ArticleClinical and translational science2015
A Community-Academic Partnered Grant Writing Series to Build Infrastructure for Partnered Research.
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 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.
- Reflections on the Importance of Community-Partnered Research Strategies for Health Equity in the Era of COVID-19.Journal of health care for the poor and underserved · 2020Article
- Improving the Translational Medicine Process: Moving Patients From "End-Users" to "Engaged Collaborators".Frontiers in medicine · 2019Article
- "We Have a Moral Commitment to the Community to Sustain It": Exploring Determinants of Strategy Sustainment After the HEALing Communities Study.Implementation research and practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Grant writing is an essential skill necessary to secure financial support for community programs and research projects. Increasingly, funding opportunities for translational biomedical research require studies to engage community partners, patients, or other stakeholders in the research process to address their concerns. However, there is little evidence on strategies to prepare teams of academic and community partners to collaborate on grants. This paper presents the description and formative evaluation of a two-part community-academic partnered grant writing series designed to help community organizations and academic institutions build infrastructure for collaborative research projects using a partnered approach. The first phase of the series was a half-day workshop on grant readiness, which was open to all interested community partners. The second phase, open only to community-academic teams that met eligibility criteria, was a 12-week session that covered partnered grant writing for foundation grants and National Institutes of Health grants. Participants in both phases reported an increase in knowledge and self-efficacy for writing partnered proposals. At 1-year follow-up, participants in Phase 2 had secured approximately $1.87 million in funding. This community-academic partnered grant writing series helped participants obtain proposal development skills and helped community-academic teams successfully compete for funding.
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.