A study examining the usefulness of a new measure of research engagement

INTRODUCTION: Engagement of relevant stakeholders\u27 ideas, opinions, and concerns is critical to the success of modern research projects. We have developed a tool to measure stakeholder engagement, called the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST). The purpose of this paper is to present the implementation and uptake of the stakeholder engagement measure REST among research teams, including the assessment of barriers and facilitating factors for use of the new research engagement measure in practice. METHODS: In this implementation study, project team members participated in baseline and follow-up web-based surveys. Web-based interviews were conducted with a subset of project teams that implemented the REST. On the baseline survey, project teams were asked to provide details about up to three ongoing or recently completed projects, were asked if they agreed with compensation for REST completion, and were asked if they would like to send the survey to stakeholders or would prefer our project team to email their project stakeholders. Follow-up surveys contained questions on reactions to implementing REST and results of REST. RESULTS: Project team members/researchers who completed the baseline survey (n=86) were mostly female (79%) and Non-Hispanic/Latino(a) White (76%). Those who implemented REST were also mostly female (86%) and Non-Hispanic/Latino(a) White (71%), with an average of 11 years in academic research. About 98% of all participants completing the baseline survey had the capacity to survey partners, while 100% of all teams who implemented REST did. A small portion of respondents indicated the time commitment of REST would be a barrier (29% of baseline survey respondents, 10% of those who implemented REST) and indicated workload would be a barrier (31% of baseline survey respondents, 14% of those who implemented REST). DISCUSSION: The data presented here indicate that REST implementation is feasible in a volunteer group of ongoing research projects

Creating research-ready partnerships: The initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control

BACKGROUND: In 2019-2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in \u27real-world\u27 settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs. METHODS: In April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites. RESULTS: Domains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods. CONCLUSIONS: The development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories

Food Insecurity and Healthy Behavior Counseling in Primary Care

Objective: While food insecurity (FI) has been associated with obesity in some studies, few have examined the relationship between FI and health attitudes and behaviors. We hypothesized that families who experienced FI would report lower importance of discussing health-related behavior change, report lower physical activity (PA) and have children who were more likely to be obese. Design/Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data collected from 2012 - 2015 from three clinics serving primarily low-income, Latino patients. Parents of 6 to 12 year old children presenting for well child care were surveyed about their experience of food insecurity, the importance of discussing behavior change with a health care provider and their children’s physical activity. We calculated children’s BMI z scores from the height and weight measured at that visit. We used path analysis to test our hypotheses. Results: Among 1048 families in the study sample, 610 reported experiencing FI (56%). Experiencing FI was positively related to importance of discussing health behavior (p \u3c 0.001) and negatively related to PA (p=0.008). The relationship between FI and BMI was not significant. Conclusion: We found FI was associated with greater perceived importance of discussing health related behavior change, but lower amounts of PA, indicating contrasting attitudes and behaviors. Families facing food insecurity are likely experiencing financial and other barriers to PA, as evidenced by lower reported PA. Providers counseling low-income populations should not presume that food insecure families are unwilling to discuss weight related health behavior changes