Abstract
Purpose
Despite the importance of engaging community members in research, multiple barriers exist. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation to understand the opportunities and challenges of engaging community members in basic, clinical, translational, and population science research.
Methods
We designed a survey and an interview guide based on the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Surveys were distributed electronically to all cancer center investigators and interviews were conducted virtually with a select group of basic, clinical, and population science investigators. Survey data (n = 77) were analyzed across all respondents using frequency counts and mean scores; bivariate analyses examined differences in responses by research program affiliation, gender, race, and faculty rank. Interviews (n = 16) were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using a reflective thematic approach.
Results
There was strong agreement among investigators that “Community engagement in research will help the SKCC address cancer disparities in the catchment area” (M 4.2, SD 0.9) and less agreement with items such as “I know how to find and connect with community members who I can engage in my research” (M 2.5, SD 1.3). Investigators mentioned challenges in communicating complex science to a lay audience but were open to training and workshops to acquire skills needed to integrate community members into their research.
Conclusion
Cancer centers should develop and promote training and collaborative opportunities for investigators and community members. Overcoming challenges will lead to more patient- and community-centered cancer research in the future.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
LeBlanc TW, Abernethy AP (2017) Patient-reported outcomes in cancer care—hearing the patient voice at greater volume. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14(12):763–772
Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB (1998) Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health 19:173–202
Michener L, Cook J, Ahmed SM, Yonas MA, Coyne-Beasley T, Aguilar-Gaxiola S (2012) Aligning the goals of community-engaged research: why and how academic health centers can successfully engage with communities to improve health. Acad Med 87(3):285–291
Cyril S, Smith BJ, Possamai-Inesedy A, Renzaho AM (2015) Exploring the role of community engagement in improving the health of disadvantaged populations: a systematic review. Glob Health Action 8(1):29842
Lubas MM, Lu Y, Gehr AW, Ghabach B, Tanna B, Narra K, Brinkman TM, Ojha RP (2020) Adult cancer survivors’ engagement and interest in patient-centered research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 29(2):329–335
Martineau JT, Minyaoui A, Boivin A (2020) Partnering with patients in healthcare research: a scoping review of ethical issues, challenges, and recommendations for practice. BMC Med Ethics 21(1):34
Pii KH, Schou LH, Piil K, Jarden M (2019) Current trends in patient and public involvement in cancer research: a systematic review. Health Expect 22(1):3–20
Polite BN, Adams-Campbell LL, Brawley OW, Bickell N, Carethers JM, Flowers CR, Foti M, Gomez SL, Griggs JJ, Lathan CS, Li CI, Lichtenfeld JL, McCaskill-Stevens W, Paskett ED (2017) Charting the future of cancer health disparities research: a position statement from the American Association for Cancer Research, the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the National Cancer Institute. CA Cancer J Clin 67(5):353–361
Paskett ED, Hiatt RA (2018) Catchment areas and community outreach and engagement: the new mandate for NCI-designated cancer centers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 27(5):517–519
Ketcher D, Bidelman A, Le LQ (2021) Partnering patients, caregivers, and basic scientists: an engagement model that fosters patient- and family-centered research culture. Transl Res 227:64–74
Joosten YA, Israel TL, Williams NA, Boone LR, Schlundt DG, Mouton CP, Dittus RS, Bernard GR, Wilkins CH (2015) Community engagement studios: a structured approach to obtaining meaningful input from stakeholders to inform research. Acad Med 90(12):1646–1650
Kost RG, Leinberger-Jabari A, Evering TH, Holt PR, Neville-Williams M, Vasquez KS, Coller BS, Tobin JN (2017) Helping basic scientists engage with community partners to enrich and accelerate translational research. Acad Med 92(3):374–379
Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC (2009) Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 4:50
Kirk MA, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken SA, Abadie B, Damschroder L (2016) A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implement Sci 11:72
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science. https://cfirguide.org. Accessed 3 Apr 2022
Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101
Braun V, Clarke V (2021) Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Couns Psychother Res 21(1):37–47
Rimel BJ (2016) Clinical trial accrual: obstacles and opportunities. Front Oncol 6:103
Nipp RD, Hong K, Paskett ED (2019) Overcoming barriers to clinical trial enrollment. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 39:105–114
Katz ML, Archer LE, Peppercorn JM, Kereakoglow S, Collyar DE, Burstein HJ, Schilsky RL, Partridge AH (2012) Patient advocates’ role in clinical trials: perspectives from Cancer and Leukemia Group B investigators and advocates. Cancer 118:4801–4805
Ketcher D, Bidelman A, Le LQ, Otto AK, Lester DK, Amtmann-Beuttner KK, Gonzalez BD, Wright KL, Vadaparampil ST, Reblin M, Lau EK (2021) Partnering patients, caregivers, and basic scientists: an engagement model that fosters patient- and family-centered research culture. Transl Res 227:64–74
Salamone JM, Lucas W, Brundage SB, Holloway JN, Stahl SM, Carbine NE, London M, Greenwood N, Goyes R, Chisholm DC, Price E, Carlin R, Winarsky S, Baker KB, Maues J, Shajahan-Haq AN (2018) Promoting scientist-advocate collaborations in cancer research: why and how. Cancer Res 78(20):5723–5728
Davis C, Salo L, Redman S (2001) Evaluating the effectiveness of advocacy training for breast cancer advocates in Australia. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 10:82–86
Funding
Research reported in this publication utilized shared resources at Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health and were supported by the Division of Cancer Prevention, NCI of the NIH under Award Number, P30CA056036.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AEL oversaw the study conception, design, implementation and analysis. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by AEL, RJM, QG, JB-G, and AS. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AEL and AEA and CME commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethical approval
The Institutional Review Board at Thomas Jefferson University deemed this study, which asks professionals about their work, as exempt from ethical review.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
For each question below, circle the response that best categorizes how you feel about the statement, where: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree.
I. Intervention characteristics | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither agree nor disagree | Agree | Strongly agree |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A. I am aware of the scientific evidence for including community members in research | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
B. Community outreach and engagement is relevant to my area of research | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
C. My research can impact cancer disparities in the SKCC catchment area | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
D. It would be challenging for me to integrate community members into my research | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
E. I have the ability to run a pilot COE study and make appropriate changes before implementing a larger scale project | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
F. I understand the time it would require to integrate community members into my research | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
G. I understand the cost/resources it would require to integrate community members into my research | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
II. Outer setting | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither agree nor disagree | Agree | Strongly agree |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A. I am aware of the needs of community members in the SKCC catchment area | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
B. The lived-experience and insight of community members can positively impact my research | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
C. Community members don’t understand the value of being involved in research | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
D. Community members have the skills and abilities needed to be involved in my research | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
E. Community members have a valid reason to not trust researchers or the research process | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
III. Inner setting | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither agree nor disagree | Agree | Strongly agree |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A. The SKCC provides adequate resources to support me in engaging community members in my research | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
B. The SKCC promotes and celebrates community outreach and engagement in research | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
C. Integrating community outreach and engagement in research is a priority for SKCC leadership | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
D. The agencies that fund my research would reward community outreach and engagement in research | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
E. Community engagement in research will help the SKCC address cancer disparities in the catchment area | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
IV. Characteristics of individuals | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither agree nor disagree | Agree | Strongly agree |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A. Community-engaged research aligns with my personal values and goals | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
B. Community-engaged research aligns with my professional goals and objectives | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
C. I am motivated to align my research to meet the needs of the catchment area | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
D. I am confident in including community members into my research | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
E. I have the knowledge to include community members in my research | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
F. I see the value in including community members in my research | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
V. Process | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither agree nor disagree | Agree | Strongly agree |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A. I am aware of key individuals involved with community outreach at the SKCC | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
B. I am aware that the SKCC has a Community Advisory Board | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
C. I know how to find and connect with community members who I can engage in my research | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
D. I can overcome barriers that would make it difficult to engage community members in my research | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
E. I can translate my research to lay members of the local community | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
F. I am comfortable working in community settings and with community members | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
-
What counties are in the SKCC catchment area? Choose all that apply.
-
Lehigh
-
Montgomery
-
Trenton
-
Delaware
-
Philadelphia
-
Gloucester
-
Camden
-
Burlington
-
Bucks
-
-
Program affiliation
-
Translational Cellular Oncology (TaCO)
-
Cancer Risk and Control (CRC)
-
Molecular Oncology Regulation Approaches (MORA)
-
Immune Cell Regulation and Targeting (IRT)
-
-
Terminal degree
-
MD
-
MD/PhD
-
PhD
-
Other
-
-
Current faculty rank
-
Trainee/post doc
-
Assistant professor
-
Associate professor
-
Professor
-
Other
-
-
Race
-
White
-
Black or African American
-
American Indian or Alaska Native
-
Asian
-
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
-
Other
-
-
Are you of Hispanic/Latino origin?
-
Yes
-
No
-
-
Gender
-
Male
-
Female
-
Trans
-
Prefer not to answer
-
Other
-
-
Age
-
18–34
-
35–49
-
50–64
-
65–74
-
75 or older
-
-
What county do you currently reside?
-
Bucks county
-
Camden county
-
Delaware county
-
Montgomery county
-
Philadelphia county
-
Other/Unknown
-
-
Do you have experience working with the community? Check all that apply.
-
Yes—professionally
-
Yes—personally
-
No—I do not have experience working with the community.
-
-
If you selected yes to the question above, briefly describe your experience here.
Appendix 2
Interview guide
Program leader questions
Can you tell us about yourself and your personal research?
What are the goals of this SKCC research program? How does COE fit into the goals of this program?
Does the overall SKCC culture support the integration of COE into this program?
Where do you see opportunities for integrating COE into this program? What would that look like? What challenges do you anticipate?
What resources would you need to overcome those barriers?
Do you think investigators in this program have the interest to translate their research to the community successfully or include community members in their research?
Do you have any other thoughts about COE and your program?
Investigator questions
Can you tell us about your research focus?
If you had to describe that to a community member, what would you say?
What do you think community involvement would look like in your research?
What skills and abilities would community members need to be involved in your research?
What skills and abilities would you need to involve community members in your research?
Are there any other barriers that could prevent you from including community members? What are the resources you would need to accomplish this?
If you were to invite a community member to your lab meeting, how would that go? Would it change the dynamic of your team of focus of your research?
If you were to reach out to connect with the community, who would you reach out to? How would you do that? Would you need any resources to connect with the community?
Is there anything else you want to share about COE as it relates to your research?
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Leader, A.E., Melillo, R.J., Greene, Q. et al. Engaging community members in cancer research: an assessment of an NCI-designated cancer center. Cancer Causes Control 34, 307–319 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-022-01666-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-022-01666-8