ArticleClinical and translational science2015
The Community Research Scholars Initiative: A Mid-Project Assessment.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Community perspectives on partnering with early-stage investigators in pilot research.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Building the capacity of early-stage investigators to conduct community-engaged health disparities research.Evaluation and program planning · 2025Article
- Building Research for Academic and Community Equity (BRACE): A Toolkit for Community Research Partnerships.Health promotion practice · 2025Article
- Early-stage investigators' experiences with an National Institutes of Health Pilot Award Program.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- "They should've talked to us more": lay health advisors' experiences with community-engaged hypertension research.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Increasing research capacity in community organizations: Findings from the Community Research Scholars Initiative.Evaluation and program planning · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Community organizations addressing health and human service needs generally have minimal capacity for research and evaluation. As a result, they are often inadequately equipped to independently carry out activities that can be critical for their own success, such as conducting needs assessments, identifying best practices, and evaluating outcomes. Moreover, they are unable to develop equitable partnerships with academic researchers to conduct community-based research. This paper reports on the progress of the Community Research Scholar Initiative (CRSI), a program that aims to enhance community research and evaluation capacity through training of selected employees from Greater Cleveland community organizations. The intensive 2-year CRSI program includes didactic instruction, fieldwork, multiple levels of community and academic engagement, leadership training, and a mentored research project. The first cohort of CRSI Scholars, their community organizations, and other community stakeholders have incorporated program lessons into their practices and operations. The CRSI program evaluation indicates: the importance of careful Scholar selection; the need to engage executive leadership from Scholar organizations; the value of a curriculum integrating classwork, fieldwork, and community engagement; and the need for continual scholar skill and knowledge assessment. These findings and lessons learned guide other efforts to enhance community organization research and evaluation capacity.
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.