Evidence mapPaperPMID 39655018Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2024

Community Engagement Studios to advance multi-site research with older adults.

Meredith C Masel, Kerri L Cavanaugh, Sharon P Croisant, Krista Bohn, James S Goodwin, Martha L Bruce, Paul J Barr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Cultivating Authentic Partnership: Cooperative Development of a Toolkit to Mitigate Group Harm in Biorepository-Enabled Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Meredith C MaselDepartment of Population Health & Health Disparities, The University of Texas Medical Branch School of Public & Population Health, Galveston, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5130-7112
Kerri L CavanaughVanderbilt Center for Effective Health Communication, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4031-1714
Sharon P CroisantDepartment of Epidemiology, The University of Texas Medical Branch School of Public & Population Health, Galveston, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6375-6196
Krista BohnHealth Education and Translational Research Engagement, Institute for Translational Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.
James S GoodwinClaude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5507-1613
Martha L BruceDepartment of Psychiatry, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9973-2142
Paul J BarrThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6868-7625

Funding

Understanding the Influence of Community-level Deprivation and Rural Residence in Cancer CareP20GM148278 · NIGMS · DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK CLINIC · 2023 to 2025
$7.0M
The effect of clinic visit audio recordings for self-management in older adultsR01AG074959 · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · 2025 to 2025
$636k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001439NIA NIH HHS R01 AG074959NIA NIH HHS R56 AG061522NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM148278
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Operationalizing multi-site Community Engagement (CE) Studios to inform a research program is valuable for researchers. We describe the process and outcomes of hosting three CE Studios with Community Experts aged 65 years or older with chronic conditions and care partners of older adults. Experts gave feedback about processes for testing the feasibility, efficacy, effectiveness, and implementation of audio recording clinic visits and sharing recordings with patients who have multimorbidity and their care partners. Methods: The CE Cores of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Programs at three academic health science centers created a joint CE Studio guide. Studios were conducted iteratively by site. Following receipt of the final reports, responses were compared to find themes, similarities, and differences on four topics in addition to overall commentary: Recruitment and Retention, Study Protocol, Study Reminders and Frequency, and Recording Technology. Results: Eighteen older adults and care partners in three states provided valuable feedback to inform multi-site trials. Feedback influenced multiple aspects of trials in process or subsequently funded. Experts provided critique on the wording of study invitations, information sheets, and reminders to engage in study procedures. Experts were concerned for participants being disappointed by randomization to a control arm and advised how investigators should prepare to address that. Conclusions: Multi-site CE Studios should be consecutive, so each team can learn from the previous teams. Using the CES Toolkit ensures that final reports were easily comparable and utilized to develop a research program that now includes three federally funded clinical trials.

Indexed as

audio recordingcommunicationCommunity Engagement Studiomulti-siteRCT

Identifiers

PMID39655018
PMCPMC11626571

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.