ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2026
Community feedback sessions: An adaptation of the community engagement studio model to enhance scalability.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Community Engagement (CE) Studio is an established approach for integrating community and patient perspectives into research. Despite its widespread implementation, little information is available about how this model has been adapted across institutions to accommodate varying resources and capacities. Methods: The Patient and Community Engagement in Research (PaCER) Program at UNC-Chapel Hill modified the CE Studio model - with adaptations to recruitment, onboarding, virtual delivery, compensation, and session planning - resulting in the development of a new Community Feedback Session (CFS) service. This adaptation yielded a scalable model that requires fewer resources, supports capacity-building within research teams, and leverages technology. We then evaluated the CFS approach via surveys distributed to CFS attendees and researchers. Results: Between January 2022 and August 2025, we conducted 46 CFSs across 19 projects engaging 302 attendees; 149 attendees and 34 researchers completed evaluation surveys. Of these, 99% of attendees indicated they would participate again, and 97% of researchers rated the CFS service as Good or Excellent and recommended it to colleagues. Respondents appreciated the structure, facilitation, composition, and size of the sessions, and many had no suggestions for improvement. Researchers described changes they made to projects based on feedback received during CFSs, including amending study protocols, altering intervention content and delivery modalities, and revising a variety of study-related materials. Conclusions: Evaluation data support the acceptability, feasibility, and utility of the CFS approach, indicating that this modified and scalable service accomplishes researcher goals, informs research in an impactful way, and provides value to partners.
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.