Heart failure is a complex disorder, that can require hospitalization and specialist care, which patients may experience challenges accessing. In Northamptonshire, an innovative approach to heart failure services was introduced to address these challenges. This study aimed to explore and understand the diffusion dynamics of the heart failure service in Northamptonshire, focusing on adoption and implementation determinants.

This qualitative study involved 11 in-depth interviews with four patients, two community carers, one general practitioner, one nurse, one programme director, and two interviews with a community cardiologist. The diffusion of innovation-guided inductive and deductive thematic analyses were used to identify themes and subthemes.

The community heart failure services incorporated community cardiology clinics and community asset groups. Implementation of these innovations was characterized by competent leadership, positive managerial relationships between community cardiologists, general practitioners, and third-sector professionals, a ‘tension for change’ to reduce hospital admissions, improve access, and dedicated funding (‘slack resources’). The ‘relative advantage’ identified by both service providers and patients was access to specialist care closer to home, rehabilitation, education, and nutrition services. The heart failure innovation aligned with the organizational values of primary care and third-sector organizations, facilitating readiness for adoption and implementation. Challenges emerged from limited management accountabilities, such as inadequate administrative and information technology support, hindering the implementation.

The heart failure innovation was perceived to improve care, navigating both facilitators and challenges. The diffusion of innovation theory highlighted the importance of governance and the performance of community heart failure services within a complex intervention context.

In recent years, there has been a growth in awareness of the importance of equity and community engagement in clinical and translational research. One key limitation of most training programs is that they focus on change at the individual level. While this is important, such an approach is not sufficient to address systemic inequities built into the norms of clinical and translational research. Therefore, it is necessary to provide training that addresses changing scientific norms and culture to ensure inclusivity and health equity in translational research.

We developed, implemented, and assessed a training course that addressed how research norms are based on histories and legacies of white supremacy, colonialism, and patriarchy, ultimately leading to unintentional exclusionary and biased practices in research. Additionally, the course provides resources for trainees to build skills in how to redress this issue and improve the quality and impact of clinical and translational research. In 2022 and 2023, the course was offered to cohorts of pre and postdoctoral scholars in clinical and translational research at a premier health research Institution.

The efficacy and immediate impact of three training modules, based on community engagement, racial diversity in clinical trials, and cancer clusters, were evaluated with data from both participant feedback and assessment from the authors. TL1 scholars indicated increased new knowledge in the field and described potential future actions to integrate community voices in their own research program.

Results indicate that trainings offered new perspectives and knowledge to the scholars.

Despite one-third of patients with cancer using cannabis for symptom management, little is known about their access to and usage of cannabis. Community Engagement (CE) studios involving community experts with chronic health conditions were used to inform a qualitative study on access to and use of cannabis products among patients with cancer.

We conducted two 2-hour CE studios with residents from Western NY (WNY) (N = 18). Our sample primarily included White and Black residents (56% vs. 39%). After a researcher-led 10-minute presentation, a community facilitator led the discussion, which focused on questions about challenges to cannabis use, recommendations for providers when discussing cannabis with patients, and community factors influencing use.

Community experts reported that state legalization of cannabis made it easier to access cannabis, but the costs of cannabis and distance to dispensaries hindered their ability to obtain it. Discrimination was also a key barrier to medical cannabis receipt. There were differences in the perceived safety of where to obtain cannabis (dispensaries vs. friends). Community experts wanted providers to be more informed and less biased about recommending cannabis. Community experts recommended conducting focus groups for the subsequent study to ask questions about cannabis use.

The CE studios encouraged us to switch formats from qualitative interviews to focus groups and provided guidance on question topics for the subsequent study. Incorporating community expert’s feedback through CE studios is an effective strategy to design more impactful studies.

Over the last couple of decades, there has been a growing awareness of the value of community-engaged research (CEnR). Simultaneously, many academic institutions have established centralized support for CEnR. For example, dozens of academic medical centers in the United States receive National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) and have embedded community engagement programs (CE) whose primary expertise and mission is to advance CEnR at their institutions.

As part of a larger interview study aiming to learn more about how institutional CE programs and HRPPs work together, we analyzed interviews with CE program leaders at academic medical centers that receive funding from the NIH CTSA program to identify barriers and strategies to conducting CEnR at their institutions, primarily focusing on the relationships with Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).

We identified three categories in the interviews: barriers and strategies vis-à-vis IRBs to address 1) CE/IRB relationships; 2) Understanding issues; and 3) Structural and resource issues.

CTSA CE program leaders have experience implementing solutions to common barriers to IRB review faced by CEnR researchers. The barriers they face in these three categories and the strategies they use to overcome them can provide helpful insights to others who hope to facilitate CEnR research at their institutions.

Translational science rarely addresses the needs of rural communities, perpetuating health inequities. Furthermore, policy and resource allocation reflect this dynamic. Through a partnership between a rural community and a community engagement program, the Rural Health Initiative (RHI) was developed with the goal of building capacity for community-driven translational research in rural settings.

We describe the process of forming the RHI and selection of a community health priority to motivate the translational research agenda in this particular rural setting. We used a mixed methods approach utilizing literature review, community survey data, and qualitative evaluation of community meeting discussions. Consensus on a final health priority was built through voting and comparison of voting responses across the three RHI counties through Fisher’s Exact test.

Four priority topics were identified through literature search, community needs assessment, state/national trend data, and community experts. Priority ranking from a community forum and survey selected the final health priority topic. Healthcare access was selected by all three counties in the RHI community as the most critical health priority to address.

This program highlights the importance of and methods for community involvement in directing the research conducted in their community. Additionally, through this project, guidance was developed to define the role of community engagement programs supporting work led by communities.

The stakeholder analysis approach has historically been top-down rather than collaborative with key partners. However, this approach poses challenges for key partner engagement and community-engaged research, which aims to incorporate key partners throughout the project. This study, conducted by the Community Engagement Network at a Midwest Academic Medical Center, seeks to examine the value of community-engaged research for diverse key partners to increase collaboration, strengthen partnerships, and enhance impact, ultimately driving key partner engagement.

The study involved semi-structured interviews with 38 key partners from diverse groups, including community members, community organizations, Practice-Based Research Network members, researchers, research administration, university administration, and potential funders. The interview guide, informed by an extensive literature review, assessed perceived value, barriers, and improvement strategies for community-engaged research, supplemented by value proposition statements.

The analysis revealed three main themes: 1) Fostering Community Buy-In: Authentic representation and inclusive partnerships were essential for trust and commitment; 2) Enhancing Communication and Dissemination: Effective communication strategies were vital for maintaining engagement and sharing research outcomes; and 3) Building Capacity and Ensuring Sustainability: Continuous learning and long-term investments were crucial for sustaining community-engaged research efforts.

This study underscores the value of incorporating key partners into stakeholder analyses to enhance collaboration, strengthen partnerships, and improve the impact of community-engaged research. The findings offer valuable insight for institutional transformation and implementation of effective stakeholder analyses and engagement tools, ultimately enhancing the effectiveness of research strategies and initiatives.