Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40529006›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025

Identifying and addressing institutional barriers to community partner compensation for engaged research: A Clinical and Translational Science Award case study.

Alicia Bilheimer, Nixola Datta, Mary E Grewe, Simone Frank, Mysha Wynn, Christopher Tunstall, Jubilo Tommy White, Guadalupe C Hernandez, Lori Carter-Edwards

Abstract readCase Reports
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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Cultivating Authentic Partnership: Cooperative Development of a Toolkit to Mitigate Group Harm in Biorepository-Enabled Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors.

Alicia BilheimerNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1758-3902
Nixola DattaNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Mary E GreweNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Simone FrankNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0048-0150
Mysha WynnNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, Community and Patient Advisory Board, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Christopher TunstallNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, Community and Patient Advisory Board, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Jubilo Tommy WhiteNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Guadalupe C HernandezNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Lori Carter-EdwardsKaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Little guidance exists for developing institutional policies and procedures that support financial management of community-engaged research, including those related to compensating community partners equitably and efficiently for their expertise and time. To address this gap at our institution, the North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) pursued an iterative, multi-pronged approach to identify and address institutional barriers and facilitators related to community partner compensation for research engagement. This case study describes the approach used to involve research administrative leadership, research teams, and community partners at UNC in the identification of institutional barriers to efficient partner compensation. It also elucidates our efforts to develop policies, processes, and resources to address these barriers. The approaches and solutions described can be adapted by other academic research institutions to enhance compensation processes and to facilitate incorporation of community perspectives into the design and implementation of institutional processes that directly impact their engagement in research.

Indexed as

Clinical and Translational Science AwardCommunity engagementcommunity partner compensationinstitutional transformationresearch financial administration

Identifiers

PMID40529006
PMCPMC12171912

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.