Introduction: The validated long Research Participant Perception Survey (RPPS-Long) elicits valuable data at modest response rates.Methods: To address this limitation, we developed shorter RPPS-Ultrashort and RPPS-Short versions, fielded them with the RPPS-Long to a random sample of a national research volunteer registry, and assessed response and completion rates, test/retest reliability, and demographics.Results: In total, 2228 eligible registry members received survey links. Response rates were 64% (RPPS-Ultrashort), 63% (RPPS-Short), and 51% (RPPS-Long), respectively (p<0.001). Completion rates were 63%, 54%, and 37%, respectively (p<0.001). All surveys were reliable with Cronbach α=0.81, 0.84, and 0.87, respectively. Retest reliability was highest for RPPS-short (κ=0.85). Provision of compensation increased RPPS-short completion rate from 54% to 71% (p<0.001). Compensated respondents were younger (p<0.001), with greater minority representation (p=0.03).Conclusions: Shorter surveys were reliable and produced higher response and completion rates then long surveys. Compensation further increased completion rates and shifted sample age and race profiles.

The value of patient-centered outcome measures for improving care is now well established. In contrast, research participants' perspectives on aspects of their research experiences, such as whether the informed-consent process prepared them for participation, are rarely examined.

Clinical trials continue to face significant challenges in participant recruitment and retention. The Recruitment Innovation Center (RIC), part of the Trial Innovation Network (TIN), has been funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health to develop innovative strategies and technologies to enhance participant engagement in all stages of multicenter clinical trials. In collaboration with investigator teams and liaisons at Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions, the RIC is charged with the mission to design, field-test, and refine novel resources in the context of individual clinical trials. These innovations are disseminated via newsletters, publications, a virtual toolbox on the TIN website, and RIC-hosted collaboration webinars. The RIC has designed, implemented, and promised customized recruitment support for 173 studies across many diverse disease areas. This support has incorporated site feasibility assessments, community input sessions, recruitment materials recommendations, social media campaigns, and an array of study-specific suggestions. The RIC’s goal is to evaluate the efficacy of these resources and provide access to all investigating teams, so that more trials can be completed on time, within budget, with diverse participation, and with enough accrual to power statistical analyses and make substantive contributions to the advancement of healthcare.

Problem: Engaging basic scientists in community-based translational research is challenging but has great potential for improving health. Approach: In 2009, The Rockefeller University Center for Clinical and Translational Science partnered with Clinical Directors Network, a practice-based research network (PBRN), to create a community-engaged research navigation (CEnR-Nav) program to foster research pairing basic science and community-driven scientific aims. The program is led by an academic navigator and a PBRN navigator. Through meetings and joint activities, the program facilitates basic science–community partnerships and the development and conduct of joint research protocols. Outcomes: From 2009–2014, 39 investigators pursued 44 preliminary projects through the CEnR-Nav program; 25 of those became 23 approved protocols and 2 substudies. They involved clinical scholar trainees, early-career physician–scientists, faculty, students, postdoctoral fellows, and others. Nineteen (of 25; 76%) identified community partners, of which 9 (47%) named them as coinvestigators. Nine (of 25; 36%) included T3–T4 translational aims. Seven (of 25; 28%) secured external funding, 11 (of 25; 44%) disseminated results through presentations or publications, and 5 (71%) of 7 projects publishing results included a community partner as a coauthor. Of projects with long-term navigator participation, 9 (of 19; 47%) incorporated T3–T4 aims and 7 (of 19; 37%) secured external funding. Next Steps: The CEnR-Nav program provides a model for successfully engaging basic scientists with communities to advance and accelerate translational science. This model's durability and generalizability have not been determined, but it achieves valuable short-term goals and facilitates scientifically meaningful community–academic partnerships.

Introduction: Prior to the COVID pandemic, many CTSAs employed face-to-face interactions to conduct most of their community engagement (CE) activities. During the COVID pandemic, such engagement had to be curtailed and alternatives needed to be formulated. In addition, Community Engaged Research (CEnR) teams refocused their efforts to address this public health crisis. Methods: To obtain a general understanding of how CTSAs have conducted CE and CEnR during the COVID pandemic, we invited seven CTSA CE leaders to provide brief field reports of their activities during the pandemic. This included how their approaches to CE and CEnR were modified during the COVID-19 pandemic and key lessons learned. Results: We found that despite numerous challenges, all seven CTSAs CE cores were able to successfully carry out CE and CEnR. We also found that the fundamental principles of meaningful and authentic stakeholder engagement were of paramount importance during the pandemic. Through virtual approaches, all sites had considerable success in maintaining CE in during the COVID pandemic. They also leveraged existing bi-directional community partnerships to carry out meaningful and impactful research. This included both new COVID CEnR and also innovative approaches to sustain prior non-COVID research. Conclusions: These findings suggest that academic-community partnerships must be fostered and sustained over the many years so that when such crises emerge, all partners can build on existing trust and mutual respect. The lessons learned and the new tools and approaches developed would be key in addressing any such future public health emergencies.