ArticleImplementation science communications2026
Community-engaged research in HIV implementation science: a cross-sectional assessment of meaningful engagement among community and academic recipients of 2021 and 2022 'ending the HIV epidemic' supplement awards.
Article in Implementation science communications, 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMeaningful community engagement is fundamental to sustained and effective implementation of HIV interventions, yet partnership engagement quality is rarely measured. We assessed meaningful engagement among community and academic partnerships from 2021-2022 United States Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) Implementation Science (IS) Awards.
methodsAwardees were invited to complete a cross-sectional, online survey. We applied adapted, validated community engagement importance and quality measures across six 'engagement principles' (EPs) and 12 attributes of 'trust' using 5-point Likert scales (1='poor' to 5='excellent'). Level of community partner engagement was assessed along a continuum. Differences in EP scores between academic partners and community partners were assessed using Mann-Whitney U Test. Bivariate associations between engagement level, EPs, and trust used Spearman's rank correlations. Open-ended responses were thematically analyzed.
resultsFrom July-December 2023, we received 53 (65%) surveys from academic partners and 29 (35%) from community partners, including 1:1 paired responses for 18/57 (32%) projects. Community partners and academic partners reported high median quality engagement summary scores (3.6 vs 4.1, p = 0.04) and trust scores (>67% and >69% reporting "very good" or "excellent"). All trust attributes were highly valued, with >85% of participants rating each "important" or "very important." Academic partners reported lower median summary scores than community partners for quality and frequency of EPs [3.6 vs 4.1, p = 0.04; 3.8 vs 4.3, p = 0.02]. 'Fostering co-learning' was the only individual EP scored significantly lower by academic than community partners (quality [-2.6, p = 0.01], frequency [-2.6, p = 0.01]). For trust, academic partners reported the lowest quality scores for dependability, while community partners reported the lowest for mutual benefit. Among academic partners, level of community engagement was positively correlated with quality across all six EPs (p < 0.05). While among community partners, quality of all trust attributes were positively correlated with EP quality (p < 0.5). In open-ended responses, structural barriers to engagement and concern about community partner burden were prominent themes.
conclusionsEHE awards largely supported trusting and meaningful partnerships. Differences between academic and community responses indicate a need to develop shared understanding of engagement quality. Strategies to strengthen trust, support greater engagement, and enhance the engagement quality will optimize partnerships and their potential positive impact on implementation and effectiveness outcomes.
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.