Show simple item record

Strengthening Community Involvement in Grant Review: Insights from the Community–University Research Partnership (CURES) Pilot Review Process

dc.contributor.authorPaberzs, Adamen_US
dc.contributor.authorPiechowski, Patriciaen_US
dc.contributor.authorWarrick, Debraen_US
dc.contributor.authorGrawi, Carolynen_US
dc.contributor.authorChoate, Celesteen_US
dc.contributor.authorSneed, Glendaen_US
dc.contributor.authorCarr, Dianeen_US
dc.contributor.authorLota, Kanchanen_US
dc.contributor.authorKey, Kenten_US
dc.contributor.authorAlexander, Valerieen_US
dc.contributor.authorGhosh, Pratiken_US
dc.contributor.authorSampselle, Carolynen_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-23T15:58:49Z
dc.date.available2015-06-01T15:48:45Zen_US
dc.date.issued2014-04en_US
dc.identifier.citationPaberzs, Adam; Piechowski, Patricia; Warrick, Debra; Grawi, Carolyn; Choate, Celeste; Sneed, Glenda; Carr, Diane; Lota, Kanchan; Key, Kent; Alexander, Valerie; Ghosh, Pratik; Sampselle, Carolyn (2014). "Strengthening Community Involvement in Grant Review: Insights from the Community–University Research Partnership (CURES) Pilot Review Process." Clinical and Translational Science 7(2): 156-163.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1752-8054en_US
dc.identifier.issn1752-8062en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/106809
dc.description.abstractIn 2007, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR) at the University of Michigan received a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). Within MICHR, the Community Engagement (CE) program supports partnership efforts between researchers, practitioners, and community‐based organizations in specific focal communities throughout Michigan. A key component of the CE program is the Community Engagement Coordinating Council, a group that provides input and guidance on program priorities, strategic planning, and reviews pilot funding proposals for community–academic partnerships. This paper will describe a unique MICHR pilot funding mechanism for Community–University Research Partnerships (CURES) with an emphasis on the ways that community partners are involved in the review process, as well as the benefits, challenges, and insights gained over 5 years of pilot review. There is a growing need for community involvement and expertise in review of funding proposals for community‐engaged research at both institutional and federal levels. The CURES pilot review process is one example of an institutional effort to engage community partners in university funding decisions and has demonstrated clear benefit toward accomplishing the aims of the CTSA.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.publisherJossey‐Bass Publishersen_US
dc.subject.otherCommunity‐Engaged Researchen_US
dc.subject.otherCommunity–Academic Partnershipsen_US
dc.subject.otherGrant Reviewen_US
dc.subject.otherPilot Grantsen_US
dc.subject.otherInstitutional Fundingen_US
dc.subject.otherMichiganen_US
dc.titleStrengthening Community Involvement in Grant Review: Insights from the Community–University Research Partnership (CURES) Pilot Review Processen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPharmacy and Pharmacologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/106809/1/cts12141.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/cts.12141en_US
dc.identifier.sourceClinical and Translational Scienceen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCTSA Principal Investigators, Shamoon H, Center D, Davis P, Tuchman M, Ginsberg H, Califf R, Stephens D, Mellman T, Verbalis J, Nadler L, et al. Preparedness of the CTSA's structural and scientific assets to support the mission of the national center for advancing translational sciences (NCATS). Clin Transl Sci. 2012; 5 ( 2 ): 121 – 129.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrechtling J, Raue K, Michie J, Miyaoka A, Spiegelman M. The CTSA national evaluation final report. Rockville, MD: Webstat, 2012. Available at: https://www.ctsacentral.org/sites/default/files/files/CTSANationalEval_FinalReport_20120416.pdf Accessed May 7, 2013.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTendulkar SA, Chu J, Opp J, Geller A, Digirolamo A, Gandelman E, Grullon M, Patil P, King S, Hacker K. A funding initiative for community‐based participatory research: lessons from the Harvard catalyst seed grants. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2011; 5 ( 1 ): 35 – 44.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWinckler E, Brown J, LeBailly S, McGee R, Bayldon B, Huber G, Kaleba E, Lowry KW, Martens J, Mason M, et al. A novel program trains community‐academic teams to build research and partnership capacity. Clin Transl Sci. 2013; 6 ( 3 ): 214 – 221.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMain D, Felzien M, Magid DJ, Calonge BN, O'Brien RA, Kempe A, Nearing K. A community translational research pilot grants program to facilitate community–academic partnerships: lessons from Colorado's clinical translational science awards. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2012; 6 ( 3 ): 381 – 387.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSeifer S, Shore N, Holmes S. Developing and sustaining community‐university partnerships for health research: infrastructure requirements. Community‐Campus Partnerships for Health. 2003. Available at: http://ccph.memberclicks.net/assets/Documents/FocusAreas/infrastructurerequirements.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2013.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSeifer S, Greene‐Moton E. Realizing the promise of community‐based participatory research: community partners get organized ! Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2007; 1 ( 4 ): 291 – 294.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAndejeski Y, Breslau ES, Hart E, Lythcott N, Alexander L, Rich I, Bisceglio I, Smith HS, Visco FM; U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command Fiscal Year 1995 Breast Cancer Research Program Integration Panel. Benefits and drawbacks of including consumer reviewers in the scientific merit review of breast cancer research. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2002; 11 ( 2 ): 119 – 136.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMonahan A, Stewart D. The role of lay panelists on grant review panels. Chronic Dis Can. 2003; 24 ( 2–3 ): 70 – 74.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBhopal R. Ethical issues in health research on ethnic minority populations: Focusing on inclusion and exclusion. Res Ethics Rev. 2008; 4 ( 1 ): 15 – 19.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKillien M, Bigby JA, Champion V, Fernandez‐Repollet E, Jackson RD, Kagawa‐Singer M, Kidd K, Naughton MJ, Prout M. Involving minority and underrepresented women in clinical trials: the national centers of excellence in women's health. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2000; 9 ( 10 ): 1061 – 1070.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePalermo A, Park A, Seifer S, Ybarra V. Response to NOD‐07–074 – the NIH peer review process. Community Partner Summit Policy Workgroup. 2007. Available at: http://ccph.memberclicks.net/assets/Documents/FocusAreas/responsenihpeerreviewprocesssept7.pdf Accessed May 16, 2013.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCTSA Community Engagement Key Function Committee and CTSA Community Engagement Workshop Planning Committee. Researchers and their communities: The challenge of meaningful community engagement. Duke University. 2009. Available at: https://ctsacorus.org/resources/273/download/Monograph‐ResearchersTheir_Communities‐CTSA‐2007‐08_3.pdf. Accessed May 13, 2013.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceIsrael B, Schulz A, Parker E, Becker A. Review of community‐based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998; 19 ( 1 ): 173 – 202.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSadler LS, Larson J, Bouregy S, Lapaglia D, Bridger L, McCaslin C, Rockwell S. Community–university partnerships in community‐based research. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2012; 6 ( 4 ): 463 – 469.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSadler LS, Newlin KH, Johnson Spruill I, Jenkins C. Beyond the medical model: interdisciplinary programs of community engaged health research. Clin Transl Sci. 2011; 4 ( 4 ): 285 – 297.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRoss LF, Loup A, Nelson RM, Botkin JR, Kost R, Smith GR Jr, Gehlert S. Human subjects protections in community‐engaged research: a research ethics framework. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010; 5 ( 1 ): 5 – 17.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMichener L, Cook J, Ahmed SM, Yonas MA, Coyne‐Beasley T, Aguilar‐Gaxiola S. Aligning the goals of community‐engaged research: why and how academic health centers can successfully engage with communities to improve health. Acad Med. 2012; 87 ( 3 ): 285 – 291.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilkins CH, Spofford M, Williams N, McKeever C, Allen S, Brown J, Opp J, Richmond A, Strelnick AH. Community representatives’ involvement in clinical and translational science awardee activities. Clin Transl Sci. 2013; 6 ( 4 ): 292 – 296.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Cancer Institute. The NCI consumer guides for peer review Website. Available at: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/consumer.htm. Accessed May 21, 2013.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMinkler M, Blackwell A, Thompson M, Tamir H. Community‐based participatory research: implications for public health funding. Am J Public Health. 2003; 93 ( 8 ): 1210 – 1213.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGreen LW, George MA, Daniel M, Frankish CJ, Herbert CP, Bowie, WR, O'Neill M. Guidelines for participatory research in health promotion. In: Minkler M, Wallerstein N, eds. Community‐Based Participatory Research for Health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass Publishers; 2003, 419 – 428.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAhmed S, Palermo A. Community engagement in research: frameworks for education and peer review. Am J Public Health. 2010; 100 ( 8 ): 1380 – 1387.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.