Report on CTSA Consortium Use of the Community Engagement Consulting Service: Carter-Edwards et al. ·Community Engagement Consultation Service

The CTSA Community Engagement Consultative Service (CECS) is a national partnership designed to improve community engaged research (CEnR) through expert consultation. This report assesses the feasibility of CECS and presents findings from 2008–2009

A compendium of community engagement responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

IntroductionClinical and Translational Science Award Program (CTSA)-funded institutions were charged with developing clinical and translational science programs and transforming clinical research at their institutions. Community engagement (CE) was recognized as a key component and catalyst of that transformation. CE hub capacities for working with communities and translating knowledge into practice have been illustrated through their COVID-19 responses.MethodsCE hub leaders met and discussed their CTSA's early responses regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2-hour discussion was distilled into themes which were sent to the CE hub leaders with a request for written accounts describing actions taken to engage local partners, communities, and institutions. The written reports form the basis for this compendium.ResultsEighteen institutions submitted written reports describing activities in relation to six themes: (1) listen to the community and respond to concerns, (2) collect data to understand the impact of COVID-19 on distinct communities and groups, (3) communicate science and address misinformation, (4) collaborate with health departments, (5) engage hubs and underrepresented populations in COVID-19 research, and (6) support our own well-being and that of others.ConclusionsBidirectional interactions comprise the foundation of CE, which requires trusted partnerships that sustain communication through a series of activities and goals. The nimble responses to the pandemic substantiate the need for CE programs to maintain the infrastructure necessary to achieve the primary CTSA goals of improving health within and across communities and localities as well as expanding research participation of community members

Use of a Geographic Information System to create treatment groups for group-randomized community trials: The Minnesota Heart Health Program

BACKGROUND: Group-randomized trials of communities often rely on the convenience of pre-existing administrative divisions, such as school district boundaries or census entities, to divide the study area into intervention and control sites. However, these boundaries may include substantial heterogeneity between regions, introducing unmeasured confounding variables. This challenge can be addressed by the creation of exchangeable intervention and control territories that are equally weighted by pertinent socio-demographic characteristics. The present study used territory design software as a novel approach to partitioning study areas for The Minnesota Heart Health Program\u27s Ask about Aspirin Initiative. METHODS: Twenty-four territories were created to be similar in terms of age, sex, and educational attainment, as factors known to modify aspirin use. To promote ease of intervention administration, the shape and spread of the territories were controlled. Means of the variables used in balancing the territories were assessed as well as other factors that were not used in the balancing process. RESULTS: The analysis demonstrated that demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the intervention and control territories created by the territory design software. CONCLUSIONS: The creation of exchangeable territories diminishes geographically based impact on outcomes following community interventions in group-randomized trials. The method used to identify comparable geographical units may be applied to a wide range of population-based health intervention trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Institutes of Health (Clinical Trials.gov), Identifier: NCT02607917 . Registered on 16 November 2015

Use of a Geographic Information System to create treatment groups for group-randomized community trials: The Minnesota Heart Health Program

Abstract Background Group-randomized trials of communities often rely on the convenience of pre-existing administrative divisions, such as school district boundaries or census entities, to divide the study area into intervention and control sites. However, these boundaries may include substantial heterogeneity between regions, introducing unmeasured confounding variables. This challenge can be addressed by the creation of exchangeable intervention and control territories that are equally weighted by pertinent socio-demographic characteristics. The present study used territory design software as a novel approach to partitioning study areas for The Minnesota Heart Health Program’s “Ask about Aspirin” Initiative. Methods Twenty-four territories were created to be similar in terms of age, sex, and educational attainment, as factors known to modify aspirin use. To promote ease of intervention administration, the shape and spread of the territories were controlled. Means of the variables used in balancing the territories were assessed as well as other factors that were not used in the balancing process. Results The analysis demonstrated that demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the intervention and control territories created by the territory design software. Conclusions The creation of exchangeable territories diminishes geographically based impact on outcomes following community interventions in group-randomized trials. The method used to identify comparable geographical units may be applied to a wide range of population-based health intervention trials. Trial registration National Institutes of Health (Clinical Trials.gov), Identifier: NCT02607917. Registered on 16 November 2015