Smith Maureen A, Kaufman Nancy J, Dearlove Andrea J
Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2013 Fall;7(3):301-12. doi: 10.1353/cpr.2013.0030.
Major gaps exist between what we know and what we do in clinical practice and community health programs and narrowing this gap will require substantive partnerships between academic researchers and the communities they serve.
We describe a research pilot award program that makes a unique commitment to community engagement through the addition of an External Community Review Committee to the typical research review process that gives external stakeholders decision-making power over research funding.
Whereas engaging community reviewers in discussion and rating of research proposals is not novel, the ICTR ECRC review process is distinct in that it is subsequent to peer review and uses different criteria and methodology. This method of engagement allows for the community review panel to re-rank scientifically meritorious proposals-such that proposals funded do not necessarily follow the rank order from scientific peer review. The approach taken by UW ICTR differs from those discussed in the literature that present a model of community-academic co-review.
This article provides guidance for others interested in this model of community engagement and reviews insights gained during the evolution of this strategy; including how we addressed conflict, how the committee was able to change the pilot award program over time, and individual roles that were crucial to the success of this approach.
The advantages of this approach include success through traditional academic metrics while achieving an innovative shared-power mechanism for community engagement which we believe is critical for narrowing the gap between knowledge and practice.
在临床实践和社区卫生项目中,我们的所知与所为之间存在重大差距,缩小这一差距需要学术研究人员与其所服务的社区建立实质性的伙伴关系。
我们描述了一个研究试点奖励项目,该项目通过在典型的研究评审过程中增加一个外部社区评审委员会,赋予外部利益相关者对研究资金的决策权,从而对社区参与做出独特承诺。
让社区评审员参与研究提案的讨论和评分并非新鲜事,但ICTR ECRC评审过程的独特之处在于,它是在同行评审之后进行的,并且使用不同的标准和方法。这种参与方式使社区评审小组能够对具有科学价值的提案重新排名,以至于获得资助的提案不一定遵循科学同行评审的排名顺序。华盛顿大学ICTR采用的方法与文献中讨论的社区 - 学术联合评审模式不同。
本文为对这种社区参与模式感兴趣的其他人提供指导,并回顾了在这一策略演变过程中获得的见解;包括我们如何解决冲突、委员会如何随着时间的推移改变试点奖励项目,以及对这种方法的成功至关重要的个人角色。
这种方法的优点包括通过传统学术指标取得成功,同时实现了一种创新的社区参与共享权力机制,我们认为这对于缩小知识与实践之间的差距至关重要。