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.

We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature to describe the nature and extent of reporting on the involvement of stakeholders in early-stage translational research.

We conducted two literature searches in six databases, screened records and full-text articles, and abstracted and analyzed data from included publications. The literature searches yielded unduplicated 2,894 records. After screening, 13 articles were included.

Our review of the literature yielded rare reports of engagement in early-stage translational research. Half of included articles reported on engagement with patients, clinicians, and researchers while fewer that one in three reported on engagement with policymakers, industry, and insurers. One in four reported engagement in the publication’s acknowledgments but not in the main text. More than half drew unmeasured conclusions about the outcomes of engagement.

Our definition of early-stage translation pointed to a specific set of peer-reviewed research; our findings indicate a reporting gap and not necessarily a gap in practice. By addressing four themes–developing a shared language, identifying frameworks and principles, creating a repository of resources, and establishing a research agenda, research leaders can develop new insights about how to engage communities in early-stage translational research.

Integrating community expertise into scientific teams and research endeavors can holistically address complex health challenges and grand societal problems. An in-depth understanding of the integration of team science and community engagement principles is needed. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify how and where team science and community engagement approaches are being used simultaneously in research.

We followed Levac’s enhancement of Arksey and O’Malley’s Scoping Review Framework and systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, ERIC, and Embase for team science and community engagement terms through January 2024.

Sixty-seven articles were reviewed. Publications describing integrated team science and community-engaged research have increased exponentially since 2004. Over half were conducted outside of the U.S., utilized qualitative methods, included community-researcher co-development of research question and study design, and described team partnership goals, roles, and management. Fewer studies evaluated partnership, built community capacity, described financial compensation to communities, or described team dynamics facilitation.

As researchers continue to integrate community engagement and team science, common criteria and strategies for integrating the approaches are needed. We provide 19 recommendations for research teams, research institutions, journals, and funding bodies in service of advancing the science and practice of this integration.