Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32421173›Full record

ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2021

Strategies of community engagement in research: definitions and classifications.

Vetta L Sanders Thompson, Nicole Ackermann, Kyla L Bauer, Deborah J Bowen, Melody S Goodman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Getting Real About Colorectal Cancer Education (GRACCE): Pilot Evaluation of a Community-Led Education Program.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Vetta L Sanders ThompsonWashington University in St. Louis, Brown School, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Nicole AckermannWashington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Kyla L BauerWashington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Deborah J BowenUniversity of Washington, Department of Bioethics and Humanities, Seattle, WA, USA.
Melody S GoodmanNew York University, School of Global Public Health, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

Washington University Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control (WU-ISCCC)P50CA244431 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI COLDITZ, GRAHAM A. · 2019 to 2023
$8.0M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244431
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Engagement activities are defined along a continuum that analyzes and represents nonacademic stakeholder activities and interactions with academic researchers. Proposed continua begin with none to limited stakeholder inclusion and input into research and continue with descriptions of increasing presence, input, and participation in decision-making. Despite some agreement in the literature, development of consistent terminology and definitions has been recommended to promote the common understanding of strategies in engaged research. This paper sought to develop and understand classifications and definitions of community-engaged research that can serve as the foundation of a measure of engaged research that permits comparisons among engagement strategies and the outcomes that they produce in health- and healthcare-related research studies. Data on academic and stakeholder perceptions and understandings of classifications and definitions were obtained using Delphi process (N = 19) via online and face-to-face survey and cognitive response interviews (N = 16). Participants suggested the need for more nuanced understanding of engagement along portions of the continuum, with active involvement and decision-making as engagement progressed. Cognitive interview responses suggested that outreach and education is a more advanced level of engagement than previously discussed in the literature and viewed consultation negatively because it required work without guaranteeing community benefit. It is possible to define a continuum of patient- and community-engaged research that is understood and accepted by both academic researchers and community members. However, future research should revisit the understanding and depiction of the strategies that are to be used in measure development.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchResearch PersonnelDelivery of Health CareHealth Services ResearchHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesCommunity-based participatory researchCommunity-engaged researchcommunity engagementpatient-engaged researchpatient engagement

Identifiers

PMID32421173
PMCPMC8135186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.