ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Addressing a gap in community-engaged research: reporting results of congregations' implementation capacity assessment to research participants.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Community-engaged research depends on sharing findings effectively; however, few tools translate implementation capacity and readiness data into actionable feedback. This gap limits community organizations' ability to use results to guide health program implementation, build trust in research, and sustain ongoing participation. This study developed and used a tailored survey response report process for congregations participating in the Engaging Partners in Caring Communities (EPICC) project to support implementation planning and technical assistance. Methods: The EPICC CFIR-informed survey, grounded in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), was completed by teams from 30 congregations after they selected a health promotion evidence-based program. A multi-step process, informed by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC), was developed to generate congregation-specific feedback reports. Satisfaction with the reports was assessed using responses from 80 participants. Results: Congregations varied widely in size and implementation capacity. Cost, design quality, and readiness for implementation were identified as the most common challenges. Tailored strength-based survey response reports were generated for all congregations. Satisfaction was high, with over 95% of respondents rating the reports as accurate, helpful, and satisfactory or better in reflecting their congregation and guiding implementation planning. Conclusion: A theory-based, strength-focused CFIR-ERIC assessment and feedback process was successfully adapted for faith-based congregations, extending implementation frameworks beyond healthcare settings. Tailored reports and interactive feedback were highly acceptable and provided actionable guidance for readiness and program implementation. This scalable approach may facilitate translation of implementation science to diverse community settings, although effects on implementation outcomes require further study.
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.