L. Carter-Edwards is associate professor, Public Health Leadership Program, adjunct faculty in epidemiology and health behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, and director, Community and Stakeholder Engagement (CaSE) Program, North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5552-136X .
M.E. Grewe is project manager/qualitative research specialist, CaSE Program, NC TraCS, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9979-4394 .
Acad Med. 2021 Apr 1;96(4):558-567. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003893.
This qualitative study examined fiscal and administrative (i.e., pre- and post-award grants process) barriers and facilitators to community-engaged research among stakeholders across 4 Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) institutions.
A purposive sample of 24 key informants from 3 stakeholder groups-community partners, academic researchers, and research administrators-from the CTSA institutions at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Medical University of South Carolina, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and Yale University participated. Semistructured interviews were conducted in March-July 2018, including questions about perceived challenges and best practices in fiscal and administrative processes in community-engaged research. Transcribed interviews were independently reviewed and analyzed using the Rapid Assessment Process to facilitate key theme and quote identification.
Community partners were predominantly Black, academic researchers and research administrators were predominantly White, and women made up two-thirds of the overall sample. Five key themes were identified: level of partnership equity, partnership collaboration and communication, institutional policies and procedures, level of familiarity with varying fiscal and administrative processes, and financial management expectations. No stakeholders reported best practices for the institutional policies and procedures theme. Cross-cutting challenges included communication gaps between stakeholder groups; lack of or limits in supporting community partners' fiscal capacity; and lack of collective awareness of each stakeholder group's processes, procedures, and needs. Cross-cutting best practices centered on shared decision making and early and timely communication between all stakeholder groups in both pre- and post-award processes.
Findings highlight the importance of equitable processes, triangulated communication, transparency, and recognizing and respecting different financial management cultures within community-engaged research. This work can be a springboard used by CTSA institutions to build on available resources that facilitate co-learning and discussions between community partners, academic researchers, and research administrators on fiscal readiness and administrative processes for improved community-engaged research partnerships.
本定性研究考察了四个转化医学研究奖（CTSA）机构的利益相关者在社区参与研究中面临的财务和行政（即授奖前和授奖后 Grants 流程）障碍和促进因素。
从北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校、南卡罗来纳医科大学、范德比尔特大学医学中心和耶鲁大学的 CTSA 机构中，选择社区合作伙伴、学术研究人员和研究管理人员这 3 个利益相关者群体中的 24 名关键信息提供者，采用目的性抽样方法参与研究。2018 年 3 月至 7 月期间进行了半结构式访谈，包括有关社区参与研究中财务和行政流程的感知挑战和最佳实践的问题。对转录访谈进行了独立审查和分析，使用快速评估流程来促进关键主题和引语的识别。
社区合作伙伴主要为黑人，学术研究人员和研究管理人员主要为白人，女性占总样本的三分之二。确定了 5 个关键主题：伙伴关系公平程度、伙伴关系协作和沟通、机构政策和程序、对不同财务和行政流程的熟悉程度以及财务管理期望。没有利益相关者报告机构政策和程序主题的最佳实践。交叉挑战包括利益相关者群体之间的沟通差距；对社区合作伙伴财务能力的支持不足或有限；以及缺乏对每个利益相关者群体的流程、程序和需求的集体认识。交叉最佳实践集中在预授奖和授奖后流程中所有利益相关者群体之间的共同决策和及时沟通。
研究结果强调了公平流程、三角沟通、透明度以及在社区参与研究中认识和尊重不同财务管理文化的重要性。这项工作可以成为 CTSA 机构的起点，利用现有的资源，促进社区合作伙伴、学术研究人员和研究管理人员之间关于财务准备和行政流程的共同学习和讨论，以改善社区参与研究伙伴关系。
