ArticleClinical and translational science2014
Strengthening community involvement in grant review: insights from the Community-University Research Partnership (CURES) pilot review process.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mobilizing community-driven health promotion through community granting programs: a rapid systematic review.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Engaging Community Reviewers: The Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research (2.0)-Advancing Dementia Care Network Approach.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Article
- Addressing barriers to sustainable academic-community partnerships through Community Health Grants.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Study protocol: Exploring the use of Family Health Histories in the African American community to reduce health disparities in Flint, Michigan.Research square · 2024Article
- What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis.Research integrity and peer review · 2022Article
- Building a pipeline of community-engaged researchers: How interdisciplinary translational research training programs can collaborate with their Community Research Advisory Councils.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- Engaging people with lived experience in the grant review process.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Improving the Translational Medicine Process: Moving Patients From "End-Users" to "Engaged Collaborators".Frontiers in medicine · 2019Article
- Exploring the potential role of community engagement in evaluating clinical and translational science grant proposals.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2018Article
- Developing and Piloting a Community Scientist Academy to Engage Communities and Patients in Research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In 2007, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR) at the University of Michigan received a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). Within MICHR, the Community Engagement (CE) program supports partnership efforts between researchers, practitioners, and community-based organizations in specific focal communities throughout Michigan. A key component of the CE program is the Community Engagement Coordinating Council, a group that provides input and guidance on program priorities, strategic planning, and reviews pilot funding proposals for community-academic partnerships. This paper will describe a unique MICHR pilot funding mechanism for Community-University Research Partnerships (CURES) with an emphasis on the ways that community partners are involved in the review process, as well as the benefits, challenges, and insights gained over 5 years of pilot review. There is a growing need for community involvement and expertise in review of funding proposals for community-engaged research at both institutional and federal levels. The CURES pilot review process is one example of an institutional effort to engage community partners in university funding decisions and has demonstrated clear benefit toward accomplishing the aims of the CTSA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.