the highest rates of withdraw in the online versions of the coursework as compared to those courses requiring less interpretation such as accounting, business, early childhood education, economics, history, and reading. Recognizing these demographic characteristics and instructional design issues has important implications in the retention of students in online education at the community college.