Guidelines for Community‐Based Partners for Reviewing Research Grant Applications: Lessons from the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR) Community Engagement Research Core (CERC)

Introduction One of most important mandates of the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) is to accelerate the spread of scientific discoveries beyond academic health centers so that the public benefits from health‐related research. The CERC incre...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical and translational science 2013-12, Vol.6 (6), p.421-423
Main Authors: Anderson, Robert M., Calhoun, Karen, Choate, Celeste B., Loney, E. Hill, Paberzs, Adam, Sampselle, Carolyn M., Vereen, Donald R., Zimmerman, Marc A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academies and Institutes - economics
Academies and Institutes - standards
Community
Community-Institutional Relations - standards
Comprehension
CTSA Profile
Decision making
Design
Geriatrics
Humans
Medical research
Minority & ethnic groups
National Institutes of Health (U.S.) - economics
National Institutes of Health (U.S.) - standards
NEWS AND VIEWS
Peer Review, Research - standards
Proposals
Research Support as Topic - economics
Researchers
Studies
Terminology as Topic
United States
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Request full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction One of most important mandates of the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) is to accelerate the spread of scientific discoveries beyond academic health centers so that the public benefits from health‐related research. The CERC increases community decision‐making and action for health promotion, disease prevention, and treatment by involving the community in all phases of clinical research planning, design, implementation, evaluation and dissemination. CECC review process After thinking about and discussing the discomfort expressed by some of the community members on our CECC about reviewing scientific research proposals, we realized the discomfort was caused (or at least exacerbated) by the fact that the academic partners, had not provided specific guidelines and/or support to CECC community members regarding their role in reviewing community‐based pilot study applications. Does the study address health disparities experienced by vulnerable groups, for example, members of medically underserved racial and ethnic groups, children, the elderly, and indigent community members.
ISSN:1752-8054
1752-8062
DOI:10.1111/cts.12126