The NIH-funded Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) program is currently funding 18 academic institutions to strengthen the research environment and contribution to health disparities research. The purpose of this multiphase mixed-methods study was to establish a uniform evaluation framework for demonstrating the collective success of this research consortium. Methods included discussions of aims and logic models at the RCMI Evaluators’ Workshop, a literature review to inform an evaluation conceptual framework, and a case study survey to obtain evaluation-related information and metrics. Ten RCMIs participated in the workshop and 14 submitted responses to the survey. The resultant RCMI Evaluation Conceptual Model presents a practical ongoing approach to document RCMIs’ impacts on health disparities. Survey results identified 37 common metrics under four primary categories. Evaluation challenges were issues related to limited human resources, data collection, decision-making, defining metrics, cost-sharing, and revenue-generation. There is a need for further collaborative efforts across RCMI sites to engage program leadership and community stakeholders in addressing the identified evaluation challenges and measurement. Program leadership should be engaged to apply the Evaluation Conceptual Framework and common metrics to allow for valid inter-institutional comparisons and consortium-wide evaluations. Stakeholders could ensure evaluation metrics are used to facilitate community impacts.

Background: DiversiPrEP is a culturally-tailored PrEP program for LMSM offered in South Florida. DiversiPrEP navigates LMSM through their PrEP journey, including education, deciding if PrEP is relevant for them, payment, and accessing/maintaining PrEP use. DiversiPrEP includes five ERIC strategies (Increase Demand, Promote Adaptability, Alter Client Fees, Intervene with Clients to Enhance Uptake and Adherence, and Tailor Strategies). Description: Photovoice was used to conduct five two-part focus groups with LMSM (n = 12) and Non-LMSM (n = 12). In the first session, trainers provided guidance on selecting and contextualizing photos to generate CFIR themes. Then, participants captured photos that embodied their lived experiences accessing PrEP. In the second session, using SHOWeD, participants discussed photos, identifiedhow photos relate to culturally relevant issues. Triangulation approaches compared/contrasted themes between LMSM and Non-LMSM. Results: Five central themes emerged around barriers and facilitators to PrEP services: 1) the need for normalizing PrEP messages within the MSM community, 2) the need for normalizing PrEP messages outside the MSM community, 3) the need for expanding PrEP knowledge, 4) different motivations for using PrEP, and 5) the presence of structural barriers that limit PrEP access. This study compared similarities and differences of barriers and facilitators to PrEP use between Latino/a and non-Latino/a MSM. Similarities included the built environment (outer setting) as a barrier, the need for normalizing PrEP messaging within and outside of the MSM community, and the need to expand PrEP knowledge. Differences between Latino/a and non-Latino/a MSM were found in assessing the motivation and personal drivers (inner setting) for initiating PrEP associated with how participants viewed their responsibilities to self or others. Conclusions: Photovoice with focus groups identified CFIR constructs that can guide the large-scale implementation of a client-centered PrEP service model with telehealth for both Latino/a and non-Latino/a MSM. Implementing client-centered accessible PrEP programs is an essential step to promoting sexual-health equity.

Professional and community leaders in Washington, DC have expressed the need for more capacity building and increased resources to address health inequities in the city’s underserved African American communities. Inequities (“food deserts,” community decay, and limited youth opportunities) require equity-informed approaches. Disparities (disproportionate substance use/behavioral health disorders) also require system-level approaches. In response, the Wards 7 and 8 DC Prevention Center (DCPC), a community-based nonprofit, collaborated with residents, community partners, and academic institutions to provide trainings and certifications to its team and community stakeholders. Initially, DCPC Staff were trained through evidence-informed approaches including Certified Prevention Specialist (CPS) and Photovoice. CPS training uses workshops and tools from the DC Department of Behavioral Health (DBH) to train staff/students to conduct assessments and build community partnerships. Photovoice provides a less intimidating process for vulnerable populations and professionals to collect data, identify social/environmental factors that impact health and well-being, share concerns, communicate with policymakers, and identify solutions to collectively address issues. In turn, DCPC Staff trained youth and professionals to conduct Photovoice assessments to highlight the misuse of opioids and the negative effects on their communities. Stakeholders continue to request the assistance of CPSs; and community partners seek the trainings for themselves. Academic partners have a community-based resource for students/faculty to learn from and support equity-informed initiatives. This paper presents additional lessons learned/best practices in how to apply this multi-component approach as an effective strategy for preparing professionals and students to engage in social action in similar areas, despite high risks and glaring inequities.

In 2020, evaluators within the Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMIs) program proposed a conceptual framework identifying four primary evaluation targets: scientific productivity, scientific collaboration, professional growth, and research resources. This study extends prior work by capturing the contextual and process-oriented dimensions of program impact. This reflective practice-based project examines how non-quantitative approaches complement traditional metrics to better characterize RCMI outcomes. Evaluators representing ten RCMI sites participated in a multi-site case study guided by three questions addressing: (1) qualitative evidence of impact beyond metrics; (2) challenges and successes in implementation of non-quantitative methods; and (3) potential expansion of evaluation targets. Evaluators provided descriptive responses, generating a 22-page dataset that was analyzed thematically. Thirteen non-quantitative evaluation domains emerged: investigator consultations, investigator productivity, investigator success, community partnerships, intra-RCMI collaborations, implementation of team science, career progression, programmatic support, mentoring support, impact on RCMI affiliates, intellectual resources, physical resources, and faculty hires. Key challenges included inconsistent data capture and limited evaluation resources, while successes highlighted improved cross-site learning and visibility of program impact. Findings support retaining the original evaluation targets while expanding the framework to include institutional transformation, equitable research environments, and longitudinal societal impact. A conceptual map was developed to depict how mixed methods that include non-quantitative approaches can yield RCMI evaluations that expand upon the current approach, which relies primarily on quantitative data. The authors recommend quantitative targets and non-quantitative strategies to provide context, communicate evidence of success, and inform programmatic changes to deepen the findings and strengthen the rigor of RCMI evaluation practices.