Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40052047›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025

Engaging stakeholders to strengthen support for community-engaged research at Stanford School of Medicine: An institutional assessment and action planning approach.

Patricia Rodriguez Espinosa, Anisha I Patel, Starla Gay, Ysabel Duron, Alyce S Adams, Nina Wallerstein, Ruth O'Hara, Lisa G Rosas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Patricia Rodriguez EspinosaDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7578-305X
Anisha I PatelDepartment of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Starla GayBlack Ladies Advocating for Cancer Care, Oakland, CA, USA.
Ysabel DuronThe Latino Cancer Institute, San Jose, CA, USA.
Alyce S AdamsDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Nina WallersteinCenter for Participatory Research, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1969-0799
Ruth O'HaraDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Lisa G RosasDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4053-7972

Funding

Stanford Center for Clinical & Translational Education and Research (Spectrum)UL1TR003142 · NCATS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI O'HARA, RUTH M · 2019 to 2023
$45.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003142
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Despite the central role that patient and community engagement plays in translational science and health equity research, there remain significant institutional barriers for researchers and their community partners to engage in this work meaningfully and sustainably. The goal of this paper is to describe the process and outcomes of Engage for Equity PLUS at Stanford School of Medicine, which was aimed at understanding and addressing institutional barriers and facilitators for community-engaged research (CEnR). Methods: A Stanford champion team of four faculty and two community partners worked with the University of New Mexico team to conduct two workshops ( Results: Findings revealed several key institutional barriers to CEnR, such as the need to modify organizational policies and practices to expedite and simplify CEnR administration, silos in collaboration, and the need for capacity building. Facilitators included several offices devoted to and engaging in innovative CEnR efforts. Based on these findings, action planning resulted in three priorities: 1) Addressing IRB barriers, 2) Addressing barriers in post-award policies and procedures, and 3) Increasing training in CEnR within Stanford and for community partners. Conclusions: Addressing institutional barriers is critical for Academic Medical Centers and their partners to meaningfully and sustainably engage in CEnR. The Engage for Equity PLUS process offers a roadmap for Academic Medical Centers with translational science and health equity goals.

Indexed as

capacity buildingcommunity-based participatory researchCommunity-engaged researchhealth equityinstitutional assessment

Identifiers

PMID40052047
PMCPMC11883597

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.