Background Community engagement and rigorous science are necessary to address health issues. Increasingly, community health organizations are asked to partner in research. To strengthen such community organization–academic partnerships, increase research capacity in community organizations, and facilitate equitable partnered research, the Partners in Education Evaluation and Research (PEER) program was developed. The program implements an 18-month structured research curriculum for one mid-level employee of a health-focused community-based organization with an organizational mentor and a Case Western Reserve University faculty member as partners. Methods The PEER program was developed and guided by a community–academic advisory committee and was designed to impact the research capacity of organizations through didactic modules and partnered research in the experiential phase. Active participation of community organizations and faculty during all phases of the program provided for bidirectional learning and understanding of the challenges of community-engaged health research. The pilot program evaluation used qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques, including experiences of the participants assessed through surveys, formal group and individual interviews, phone calls, and discussions. Statistical analysis of the change in fellows’ pre-test and post-test survey scores were conducted using paired sample t tests. The small sample size is recognized by the authors as a limitation of the evaluation methods and would potentially be resolved by including more cohort data as the program progresses. Qualitative data were reviewed by two program staff using content and narrative analysis to identify themes, describe and assess group phenomena and determine program improvements. Objectives The objective of PEER is to create equitable partnerships between community organizations and academic partners to further research capacity in said organizations and develop mutually beneficial research partnerships between academia and community organizations. Conclusion PEER demonstrates a commitment to successfully developing sustainable research capacity growth in community organizations, and improved partnered research with academic institutions.

No abstract

Purpose Although medical research dissemination is intended to benefit members of society, few members of society actually participate in the process of publishing findings. This study shares findings from community members’ (including patients and the public) experiences being trained as medical journal reviewers. Methods We analyzed findings from two focus group interviews of community reviewers (N = 29) to identify themes in their experiences with the training program. Results Community members trained as journal reviewers appreciated learning the context under which manuscript development and review occur from authors and funders, the value of the community member perspectives to science, and strengthened their critical thinking skills. A range of training tools and strategies included glossaries of research terms, creating review guides, practicing reviews, being trained by a supportive team, and working with and learning collaboratively. Conclusions Training as a journal reviewer has a positive impact on participating community members. Programs training community members as journal reviewers should incorporate guest speakers well-versed in community engaged research, group activities, a variety of training tools and materials, and highly supportive training teams.

Shared medical appointments (SMAs) offer a means for providing knowledge and skills needed for chronic disease management to patients. However, SMAs require a time and attention investment from health care providers, who must understand the goals and potential benefits of SMAs from the perspective of patients and providers. To better understand how to gain provider engagement and inform future SMA implementation, qualitative inquiry of provider experience based on a knowledge-attitude-practice model was explored. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 health care providers leading SMAs for heart failure at three Veterans Administration Medical Centers. Rapid matrix analysis process techniques including team-based qualitative inquiry followed by stakeholder validation was employed. The interview guide followed a knowledge-attitude-practice model with a priori domains of knowledge of SMA structure and content (understanding of how SMAs were structured), SMA attitude/beliefs (general expectations about SMA use), attitudes regarding how leading SMAs affected patients, and providers. Data regarding the patient referral process (organizational processes for referring patients to SMAs) and suggested improvements were collected to further inform the development of SMA implementation best practices. Providers from all three sites reported similar knowledge, attitude and beliefs of SMAs. In general, providers reported that the multi-disciplinary structure of SMAs was an effective strategy towards improving clinical outcomes for patients. Emergent themes regarding experiences with SMAs included improved self-efficacy gained from real-time collaboration with providers from multiple disciplines, perceived decrease in patient re-hospitalizations, and promotion of self-management skills for patients with HF. Most providers reported that the SMA-setting facilitated patient learning by providing opportunities for the sharing of experiences and knowledge. This was associated with the perception of increased comradery and support among patients. Future research is needed to test suggested improvements and to develop best practices for training additional sites to implement HF SMA.