Issues: The continued momentum towards equity-based, community and patient engaged research is pushing health research to embrace principles of community based participatory research with a focus on health equity outcomes. Much of this progress has hinged on the few community-academic partnered research projects with minimal support from their academic health institutions.

Description: The Engage for Equity Plus intervention was aimed at improving supportive policies and practices towards equity-based, community and patient engaged research. To gain a deeper understanding of the institutional context in which community academic partnered research projects are supported. We used mixed methods that integrated findings from a survey (n=98) and qualitative interviews (n=9) and discussions (n=6 focus groups) with leadership, investigators, and community and patient partners.

Lessons learned: Across three institutions, the survey noted there were significant differences among the perceptions of academics and community partners about support for equity-oriented community engaged research (e.g., perceptions about leadership support). This was further supported by qualitative data. Specifically, several community and academic partners noted fiscal and administrative barriers and lack of sustained patient/community workflows when participating in research. Participants also noted the lack of training opportunities for academics and community partners, and the need to build relationships in the community, as opposed to focusing only on recruitment of minoritized communities into research.

Recommendations: Triangulating findings from the survey and qualitative data revealed critical barriers which provide important targets for interventions for improving supportive policies and practices towards equity-based, community and patient engaged research.

Background: In recognition of the critical role of Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) in advancing health equity, Stanford took part in Engage for Equity Plus to address institutional barriers to conducting CBPR.

Methods: The Engage for Equity Plus process included interviews (n=4), focus groups (n=2), and surveys (n=35) with leadership, faculty, and community partners to identify barriers to engaging in CBPR. Two strategic planning workshops with leadership, faculty, and community partners (n=25) provided opportunities to identify goals to address institutional barriers.

Results: Qualitative findings revealed three barriers to conducting CBPR at Stanford: 1) Lack of established infrastructure for CBPR; 2) Disparate understandings of community involvement in research; and 3) Inaccessibility of clinical care, education, and research for communities that experience marginalization. Survey findings revealed that most respondents answered no or don’t know to whether the institution demonstrates commitment to health equity (74%) and patient- and community-engaged research (85%). We identified three goals in strategic planning workshops: 1) Adapt Institutional Review Board procedures for CBPR; 2) Reform the post-award procedures for timely payment to partners; 3) Build capacity in CBPR among researchers and community partners.

Conclusions: We will present on progress towards these goals. Examples include documenting the specific IRB barriers for CBPR projects, developing workflows for CBPR partnerships to efficiently obtain research approvals and timely payments for partners, and galvanizing support for new staff hires and offices focused on CBPR. These efforts can inform the institutional support and infrastructure needed to catalyze CBPR to promote health equity.

Background. The Fred Hutch/University of Washington (UW)/Seattle Children’s Cancer Consortium (Consortium) is an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. Experiences from the COVID-19 pandemic to the nation’s reckoning with racial inequities have amplified the urgency of evolving the Consortium’s mission towards cancer equity. The Consortium’s Office of Community Outreach & Engagement (OCOE) uses a data driven approach to identify Washington’s greatest cancer-related needs and develop strategic research aims to address them.

Methods. OCOE participated in the Engage for Equity Plus project (E2PLUS) and worked with a Champion Team, including representatives from the Consortium and community, to develop research capacity for community engaged research, with emphasis on underrepresented (UR) populations. Through facilitated E2PLUS workshops, a group of representatives from academia and community collaborated to identify opportunities for change. Interviews with executive leadership of each Consortium institution and surveys of investigators and community partners provided multi-level information.

Results. Lack of UR community participation on Consortium committees and processes is a structural barrier to cancer equity. Several strategies are being implemented: UR patient and community leaders have joined the Consortium executive board; Community Action Boards participated in Consortium strategic planning; an Office of Patient Engagement, that prioritizes engaging patients from UR communities, is being developed to consult on every stage of research; community engagement training/resources were expanded; and planning has begun for a Health Equity Steering Committee across the Consortium.

Conclusion. Participating in E2PLUS was the catalyst that helped the Consortium identify and begin to address structural issues impeding equity in cancer care and outcomes.

Background: Morehouse School of Medicine (MSM) holds to an applied, cross –cutting, definition of community engagement that includes the systematic allocation of educational, clinical, research and service resources applied to advance its vision to lead the creation and advancement of health equity. Strategic community/patient-campus collaborations to upend social and political determinants of health disparities and inequitable partnerships between patient and community groups and academic researchers have prepared the institution to lead or collaborate in meaningful, community-grounded research.

Methods: MSM partnered with the University of New Mexico Center for Participatory Research for the Engage for Equity Plus (E2PLUS) Project to assess, ideate and strategize regarding the institutional support and processes necessary to bolster support to initiate and sustain patient and community-engaged research partnerships. Formative mixed methods were employed to engage community and academic leaders to understand the history, perceptions, experiences and improvement recommendations.

Results: Early findings indicate opportunities for systemic change towards: 1) establishment of a community/patient research navigation system for partners entering into formal agreements with MSM; 2) centralized strategies to promote new and established programs to improve the capacities of community/patient partners to independently acquire, manage and sustain grants central to expanding their infrastructures and address prioritized health or healthcare initiatives; and 3) bolstering and amending systems to expedite grants and contracts policies given the well-recognized inequities in fiscal buoyancy between community-campus partners.

Conclusions: MSM has leveraged the E2PLUS partnership to strategically identify systems improvements necessary to ensure that community/patient centered research and partnerships, institution-wide, are amplified and sustained.

Background: The Engage for Equity (E2) team developed the first Institutional Multi-Stakeholder Survey (IMSS) instrument that sought to assess and explore the context, barriers, and facilitators of community-engaged research (CEnR) and community-based participatory research (CBPR) practices at three, highly diverse, academic research institutions with their community partners. Methods: Working with “champion teams” consisting of academic leaders, researchers, stakeholder, and community partners at each institution, we developed the survey tool to include the following domains: institutional mission, vision, and values; CEnR/CBPR policies/practices; community processes/structures; function of formal community advisory boards; climate/culture for CEnR/CBPR; perceptions of institutional leadership for CEnR/CBPR. The survey was administered via REDCap to a convenience sample of community and academic participants at each institutional site. Results: A sample of academic (n=50) and community (n=49) participants across all three institutions perceived high levels of advocacy for CEnR/CBPR among their research teams. Participants indicated that institutional leadership supported CEnR/CBPR in principle, but were less likely to provide resources to build CEnR/CBPR capacity at their respective institutions. Aggregate findings for each of the survey domains, and community and academic responses will be shared. Conclusions: While limited by survey length and question adaptation between institution and community levels, the findings contribute significantly to identification of institutional barriers and facilitators to CEnR/CBPR in academic settings. These findings are critically important to support and improve CEnR/CBPR practice in academic institutional spaces, and elevate community partner voice and needs.