Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32452067›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2020

Engagement of community stakeholders to develop a framework to guide research dissemination to communities.

Jennifer Cunningham-Erves, Tilicia Mayo-Gamble, Yolanda Vaughn, Jim Hawk, Mike Helms, Claudia Barajas, Yvonne Joosten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Designing and Delivering a Dissemination Programme With Co-Researchers With Intellectual Disabilities.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Applying the Digital Health Social Justice Guide.Frontiers in digital health · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Jennifer Cunningham-ErvesDepartment of Internal Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7780-9874
Tilicia Mayo-GambleDepartment of Health Policy and Community Health, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA.
Yolanda VaughnNeighbor 2 Neighbor, Nashville, TN, USA.
Jim HawkNeighbor 2 Neighbor, Nashville, TN, USA.
Mike HelmsBridges for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Nashville, TN, USA.
Claudia BarajasVanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Yvonne JoostenVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.

Funding

The RCMI Program in Health Disparities Research at Meharry Medical College - SupplementU54MD007586 · NIMHD · MEHARRY MEDICAL COLLEGE · PI Maureen Sanderson · 2017 to 2026
$48.2M
NIMHD NIH HHS U54 MD007586
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDissemination of research findings to past study participants and the community-at-large is important. Yet, a standardized process for research dissemination is needed to report results to the community.

objectiveWe developed a framework and strategies to guide community-academic partnerships in community-targeted, dissemination efforts.

methodsFrom 2017 to 2019, a community-academic partnership was formed in Nashville, Tennessee, and iteratively developed a framework and strategies for research dissemination using cognitive interviews. A deductive, constant comparative analysis was conducted on interview responses to examine framework and strategy content. Feedback was used to finalize the framework and strategies for the evaluation. Using existing data, the framework's utility was evaluated in seven town hall meetings (n = 117). Bivariate analyses determined its effect on community members' trust and willingness to participate in research using pre- and post-surveys. Evaluation results were used to finalize the framework.

resultsThe Community-Engaged Research Dissemination (CERD) framework has two phases. Phase one is a preliminary planning phase with two steps, and phase two is the four-step dissemination process. There are five standards to be upheld conducting these phases. We provide competencies for each component. Three feasible, culturally adapted strategies were developed as exemplars to disseminate research findings. Using pre- and post-surveys for intervention evaluation, there was a significant difference in trust in medical research and researchers (P = .006) and willingness to participate in research (P = .013). DISCUSSION AND

conclusionThe CERD framework can potentially standardize the process and compare the effect of dissemination efforts on the community's trust and willingness to participate in research.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchResearch PersonnelHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesTrustcommunicationethicsevidence-based practiceinformation (research) disseminationpatient participationresearchstakeholder participation

Identifiers

PMID32452067
PMCPMC7495063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.