ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2024
The intersection of community engagement and team science research: A scoping review.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging the divide in digital therapeutics (DTx): Partnership strategies for broader representation across DTx development and deployment.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Institutional transformations for authentic community engaged and participatory research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Designing for trustworthiness and research reciprocity: An example from the Illinois research network hub in the NIH RECOVER adult cohort study.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Empowering partnership: key lessons from the co-development of patient-oriented research with parents, researchers, and healthcare professionals.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Integrating community expertise into scientific teams and research endeavors can holistically address complex health challenges and grand societal problems. An in-depth understanding of the integration of team science and community engagement principles is needed. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify how and where team science and community engagement approaches are being used simultaneously in research. Methods: We followed Levac's enhancement of Arksey and O'Malley's Scoping Review Framework and systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, ERIC, and Embase for team science and community engagement terms through January 2024. Results: Sixty-seven articles were reviewed. Publications describing integrated team science and community-engaged research have increased exponentially since 2004. Over half were conducted outside of the U.S., utilized qualitative methods, included community-researcher co-development of research question and study design, and described team partnership goals, roles, and management. Fewer studies evaluated partnership, built community capacity, described financial compensation to communities, or described team dynamics facilitation. Conclusion: As researchers continue to integrate community engagement and team science, common criteria and strategies for integrating the approaches are needed. We provide 19 recommendations for research teams, research institutions, journals, and funding bodies in service of advancing the science and practice of this integration.
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.