ArticleClinical and translational science2014
Sharing of grant funds between academic institutions and community partners in community-based participatory research.
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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sponsorship of Clinical Trials Related to the Shoulder and Elbow: Trends Over Time and Comparative Analysis of Trial Characteristics by Sponsorship Type.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024Article
- Building Equitable Community-Academic Partnerships for Opioid Recovery Research: Lessons Learned from Stakeholder Engagement With Peer and Provider Organizations.Journal of community engagement and scholarship · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine how grant funds are shared between academic institutions and community partners in community-based participatory research (CBPR).
methodsReview of all 62 investigator-initiated R01 CBPR grants funded by the National Institutes of Health from January 2005 to August 2012. Using prespecified criteria, two reviewers independently categorized each budget item as being for an academic institution or a community partner. A third reviewer helped resolve any discrepancies.
resultsAmong 49 evaluable grants, 68% of all grant funds were for academic institutions and 30% were for community partners. For 2% of funds, it was unclear whether they were for academic institutions or for community partners. Community partners' share of funds was highest in the categories of other direct costs (62%) and other personnel (48%) and lowest in the categories of equipment (1%) and indirect costs (7%).
conclusionsA majority of CBPR grant funds are allocated to academic institutions. In order to enhance the share that community partners receive, funders may wish to specify a minimum proportion of grant funds that should be allocated to community partners in CBPR projects.
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.