ArticleClinical and translational science2025
Sustained Community Involvement in Translational Research: Evaluating the Acceptability of a Multisession Community Engagement Studio Approach.
Article in 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community feedback sessions: An adaptation of the community engagement studio model to enhance scalability.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Sustained Community Involvement in Translational Research: Evaluating the Acceptability of a Multisession Community Engagement Studio Approach.Clinical and translational science · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study expands the Community Engagement Studio (CE Studio) approach to cultivate deeper, more sustained community involvement in translational research. While traditional CE Studios typically convene a single community expert panel for research input, this study extended the approach to host multiple sessions with multiple diverse panels over a two-year period. The sessions were held virtually and were delivered by a Community Health Worker (CHW), who drew on deep community ties to also conduct strategic outreach, recruitment, and orientation of the panels to the CE Studio approach. The researchers seeking input from the CE Studio panels aimed to develop a health information platform accessible to underserved populations. Community experts participating in four CE Studio panels (African American, Asian American, and English and Spanish-speaking Latinx communities) met on five occasions for a total of 20 CE sessions and completed a postparticipation survey (n = 15) and focus group (n = 16). Participants reported stronger bonds with the research institution and increased appreciation for the value of translational research because of their prolonged participation. The presence of a CHW was viewed as essential to trust-building and sustained panel participation. The study highlights the role of diverse perspectives in shaping research design and technology development, emphasizing that investments in sustained community engagement can enhance the rigor of translational research. Attendance fluctuations and the pacing of sessions were challenges, especially during the pandemic. Nevertheless, the expanded CE Studio approach offers a promising framework for bridging gaps between academic institutions and historically marginalized communities.
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.