A conceptual framework for clinical and translational virtual community engagement research

Michael Rubyan; M Grace Trinidad; Kerry A Ryan; Meghan Spiroff; Susan Goold; Jade Burns; Karen Calhoun; Zachary Rowe; Ayşe G Büyüktür; Patricia Piechowski; Jodyn Platt

doi:10.1017/cts.2022.479

A conceptual framework for clinical and translational virtual community engagement research

J Clin Transl Sci. 2022 Oct 28;6(1):e136. doi: 10.1017/cts.2022.479. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Michael Rubyan^{1

2}, M Grace Trinidad³, Kerry A Ryan⁴, Meghan Spiroff⁵, Susan Goold^{1

2

4

6}, Jade Burns^{2

7}, Karen Calhoun⁸, Zachary Rowe⁹, Ayşe G Büyüktür^{8

10}, Patricia Piechowski⁸, Jodyn Platt^{2

4

11}

Affiliations

¹ School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
² Institute for Healthcare Policy & Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
³ National Hemophilia Program Coordinating Center, American Thrombosis & Hemostasis Network, Rochester, NY, USA.
⁴ Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
⁵ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
⁶ Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
⁷ School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
⁸ Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
⁹ Friends of Parkside, Detroit, MI, USA.
¹⁰ School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
¹¹ Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Abstract

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated a trend for clinical and translational community-engaged research in adapting to an increasingly virtual landscape. This requires a framework for engagement distinct from in-person research and program activities. We reflect on four case studies of community engagement activities that inform a conceptual framework to better integrate the virtual format into community-engaged research reflecting key tenets of health equity and antiracist praxis.

Methods: Four projects were selected by community-engaged research stakeholders for an in-depth review based on how much the virtual transition impacted activities such as planning, recruitment, and data collection for each project. Transitions to virtual engagement were assessed across ten areas in which community engagement has been demonstrated to make a positive impact.

Results: Our analysis suggests a conceptual evaluation framework in which the ten community engagement areas cluster into four interrelated domains: (1) development, design, and delivery; (2) partnership and trust building; (3) implementation and change; and (4) ethics and equity.

Conclusions: The domains in this conceptual framework describe critical elements of community engaged research and programs consistent with recommendations for health equity informed meaningful community engagement from the National Academy of Medicine. The conceptual framework and case studies can be used for evaluation and to develop guidelines for clinical and translational researchers utilizing the virtual format in community-engaged research.

Keywords: Community engagement; capacity building; equity; pandemic; virtual community engagement; virtual research methods.

Grants and funding

R01 CA214829/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States