Strengthening Community Involvement in Grant Review: Insights from the Community–University Research Partnership (CURES) Pilot Review Process
dc.contributor.author | Paberzs, Adam | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Piechowski, Patricia | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Warrick, Debra | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Grawi, Carolyn | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Choate, Celeste | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Sneed, Glenda | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Carr, Diane | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Lota, Kanchan | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Key, Kent | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Alexander, Valerie | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Ghosh, Pratik | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Sampselle, Carolyn | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2014-05-23T15:58:49Z | |
dc.date.available | 2015-06-01T15:48:45Z | en_US |
dc.date.issued | 2014-04 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Paberzs, 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.issn | 1752-8054 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1752-8062 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/106809 | |
dc.description.abstract | In 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.publisher | Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | en_US |
dc.publisher | Jossey‐Bass Publishers | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Community‐Engaged Research | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Community–Academic Partnerships | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Grant Review | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Pilot Grants | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Institutional Funding | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Michigan | en_US |
dc.title | Strengthening Community Involvement in Grant Review: Insights from the Community–University Research Partnership (CURES) Pilot Review Process | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Pharmacy and Pharmacology | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/106809/1/cts12141.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/cts.12141 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Clinical and Translational Science | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | CTSA 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.citedreference | Frechtling 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.citedreference | Tendulkar 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.citedreference | Winckler 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.citedreference | Main 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.citedreference | Seifer 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.citedreference | Seifer 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.citedreference | Andejeski 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.citedreference | Monahan 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.citedreference | Bhopal 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.citedreference | Killien 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.citedreference | Palermo 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.citedreference | CTSA 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.citedreference | Israel 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.citedreference | Sadler 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.citedreference | Sadler 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.citedreference | Ross 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.citedreference | Michener 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.citedreference | Wilkins 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.citedreference | National 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.citedreference | Minkler 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.citedreference | Green 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.citedreference | Ahmed 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.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
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.