ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026
Community perspectives on partnering with early-stage investigators in pilot research.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study explores the experiences of community partners who collaborated with early-stage academic investigators on a yearlong NIH-funded health disparities research initiative in Cleveland, Ohio.
methodsAnonymous surveys (n = 13), a focus group (n = 5), and one individual interview were conducted with the community partners to explore their experiences.
resultsIntegrating the qualitative and quantitative data thematically, we identified three key themes that contribute to the success and sustainability of community-academic partnerships: (1) The project had a transformative impact on practice; (2) Partner relationships supported the collaboration (with three sub-themes: academic partners brought unique perspectives to practice; trust was built through communication, engagement, and inclusivity, and how reciprocal contributions built stronger, more equitable partnerships; and (3) Maintaining connection through program-supported networks involved monthly meetings with a larger group that bridge academic and community perspectives. However, the survey data also revealed that nearly half of survey respondents reported little to no change in their research interest or ability, suggesting variability in partners’ experiences and engagement. This gap could reflect differences in how much research experience partners had, how prepared their organizations were to use the findings, and/or the fact that their academic partners were still early in their careers.
conclusionThe findings contribute to the broader literature on community-engaged research, emphasizing the importance of power-sharing, trust, capacity-building, and communication in partnerships. They also indicate the value of and need for structured support to nurture partnerships, potentially especially when academic investigators are in the early stages.
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.