research topics about local community

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 30 March 2021

Exploring community engaged research experiences and preferences: a multi-level qualitative investigation

• Hae-Ra Han   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9419-594X 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Ashley Xu 1 ,
• Kyra J. W. Mendez 1 ,
• Safiyyah Okoye 3 ,
• Joycelyn Cudjoe 4 ,
• Mona Bahouth 1 , 5 ,
• Melanie Reese 2 , 6 ,
• Lee Bone 2 , 3 &
• Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb 1 , 2  

Research Involvement and Engagement volume  7 , Article number:  19 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

19k Accesses

31 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

Community engagement may make research more relevant, translatable, and sustainable, hence improving the possibility of reducing health disparities. The purpose of this study was to explore strategies for community engagement adopted by research teams and identify areas for enhancing engagement in future community engaged research.

The Community Engagement Program of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research hosted a forum to engage researchers and community partners in group discussion to reflect on their diverse past and current experiences in planning, implementing, and evaluating community engagement in health research . A total of 50 researchers, research staff, and community partners participated in five concurrent semi-structured group interviews and a whole group wrap-up session. Group interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using content analysis.

Four themes with eight subthemes were identified. Main themes included: Community engagement is an ongoing and iterative process; Community partner roles must be well-defined and clearly communicated; Mutual trust and transparency are central to community engagement; and Measuring community outcomes is an evolving area. Relevant subthemes were: engaging community partners in various stages of research; mission-driven vs. “checking the box”; breadth and depth of engagement; roles of community partner; recruitment and selection of community partners; building trust; clear communication for transparency; and conflict in community engaged research.

The findings highlight the benefits and challenges of community engaged research. Enhanced capacity building for community engagement, including training and communication tools for both community and researcher partners, are needed.

Peer Review reports

Plain ENGLISH summary

Involving communities in the research process can make better the way research is planned, carried out, and used. With growing interest and support for community engagement, it is important to understand the views and insights of people who experienced community engaged research. To explore the key lessons learned by community engaged research teams, we held five group interview sessions with 50 research investigators, research staff, and community partners. Our findings showed that community engagement is not static but a dynamic, ongoing process. Community partners felt that involving them earlier and in all aspects of the research process would make for better science. Researchers were often torn between “checking the box” to meet community engagement requirements set by the funder of their research and engaging community partners in various stages of research to advance the scientific mission because of time pressure. There were strong themes around clearly defined community partner roles as well as mutual trust and transparency, as they were considered central to successful engagement of communities in research. Related, participants noted that conflict between the researchers and community partners is a familiar part of the community engaged research process. Two common sources of tension were misaligned research priorities between researchers and community partners and lack of communication about study results. Lastly, there was little agreement between researchers about how to measure community engaged research impact outcomes or which impact outcomes matter the most. Our findings support the need for training and communication tools for both community and researcher partners.

Introduction

Community engagement is defined as the process of meaningfully involving communities affected by a research finding in the research process [ 1 ]. Community engagement in research is recognized as a key process to improve the way the research is prioritized, translated, and used in a real-life setting, and can reduce health disparities [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Community engagement can occur across all stages of research including identifying study topics, planning and designing the study, strengthening recruitment strategies, collecting and analyzing data, and interpreting and disseminating findings. Several United States federal health agencies including the National Institutes of Health and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute offer funding for community and other stakeholder engaged research, highlighting growing interest and support at the national level [ 6 ].

While evidence regarding the methods of community engagement is increasing, detailed information about the role and scope of community engagement or specific approaches to successful community engagement across the full spectrum of the research cycle is still limited [ 7 ]. Additionally, a systematic review of clinical trials that report patient engagement for the purposes of research revealed that an estimated less than 1% of clinical trials engage patients in the research process and that engagement of minorities occurred in only about a quarter of trials [ 8 ]. Growing interest in the participation and contributions of community involvement make it an opportune time to examine the key success strategies adopted by research teams and other lessons learned, and to consider the implications for future community engaged health research.

One of the goals of the National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program is to promote knowledge translation by engaging patients and communities in the research process. The Community Engagement Program of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research—Hopkins CTSA—hosted a forum to engage researchers and community partners in a dialogue to reflect on their past and current experiences in a variety of aspects of community engaged research . This paper reports the main themes identified from semi-structured group discussions among diverse forum participants in relation to their past and current experiences in planning, implementing, and evaluating community engaged research .

Participants and setting

Group discussions were chosen to identify norms of research teams in their conduct of community engaged research. The forum was publicized to researchers, research staff, and community partners within the greater Maryland-Washington region through email invites using existing lists and word of mouth. In order to ensure diversity in our forum participants, we also sent out personal, verbal, and email invitations to 100 researchers and community partners conducting community engaged research. The forum was also publicized during the public announcement section of meetings hosted by community advisory boards and local agencies. A total of 36 researchers and 14 community members participated in five concurrent group discussion sessions. Researcher participants consisted of research staff (e.g., research program coordinators, research assistants), post-doctoral fellows, and faculty investigators. Community participants included patient consultants and prior study subjects. About 86% of forum participants indicated that they were involved in a community or other stakeholder engaged research project at the time of the forum, and 59% had prior exposure to community engaged research.

A planning committee was formed to develop the goals, agenda and format of the forum. The planning committee included key faculty and staff from the Hopkins CTSA. Also included were members of the Johns Hopkins Community Research Advisory Council—a research review committee consisting of community residents, representatives of local community organizations, and community advocates. The planning committee met over a 3-month time period for a total of 12 meetings and developed forum goals and objectives as well as format, content, and discussion methods. The planning committee set the main goal of the forum to bring together investigators, patients, community members, and other stakeholders to share their experiences working together on research that addresses health and social issues that impact Greater Baltimore, Maryland. The 3-h forum began with opening by Director of Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, followed by the keynote presentation by a director of one of the health disparities research centers at the Johns Hopkins University. Participants were then asked to join one of five breakout groups to discuss the following topics: 1) identification and selection of community partners; 2) community partner roles and responsibilities; 3) approaches to promoting community engagement; 4) process and impact evaluation of engagement; and 5) scope of community engagement (see Table  1 for example questions). The forum planning committee grouped the participants into five breakout discussion groups based on their topical preferences, past experiences, and their expertise that were collected during registration. Following the breakout sessions, forum participants reconvened and representatives from each breakout group briefly summarized their discussion and presented the key themes of their respective breakout group discussion.

Four of the five breakout groups included both researchers and community members. The fifth group included community members only in order to maximize comfort and sharing of relevant experiences by community members. Each breakout group included 7–11 members and had a moderator to facilitate the discussion (except for the community member-only group which had two co-moderators—one community leader and one researcher), a note taker to transcribe key discussion points for the facilitation of post breakout discussion report out, and two recording devices to record discussion content. Moderators were all well-established researchers with prior and/or current community engaged projects. They had experiences in working with community members and had prior experiences in moderating group discussions. The moderators had specific instructions with a semi-structured discussion guide to follow in order to maximize the exchange of information and facilitate productive discussion. The note takers were all doctoral students who had previous experiences in qualitative research. They were all briefed and trained on the forum purpose and methods. The duration of each group discussion was 1 h. Forum participants provided written permission to audio record the discussion and transcribe notes. The Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board considered this a quality improvement project and waived it from a full review.

Each group discussion was audio recorded and transcribed verbatim by the original note takers. Following transcription, qualitative content analysis was performed by identifying common themes across group discussions. A standard theme-based content analysis approach was used to analyze the discussion results [ 9 ]. Relevant phrases and statements from each group discussion were identified. Phrases and concepts expressed by more than one participant were considered validated and were included in the analysis, with all of the validated phrases and concepts sorted into thematic groups according to similarity. The transcriptions were then read multiple times, key phrases that provided specific information relevant to the research questions were highlighted, and key themes were identified and supported by direct quotes.

We identified four themes and eight subthemes from the forum. Main themes included: Community engagement is an ongoing and iterative process; Community partner roles must be well-defined and clearly communicated; Mutual trust and transparency are central to community engagement; and Measuring community engagement outcomes is an evolving area. Each theme with accompanying subthemes are detailed in the following section.

Community engagement is an ongoing and iterative process

Forum participants indicated that the amount of time community partners were engaged and the process of engaging community partners were different at various stages of research. The perceived importance and desire to be involved in the designing and planning stage was discussed more frequently than the desire to be involved in the other stages. Engaging in early phases of research was important to identify a problem and formulate the appropriate research questions. We identified three subthemes in relation to community engagement process: Engaging community in various stages of research, mission-driven vs. checking the box, and breadth and depth of engagement.

Engaging community partners in various stages of research

“We should be engaged in all stages of the research process” was a universal and oft-repeated sentiment within the Community partner group. Community partners felt researchers should be cognizant that community engagement is an iterative process, and that researchers’ ability to include community members and other stakeholders in all aspects of the research process is the key to success. In particular, community partners expressed that involving them earlier in the research process would make for better science:

“I think the framework is critical. The way that the research question is framed is critical. And I think that the community and the specific community, should be involved in developing the research question. Not too many folks would find fault with efforts to improve that disease or whatever may be, but if it’s not framed so that it applies … ” (Participant 6; Member of community research advisory council)

Researchers discussed actively engaging community partners in research through a series of ongoing, interactive process. Having open community forums (i.e., local forums of residents and community groups to identify issues faced by particular communities and neighborhoods and work together to address those issues) was one method to get community partners on same page, understand the needs of the community, and develop trust and rapport with the community. One researcher noted:

“I will say that the iterative process can actually be big advantage … I think that’s an incentive at least for most of the individuals that I have worked with that they really appreciate how their ideas have taken shape and how their input has been utilized. I think that can make things take a little bit more time but ultimately it is beneficial.” (Participant 1; Research investigator)

Mission-driven versus checking the box

Engaging community partners in all stages of research, however, was challenging at times. Participants discussed the importance of community engagement to advance the scientific mission. Yet, researchers stated that some grant mechanism requirements seem to have a list of community engagement requirements throughout the research study that may not always be productive to the project nor respectful of community partner time. Researchers noted that they do not want to waste community partners’ time unless there is a clear need for their feedback building on their skillset or life experiences. Valuing participant time was highlighted as one of the most difficult but important aspects of conducting research with community partners:

“I think the most challenging part of our current research is for the patients that I pushed so hard to get, for them to care about this really high level, you know, methodologic question … We don’t have monthly meetings … We try to call on them for mission driven things … We are very strategic about what we ask for [community partners] to provide input on … we don’t just waste their time just for the sake of checking a box.” (Participant 3; Research investigator)

Breadth and depth of engagement

Overall, community engagement was centered around identifying a research question or problem. Participants agreed that having communities identify research questions or problems is the most effective and pragmatic way of conducting community-based research. This process would ensure community buy-in when researchers decide to plan future studies in these same communities. One community member remarked on the good back and forth communication between community members and researchers present when she participated in a group of people living with high blood pressure that consulted researchers on relevant research questions:

“So that meant a lot to us for the fact, OK, you’re listening, and you’re actually developing something that’s going to, you know, cause I think what they did was they did something that was a consensus of what all of us had said. So we were really encouraged by it, and so when it comes time to actually do the study we want to be a part of the study, you know. ” (Participant 4; Patient).

Community partner roles must be well-defined and clearly communicated

Researchers expressed the need to consider the role of the community partners before beginning the research process—what is a community partner, the role of community partners, and the best ways to identify and recruit them. There were two subthemes directly addressing these questions: Roles of community partners and recruitment and selection of community partners.

Roles of community partners

Often, a bidirectional relationship with the community helped researchers determine the role of community partners. Participants noted that it is important to distinguish the role of community partners, as they are the liaisons that bring the researchers into the community while also acting as advisors, decision makers, and validators. Some participants called a community partner, the “mayor of the block,” the person that people in the community go to or someone who would be recognized by the community, and could “hold their own” in discussions about the community. This person would assist in translating what is going on in the community and monitor checks and balances.

The researchers in this discussion underscored the importance of clear communication about each community partner’s role to assure use of common language and clarity of roles in order to optimize the partnership and research. A research staff member talked about the importance of clarity in communication about the community partner roles by stating:

“We can be clear … I feel sometimes that there is a sense of, um people because they [community partners] don’t know what’s expected of them, feeling like they are not doing what they are supposed to be doing or that they’re we’re not...so we want to avoid that.” (Participant 9; Research staff).

Recruitment and selection of community partners

Community participants discussed the various ways they first became involved in research and collaborated with research teams. A common theme was engagement in research as a form of advocacy for a medical condition of interest. A community partner, the parent of a child with autism, shared her experience:

“I knew about clinicaltrials.gov , discovered a trial, participated in that trial and then subsequently asked to share my PHI [protected health information] for further research purposes and that was sort of the first time that I felt like I was asked by the research community to share information about my son’s autism and how it affects our family and so forth.” (Participant 11; Parent of a patient).

From the researcher perspective, it was important to first identify the type of community partner that the study requires and then to discuss who is the individual community member. Funding announcements, dissemination and implementation strategies, and knowing the skill sets of the individual community members were useful for selecting community partners. Nevertheless, difficulty identifying the right people to serve as community partners was a common challenge identified by researchers. Participants acknowledged the importance of relying on community resources and various stakeholders to identify and recruit community partners. For example, working with spiritual leaders and health departments, as well as getting to know and building trust with a community helped to identify community partners. To this end, participants noted that it would be ideal to the research team to establish presence and courtship to the community of interest and establish a relationship. Being active, involved, and partnering with community-based organizations would increase exposure and, in turn, enhance community partner engagement.

“ Having a conversation early on about what are your networks and really documenting that and understanding the kinds of networks that everyone brings to the table and how you can connect with those kinds of individuals or groups so that you can have those relationships built in advance so that when you get to the end of the process you can talk about your findings, you are not scrambling. You’ve established that.” (Participant 13; Research staff).

Mutual trust and transparency are central to community engagement

Participants noted that central to conducting community engaged research is the need to develop trust and value the unique contributions of the community partners who are invested in the project. The need to develop trust between researchers and community partners was a universal priority for forum participants. Subthemes to discuss trust to promote community engagement were: building trust, clear communication for transparency, and conflict in community engaged research.

Building trust

Participants stressed the importance of building trust long-term with the community and not coming to the partnership without consideration of community partners’ agendas. Building trust among community members and other stakeholders was also noted as an important aspect of conducting ethical and effective health research:

“That does make a huge difference … when the community sees somebody there, not with their hands out but actually wanting to be there month in and month out so when you do come calling or knocking or you need support, you have the stakeholders that relationship built that you can go to the head, the leadership of the community and they know you and they trust you.” (Participant 8; Member of community advisory council).

Clear communication for transparency

Participants underscored that researchers must make the research process as transparent as possible to community members. This included clear, honest and transparent communication with community members about funding, study findings, study team commitment to the community, duration of the study, and the overall goals of the study. Some community members felt, however, there was a lack of information from researchers to participants regarding results of the study.

“They very often don’t even let you know what, why they collected it, and how it impacted the analysis and then what they’re going to do with it. We never hear that part …” (Participant 5; Patient and member of community research advisory council).

Conflict in community engaged research

Researchers acknowledged that conflict between the researchers and community partners is a familiar part of the community engaged research process. Two sources of tension discussed by community partners were misaligned research priorities between researchers and community partners and lack of communication about study results. Researchers and community partners noted, however, that conflict was not always reported. When it was reported, it was not always clear how to manage conflict:

“I’ve been thinking a lot about [conflict] in many different [ways], but … as with muscles and anything, it is essential for growth and you need pain and destruction to move on. That’s how you know how you exercise well. When your muscles are torn and they need to regrow and repair. Otherwise you haven’t worked out enough... It’s the same for group engagement ... So how to manage [conflict] I don’t know but … that’s key.” (Participant 17; Research investigator).

Measuring community engagement impact outcomes is an evolving area

Researchers discussed a variety of community engagement outcomes they believed should be measured, such as participant attendance at meetings or activities, community partner needs, conflicts and conflict resolution, the amount of money and funding raised by community partners, and community partner self-efficacy. The researchers acknowledged it is easier to measure and evaluate short-term community engaged research outcomes like impact on study design rather than impact on health or impact of community engaged research on a community. However, they noted the lack of a commonly accepted impact measurement framework to guide the measurement of community engaged research for its impact. There was little agreement between researchers about how to measure community engaged research impact outcomes or which impact outcomes matter the most. Community engaged research might lack a commonly accepted impact measurement framework because it is an emerging field or as a result of differing goals of engagement that guide the evaluation of impact outcomes between projects. In the discussion about impact measurement, a researcher stated:

“What if we did this on the principle of justice? How would you measure justice? We get back to what you said about the goals. The goal is to incorporate justice, and that’s really why we are doing it. Can you measure something like that or do you want to be democratic. Or how would you measure whether your process was democratic and just or to some extent inclusiveness? It’s very hard to measure these types of things.” (Participant 20; Research investigator).

Researchers and policy-makers alike increasingly recognize the importance of seeking diverse and inclusive perspectives in translational research. Nonetheless, limited information is available about the role and scope of community engagement or specific approaches to community engagement across the full spectrum of the research cycle [ 7 ]. In particular, this paper offers the diverse perspectives of research investigators, staff, and community partners actively involved in community engaged research. This forum discussion allowed these diverse forum participants an opportunity to share their experiences and perspectives about the benefits and challenges of community engaged research. Our participants noted that community engagement is an ongoing and iterative process to which mutual trust and transparency are central and that the roles of community partners must be well-defined and clearly communicated for the engagement to be successful. These main themes are overall consistent with the key principles of engagement (i.e., reciprocal relationships, partnerships, co-learning, and transparency-honesty-trust) as highlighted in the recent literature [ 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 ].

Whereas all forum participants recognized the benefits of community engaged research, some of the subthemes such as engaging community in various stages of research suggest the need for closer dialogue between researchers and community partners in earlier phases of research. It was interesting to note that researchers felt engagement should happen less, once the research started; it was important for them to not waste community partners’ time by focusing on “mission driven things.” We did not find a similar concern about time burden among community partners. An essential element of community engaged research is the meaningful participation of a broadly representative group of stakeholders whose contributions are sought through all phases of the research, beginning with the planning and research question [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Indeed, the researcher participants in the forum noted that the most effective community engaged research involved community partners to identify a problem and formulate the appropriate research questions. Some of the data driven approaches such as the discrete choice experiment—a quantitative technique to uncover how individuals value selected attributes of a program by asking them to state their choice over different hypothetical alternatives [ 15 ]—may be useful to elicit community preferences as a way of enhancing their engagement in the early phase of research. For example, a recent systematic review [ 16 ] revealed that the discrete choice experiment, when applied to designing and characterizing therapies in the planning phase of research, resulted in increased acceptability and appropriateness.

Engagement in “all stages of the research process” came through as a strong theme within the Community partner group. Community partners in the forum appreciated the “back and forth” interaction between researchers and community members. A mixed methods study [ 17 ] showed that researchers do not routinely give feedback to community partners. Yet, community partners who receive feedback are motivated for further engagement as they feel it supports their learning and development while prompting researchers to reflect on the impact of community partners [ 17 ]. One of the ways in which researchers can provide such feedback would be to bring study findings back to the community—a lacking area in the research process, as noted by the community members. A survey of 109 community partners involved in health research with academic institutions [ 18 ] reported “research results disseminated to the community” as one of the top indicators of successful community engagement. Taken together, these findings suggest the need for culturally relevant and appropriate strategies to promote mutual feedback and better integration of community partners in the research process.

Many of the challenges discussed by the forum participants in the subthemes of mission-driven vs. checking the box, breadth and depth of engagement, and conflict in community engaged research occurred because priorities, motivations, and ways of working differed between researchers and community partners, which caused conflict and power struggles. Some of the practical issues associated with these subthemes (e.g., difficulty recruiting a set of experienced partners well connected to the target community or patient group, long-term commitment needed from partners, and time and cost limits imposed on studies) were recognized in a focus group study [ 19 ] in which problems connecting with the right person at the right time, individual member reluctance, and lack of skills and training were identified as main barriers to stakeholder engagement.

As suggested by our participants, clear and transparent communication is central to resolving potential conflicts in community engaged research. In particular, transparency in communication between community partners and researchers in terms of budget and research administrative processes [ 20 ] has been noted as key factors for improved community engaged research partnerships. Additionally, shared training opportunities for community partners and researchers may be helpful to build community partner skills about research and facilitate engagement on both sides [ 19 ]. The subtheme of recruitment and selection of community partners underscores the importance and need for the development of community capacity to facilitate more meaningful engagement in research. At the policy level, community engaged research needs to build in appropriate time, and funders should acknowledge this need as part of providing an appropriate context and budget for community engagement, to create the conditions where engagement has the potential to have a positive impact.

Forum participants considered a variety of impact assessments for their research and overall reported positive impact of community engagement on research, ensuring its appropriateness and relevance. They noted that it was difficult to have a common impact measure because of differing goals of engagement between projects. Indeed, a recent review of 68 studies addressing measures of community engagement reported that most studies used narrative descriptions of impact data [ 21 ]. Similarly, a mixed-methods study in which documents of 200 primary care research projects were examined and 191 researchers were surveyed noted qualitative reporting of community engaged research impact for study processes (e.g., designing methods or developing participant information) or on individual principal investigators (e.g., developing the grant application, managing the research, conducting the research, or the reputation of the principal investigator’s institution) [ 22 ]. A qualitative investigation [ 23 ] in the United Kingdom also revealed diverse views among stakeholders on what to measure and how to measure their impact. Taken together, the evidence base as to what constitutes adequate impact measures of community engaged research seems evolving. The findings suggest further substantive methodological development in terms of the way in which the impact of community engaged research is measured and reported, a clearer conceptualization of the nature of “impact,” and qualitative and quantitative methods for assessment of impact [ 23 ].

There are a number of study limitations to discuss. First, this was a convenience sample that was created for the purpose of the forum. In particular, we targeted researchers and community members who were already supportive of the idea of community involvement in research. Therefore, generalizability of the findings is limited. Additionally, we did not collect detailed sociodemographic information about the forum participants. The interpretation of the qualitative data might have looked different had we had this information such as age, working status (working/retired), or other relevant characteristics (roles, past experiences, etc.). Finally, it is possible that some of the moderators and notetakers of the concurrent discussion groups may not have been independent of the participants in his/her group and might have influenced the discussion either positively or negatively. We attempted to minimize the potential bias and impact of moderators and notetakers on the nature and direction of the discussion in each group by training them prior to the forum and offering them with an interview guide.

Successful implementation of healthcare interventions relies on community engagement at every stage, ranging from assessing and improving the acceptability of innovations to the sustainability of implemented interventions. In order to optimize the implementation of healthcare interventions, researchers, administrators, and policymakers must weigh the benefits and costs of complex multidimensional arrays of healthcare policies, strategies, and treatments [ 24 ]. This cannot be accomplished without meaningful engagement of key community partners throughout the research process. Challenges identified by the study teams underscore the need for enhanced community engagement training, joint planning of engagement activities, agreeing upon community partner roles and expectations in the early-planning stages of the proposed study, and increased opportunities for community participation in the research process.

Availability of data and materials

The data (anonymized transcripts from the group interviews used for the purpose of this analysis) that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Clinical and Translational Science Awards

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Forsythe LP, Ellis LE, Edmundson L, Sabharwal R, Rein A, Konopka K, Frank L. Patient and stakeholder engagement in the PCORI pilot projects: description and lessons learned. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(1):13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3450-z .

Wennerstrom A, Springgate BF, Jones F, Meyers D, Henderson N, Brown A, Niyogi A, Martin D, Smith, III J, Kirkland AL, Jones L, Norris KC. Lessons on patient and stakeholder engagement strategies for pipeline to proposal awards. Ethn Dis. 2018;28(Suppl 2):303–10. https://doi.org/10.18865/ed.28.S2.303 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kwon SC, Tandon SD, Islam N, Riley L, Trinh-Shevrin C. Applying a community-based participatory research framework to patient and family engagement in the development of patient-centered outcomes research and practice. Transl Behav Med. 2018;8(5):683–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibx026 .

Silberberg M, Martinez-Bianchi V. Community and stakeholder engagement. Prim Care. 2019;46(4):587–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pop.2019.07.014 .

Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. FAQs for applicants. http://www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/how-apply/faqs-applicants#RESEARCH%21WE%20FUND . Accessed 3 Dec 2020.

Manafo E, Petermann L, Mason-Lai P, Vandall-Walker V. Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of patient engagement in health research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0282-4 .

Fergusson D, Monfaredi Z, Pussegoda K, Garritty C, Lyddiatt A, Shea B, Duffett L, Ghannad M, Montroy J, Murad MH, Pratt M, Rader T, Shorr R, Yazdi F. The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4(1):17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-018-0099-x .

Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci. 2013;15(3):398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048 .

Forsythe LP, Frank LB, Hemphill R, Tafari AT, Szydlowski V, Lauer M, Goertz C, Clauser S. Researchers, patients, and stakeholders evaluating comparative-effectiveness research: a mixed-methods study of the PCORI reviewer experience. Value Health. 2018;21(10):1161–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.03.018 .

Granados-Santiago M, Valenza MC, López-López L, Prados-Román E, Rodríguez-Torres J, Cabrera-Martos I. Shared decision-making and patient engagement program during acute exacerbation of COPD hospitalization: a randomized control trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(4):702–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.12.004 .

Sheridan S, Schrandt S, Forsythe L, Hilliard TS. Paez KA; advisory panel on patient engagement (2013 inaugural panel). The PCORI engagement rubric: promising practices for partnering in research. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15(2):165–70. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2042 .

Haynes SC, Rudov L, Nauman E, Hendryx L, Angove RSM, Carton T. Engaging Stakeholders to Develop a Patient-centered Research Agenda: Lessons Learned From the Research Action for Health Network (REACHnet). Med Care. 2018;56(Suppl 10):S27–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Concannon TW, Fuster M, Saunders T, Patel K, Wong JB, Leslie LK, Lau J. A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(12):1692–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-2878-x .

Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in health care. BMJ. 2004;328(7436):360–1. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7436.360 .

Salloum RG, Shenkman EA, Louviere JJ, Chambers DA. Application of discrete choice experiments to enhance stakeholder engagement as a strategy for advancing implementation: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0675-8 .

Mathie E, Wythe H, Munday D, Millac P, Rhodes G, Roberts N, Smeeton N, Poland F, Jones J. Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient and public involvement: a mixed methods study. Health Expect. 2018;21(5):899–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12684 .

Skinner JS, Williams NA, Richmond A, Brown J, Strelnick AH, Calhoun K, de Loney EH, Allen S, Pirie A, Wilkins CH. Community experiences and perceptions of clinical and translational research and researchers. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2018;12(3):263–71. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2018.0050 .

Harrison JD, Anderson WG, Fagan M, Robinson E, Schnipper J, Symczak G, Hanson C, Carnie MB, Banta J, Chen S, Duong J, Wong C, Auerbach AD. Patient and family advisory councils (PFACs): identifying challenges and solutions to support engagement in research. Patient. 2018;11(4):413–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0298-4 .

Carter-Edwards L, Grewe ME, Fair AM, Jenkins C, Ray NJ, Bilheimer A, et al. Recognizing cross-institutional fiscal and administrative barriers and facilitators to conducting community-engaged clinical and translational research. Acad Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003893 .

Bowen DJ, Hyams T, Goodman M, West KM, Harris-Wai J, Yu JH. Systematic review of quantitative measures of stakeholder engagement. Clin Transl Sci. 2017;10(5):314–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12474 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Blackburn S, McLachlan S, Jowett S, Kinghorn P, Gill P, Higginbottom A, Rhodes C, Stevenson F, Jinks C. The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: a mixed methods study. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4(1):16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-018-0100-8 .

Crocker JC, Boylan AM, Bostock J, Locock L. Is it worth it? Patient and public views on the impact of their involvement in health research and its assessment: a UK-based qualitative interview study. Health Expect. 2017;20(3):519–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12479 .

Norris JM, White DE, Nowell L, Mrklas K, Stelfox HT. How do stakeholders from multiple hierarchical levels of a large provincial health system define engagement? A qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0625-5 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

The study was supported, in part, by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR003098 and U54AI108332). Additional funding was received from the National Institute of Nursing Research (P30NR018093) and National Institute on Aging (R01AG062649). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, USA

Hae-Ra Han, Ashley Xu, Kyra J. W. Mendez, Mona Bahouth & Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb

The Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Community Engagement Program, Baltimore, MD, USA

Hae-Ra Han, Melanie Reese, Lee Bone & Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb

The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

Hae-Ra Han, Safiyyah Okoye & Lee Bone

Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC, USA

Joycelyn Cudjoe

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

Mona Bahouth

Older Women Embracing Life, Baltimore, MD, USA

Melanie Reese

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

HRH conceived of the study. All authors contributed to data acquisition. HRH, AX, KJWM, SO, JC, and MB analyzed and interpreted the qualitative data regarding the community engaged research experiences and preferences. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hae-Ra Han .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board considered this a quality improvement project and waived it from a full review.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Han, HR., Xu, A., Mendez, K.J.W. et al. Exploring community engaged research experiences and preferences: a multi-level qualitative investigation. Res Involv Engagem 7 , 19 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00261-6

Download citation

Received : 15 December 2020

Accepted : 09 March 2021

Published : 30 March 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00261-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Community engaged research
• Qualitative
• Group interviews

Research Involvement and Engagement

ISSN: 2056-7529

• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.98(2); 2020 Jun

Measuring Community‐Engaged Research Contexts, Processes, and Outcomes: A Mapping Review

Tana m. luger.

1 VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Health Services Research and Development Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy

ALISON B. HAMILTON

2 David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles

3 Southeast Louisiana Veterans Healthcare System, South Central Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center

4 Louisiana State University School of Medicine, Section of Community and Population Medicine

Associated Data

Policy points.

• Community‐engaged research (CEnR) engenders meaningful academic‐community partnerships to improve research quality and health outcomes. CEnR has increasingly been adopted by health care systems, funders, and communities looking for solutions to intractable problems.
• It has been difficult to systematically measure CEnR's impact, as most evaluations focus on project‐specific outcomes. Similarly, partners have struggled with identifying appropriate measures to assess outcomes of interest.
• To make a case for CEnR's value, we must demonstrate the impacts of CEnR over time. We compiled recent measures and developed an interactive data visualization to facilitate more consistent measurement of CEnR's theoretical domains.

Community‐engaged research (CEnR) aims to engender meaningful academic‐community partnerships to increase research quality and impact, improve individual and community health, and build capacity for uptake of evidence‐based practices. Given the urgency to solve society's pressing public health problems and increasing competition for funding, it is important to demonstrate CEnR's value. Most evaluations focus on project‐specific outcomes, making it difficult to demonstrate CEnR's broader impact. Moreover, it is challenging for partnerships to identify assessments of interest beyond process measures. We conducted a mapping review to help partnerships find and select measures to evaluate CEnR projects and to characterize areas where further development of measures is needed.

We searched electronic bibliographic databases using relevant search terms from 2009 to 2018 and scanned CEnR projects to identify unpublished measures. Through review and reduction, we found 69 measures of CEnR's context, process, or outcomes that are potentially generalizable beyond a specific health condition or population. We abstracted data from descriptions of each measure to catalog purpose, aim (context, process, or outcome), and specific domains being measured.

We identified 28 measures of the conditions under which CEnR is conducted and factors to support effective academic‐community collaboration (context); 43 measures evaluating constructs such as group dynamics and trust (process); and 43 measures of impacts such as benefits and challenges of CEnR participation and system and capacity changes (outcomes).

Conclusions

We found substantial variation in how academic‐community partnerships conceptualize and define even similar domains. Achieving more consistency in how partnerships evaluate key constructs could reduce measurement confusion apparent in the literature. A hybrid approach whereby partnerships discuss common metrics  and  develop locally important measures can address CEnR's multiple goals. Our accessible data visualization serves as a convenient resource to support partnerships’ evaluation goals and may help to build the evidence base for CEnR through the use of common measures across studies.

W hile the traditional approach to health research treats individuals and populations as the subjects of inquiry, community‐engaged research (CEnR) involves establishing and maintaining authentic partnerships between researchers and those who are being researched, including local community members and organizations. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 CEnR is an umbrella term used to describe a range of activities and approaches (eg, stakeholder engagement, patient engagement, public involvement, participatory action research), with community‐based participatory research (CBPR) being the longest standing and best known of these related to health. 6 Yet, all approaches to CEnR borrow from CBPR's emphasis on community members as equal partners in many aspects of the research process, from the identification and selection of priority topics and research questions, to developing data collection materials and analytical strategies, to drafting and disseminating the publication of findings. 1 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 In addition, CEnR often aims to build the future capacity of academic‐community partnerships by improving community members’ research literacy and researchers’ concurrent understanding of the community's history and needs. 2 , 3 , 5 , 11

CEnR is theorized to impact research evidence and community health outcomes through a number of different mechanisms. 1 , 3 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 For example, including community input into research design is likely to result in evidence and subsequent interventions that are more applicable to the community's needs and thus, more readily accepted by the community. 12 , 14 , 16 , 17 Community input can also improve the translation of research findings to practice by providing evidence that is tailored to the setting and population of interest. 1 , 3 , 13 , 14 Similarly, community members are likely to greatly improve the translation and dissemination of research evidence by championing the findings within the community and suggesting alternatives to publication. 11 , 16 , 20 Finally, the process of CEnR can build trust and mutual respect and facilitate future research participation, especially in populations that have traditionally been mistreated by or excluded from health research. 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 19

The potential impacts of CEnR on population health outcomes are less established in the literature. Yet, engaged research is theorized to empower community members to become educated about their own health and activated to participate in their health care. 12 Engagement in research may also lead community members to make better health decisions based on the knowledge uncovered, which can improve long‐term health outcomes. 17 Finally, participation in engaged research may contribute to greater community acceptance of research, subsequently guiding community action. 12

Much of the literature on participatory approaches has relied on case studies, qualitative inquiry, or literature review to suggest conceptual models and best practices for conducting engaged research. 11 , 16 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 Although many proximal and distal outcomes are assumed to be affected by community engagement, there is, in fact, little evidence in the literature to demonstrate these relationships. Recent systematic reviews have shown that popular evaluation techniques are to (a) count the number of participants involved in engaged projects or events, 25 or (b) elicit researcher and community member impressions of the impact of participation through qualitative approaches such as interviews or focus groups, 10 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 which, while valuable, limits the ability to systematically measure change and compare outcomes across studies. Some CEnR projects have developed their own limited‐item scales to assess the short‐term health outcomes or processes most relevant to the particular researcher‐community partnership. 25 , 30 The selection of locally relevant tools is essential to the practice of CEnR as it allows researchers and community members to share control of all stages of the research process, including which outcomes are most relevant to the partnership. 31 Nevertheless, the reliance on local tools impedes the comparison of outcomes across studies or the validation of broader CEnR constructs, which could help to strengthen the impact of the field and increase recognition of CEnR as a scientific endeavor. 32 To achieve CEnR's broader goals of improved health and research, there may be value in partnerships utilizing common or broadly generalizable measures of engagement in projects alongside locally tailored tools. We encourage partnerships to consider the multiple aims of CEnR when discussing evaluation practices to assess their projects.

CEnR approaches have been increasingly adopted by health care systems, funders, and communities looking for solutions to seemingly intractable problems. 13 , 17 , 22 , 33 Although researchers and community members who have partnered can attest to the benefits of CEnR, there is a growing emphasis in health research on funding evidence‐based interventions. 34 Thus, it is more important than ever for engaged partnerships to demonstrate evidence of the positive impacts of CEnR. To facilitate consistent measurement of the impact of engaged research across projects over time and contribute to a clearer understanding of the value of community engagement, our aims were to:

• Identify and categorize evaluation tools or measures of community engagement contexts, processes, and outcomes that can be used across a variety of CEnR projects in conjunction with locally tailored measures
• Characterize current gaps in measurement
• Serve as a resource for future CEnR projects

Search Strategy

To achieve our stated aims, we opted to conduct a mapping review. Mapping reviews categorize existing literature according to a particular theoretical model, participant population, or setting. This allows the reviewers to identify gaps in the literature, which can inspire further reviews or primary research. 35 , 36 In addition, mapping reviews often present results in a user‐friendly visual format to support future work. 35 , 36

To ensure a comprehensive search for measures of engagement, we adopted multiple strategies. First, we scanned the peer‐reviewed literature using two popular electronic bibliographic databases: Web of Science (including Medline/PubMed), and Academic Search Premier (including PsycINFO). The Web of Science Core Collection includes citations across the social science disciplines, allowing for a search across an index of 148 sociology, 140 psychology, 90 anthropology, and 82 health policy/services peer‐reviewed journals as examples. 37 Academic Search Premier similarly indexes across more than 3,900 peer‐reviewed journals across disciplines. 38 We limited our search to include only English‐language articles published between January 2009 and December 2018, as other reviews have targeted earlier time frames. 16 , 29 , 39 , 40 , 41 Four separate searches were conducted; search terms were entered into the databases using quotation marks and included (1) community‐engaged research AND evaluation , (2) stakeholder‐engaged research AND evaluation , (3) community‐based participatory research AND evaluation , and (4) participatory action research AND evaluation for a total of 2,708 abstracts to review (1,399 via Web of Science and 1,309 via Academic Search Premier).

The lead author (T.L.) reviewed each title and abstract to eliminate duplicate records, study protocols, and those that diverged from community member, stakeholder, patient, or public engagement in research ( n = 1,666). At this stage, the following inclusion criteria were also applied: (a) the study must describe an assessment or evaluation (qualitative or quantitative) of an engaged project, thus excluding articles that only described conceptual models or practical steps for conducting engaged research ( n = 482), and (b) the assessment or evaluation must measure the context, process, or outcome of engaged research. These evaluation targets were selected based on the theoretical and practical premise that understanding the context and process of engaged research is critical to interpreting the ultimate impact. 16 , 27 In addition, we aimed to uncover a body of “universal” measures that could be used by partnerships consistently across studies in addition to locally tailored tools. Thus, the lead author excluded articles where the only results reported were study‐specific and would not readily generalize to other engaged research settings. These included varied outcomes such as blood glucose level in a diabetes population, environmental health literacy in a sample of school children, or level of trauma awareness in a clinician group (to name a few) ( n = 353). Although this decision likely excludes a number of specific health‐related items that could be useful for some engaged partnerships, it was not feasible to include and analyze the wide breadth of study‐specific outcomes in this particular review.

As a secondary approach, we conducted a scan of “community‐engaged research organizations” (via Google search and discussions with colleagues engaged in CEnR) to identify academic centers and working groups actively pursuing engaged research; we searched these organizations’ websites for additional evaluation resources and tools not captured by the bibliographic databases. This yielded a total of 25 additional white papers and instruments. Thus, the full text of 126 articles and white papers were obtained and reviewed to glean specific qualitative and quantitative assessments. After eliminating all papers that did not describe the measurement scales or items used ( n = 57), this left a total of 69 final measures for data abstraction.

Data Abstraction, Validation, and Visualization

The lead author abstracted data from the individual study authors’ own descriptions of (a) the purpose of the measure, and (b) the domains measured. Additionally, the lead author classified the measures according to whether the study authors’ stated purpose or goal of the measure most aligned with a context evaluation (examining the conditions in which CEnR will be conducted), process evaluation (examining how the engagement is done), or outcome/impact evaluation (examining the intended effects). 16 , 27 Measures were also allowed to represent multiple goals—for example, a measure of how partnership conflict was resolved could be used during engagement to measure the process and postengagement to determine if a change has occurred—if indicated in the study author's stated purpose and the item descriptions of each subscale or subsection. Our aim in allowing measures to serve in multiple evaluation categories is for academic‐community partners to consider these measures according to what would be useful for their specific contexts.

If an article did not include a discussion of the measure's domains, the measure's items were summarized with key phrases to provide a cross‐item description. To validate the data abstraction, the other two authors (A.H. and G.T.) each independently coded half of the measures as described, so that all 69 measures were reviewed by two authors. All three authors met biweekly to arbitrate coding conflicts through consensus. The authors also maintained individual process memos to highlight patterns and themes within the data. Selected measures from each evaluation type (context, process, and outcome) can be found in Appendix Table 1. The full 69 measures are represented in Online Supplemental Table 1.

To serve as a resource for future CEnR projects, we utilized Tableau Public to produce interactive data visualizations of the discovered measures and the domains represented. 42 Through this visual display, we hope to support researchers and community members to identify measures of engagement to use in their own CEnR projects, according to their own goals. We encourage readers to explore this resource at https://public.tableau.com/profile/tana.luger#!/vizhome/MeasuresofCommunityEngagement/AuthorsandDomains .

Across the literature and measures reviewed, we found substantial variation in how researchers conceptualized and defined domains to measure. For example, the academic‐community partnership central to CEnR has been described in the literature with such disparate phrases as “reciprocal relationships,” 19 “collaborative partnerships,” 5 “mutually effective partnerships,” 19 “mutual respect and acceptance of differences,” 43 and “shared power and decision‐making,” 13 , 44 , 45 among others. In addition, nearly half (47.8%, n = 33) of the included measures could be applicable to more than one domain (ie, context, process, or outcome evaluations).

We found the boundaries between core CEnR concepts were similarly unclear. For example, although many studies attempted to evaluate the role that community members had adopted within the engaged research, the scope of the evaluation varied significantly. Some studies asked community members to quantify the specific tasks in which they engaged. 46 , 47 Some focused on the community members’ roles in the research and communication processes that promote role clarity. 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 Still other studies focused on the community's perception of the impact that their specific activities had on the research project. 52 , 53 , 54

In order to place our results within the context of the larger literature and characterize gaps, we present a brief table of the systematic reviews ( n = 12) that were uncovered utilizing our specific search criteria (see Appendix Table 2). As our aim was not to conduct a review of reviews, but to discover measures of engagement, it is important to note that these 12 are not an exhaustive representation of the previously reviewed literature. Nevertheless, the authors of the included systematic reviews frequently call for the need to develop reliable and valid measures in order to better understand contextual factors, partnerships, and the impacts of engagement. Many of the systematic reviews also acknowledge the value of quantitative and qualitative measurement for better analyzing engagement processes.

Context Measures

We identified 28 measures that assess the context of engaged research (see Figure  1 ); these measures predominantly focus on the conditions under which the research will be conducted and considerations for effective collaborations between researchers and community members. The majority of context measures evaluate the community's capacity for engaged research (see Figure  2 ), including training and past CEnR experiences. For example, a quantitative needs assessment by Goytia and colleagues. inquires about the experiences of community organizations in research and evaluation, their interest in building specific research skills like survey development or literature review, and interest in partnering in the future. 55 Similarly, the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement's tool encourages community organizations to self‐evaluate their capacity to utilize research evidence, a key skill for active participation in an engaged project. 56 In addition, a survey by Rubin and colleagues asks community members to assess their level of confidence in working with researchers as well as motivations and attitudes toward research. 57 Many context measures also assess the strengths and resources of the community that may be brought to bear in an engaged research project such as social capital and organizational linkages. A qualitative interview guide by Gibbons and colleagues encourages community members to reflect on the strengths within the community that may be drawn on for an academic‐community partnership. 58 This includes a variety of community resources such as social groups, occupations, and sources of information. In addition, the Partnership River of Life participatory exercise published by Sanchez‐Youngman and Wallerstein encourages partners to develop a “communal narrative” about the origins and key events of their partnership in order to better understand the larger historical, social, political, and economic context in which the partnership is aiming to function. 59

Engagement Measures by Evaluation Type

For interactive data visualization, please visit https://public.tableau.com/profile/tana.luger#!/vizhome/MeasuresofCommunityEngagement/AuthorsandDomains .

Number of Domains Represented in Engagement Measures by Evaluation Type

Several measures evaluate the academic researcher's capacity for engaged research, such as researchers’ sufficient knowledge and understanding of the community or expectations and goals for engagement. The Engage for Equity Key Informant survey asks partners to rate whether the principal investigator of an engaged project is from a similar cultural background as the targets of the project and whether the project has provided any training or discussions about oppression and cultural sensitivity. 60 Another survey, this one by DiGirolamo, asks researchers to assess their current skills and interests related to conducting CBPR (such as coalition‐building or how to obtain funding) for the purpose of uncovering needed academic infrastructure to support CBPR projects. 61

Finally, a few context measures encourage reflection on the specific logistics of an engaged project before it begins. For example, the Patient Engagement Workbook takes researchers through a number of important considerations for engaged research with patients, including the patient's role across the stages of research, methods to identify and recruit patient partners, institutional requirements, how patient concerns will be addressed, and processes for sharing data. 49 As another example, the Community Priority Index allows researchers and community members to rate the importance and ease of change of community issues in order to quantify the partnership's priorities for engaged research projects. 62

Process Measures

We identified 43 measures that evaluate the process of engaged research—ie, aspects of how community engagement occurred (see Figure  1 ). Manyprocess measures examine group dynamics within the partnership, 20 , 44 , 45 , 48 , 53 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 typically adapted from a 2003 instrument by Schulz, Israel, and Lantz. 68 For example, interview questions by Paige and colleagues elicit community members’ general experiences in the partnership to characterize the academic‐community collaboration. 67

Following the overarching goals of CEnR, many measures inquire about perceptions of influence and power, respect, trust, and communication across group interactions to ensure an equitable collaboration. 44 , 45 , 48 , 52 , 53 , 69 For example, the Youth‐led Participatory Action Research Process Template allows team members to rate the power‐sharing observed between teachers and students during an engaged project. 70 The Partnership Assessment in Community‐based Research (PAIR) survey encourages stakeholders to assess the fundamental characteristics of a strong partnership, including open and honest communication, equitable collaboration, shared partnership values such as mutual respect and trust, and a plan for sustaining the partnership. 43 In addition, quantitative measures by Braun and colleagues and Goodman and colleagues allow stakeholders to reflect whether the processes utilized within their partnership align with the goals of community‐based participatory research (CBPR). 64 , 65 The partnership is rated on the basis of how well or how often it “fosters capacity‐building for all partners” and “seeks and uses the input of community partners,” among others. 65 These measures allow stakeholders to determine whether the engaged project is being conducted in the spirit of equitable, collaborative CEnR.

Another body of measures examine partnership synergy, or enhanced collaboration among partner members. For example, the CBPR Rating Scale by Pivik and Goelman asks partners to rate the importance of shared decision making, goals, and values to their engaged work. 71 Similarly, the Engage for Equity Community Engaged survey encourages partners to assess the level at which they develop shared goals and strategies and respond to challenges and community needs. 60

Another process survey measures the practicalities of the engaged project, such as satisfaction with the organization and structure of project meetings. 53 Other measures examine the leadership in place for the engaged research, assessing the effectiveness of leadership and outlining governance decisions. 43 , 48 , 72 The Engage for Equity Community Engaged survey also asks respondents about project governance, such as who approved participation in the project on behalf of the community and who controlled project resources. 60 Such measures would be useful for obtaining feedback to inform effective partnership strategies for future engaged research.

Outcome and Impact Measures

We identified 43 measures that evaluate the outcome or impact of engaged research or the intended effects of community engagement (see Figure  1 ). Although a number of measures ask open‐ended questions about the benefits and challenges of participating in engaged research, 20 , 44 , 73 others more formally assess the perceived benefits of engaged research through survey methods in order to elicit reported impacts and costs within each academic‐community partnership. 51 , 52 , 53 , 58 Often, this involves asking stakeholders directly about their satisfaction with the partnership. 52 , 53

The majority of included outcome measures evaluate the systems and capacity changes produced by the engaged research, such as increased information and resource exchange among stakeholders, 44 , 74 , 75 joint activities or events, 75 ongoing or new funding for partnered work, 72 and improvements to services and programs. 48 Others focus especially on measuring improved community capacity for research, such as the knowledge and skills for future research engagement 51 , 53 , 73 , 76 as well as self‐efficacy and confidence in research participation. 70 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80

Similarly, many measures appraise the sustainability of the partnership by gauging stakeholder commitment to the work, 43 , 48 , 53 , 65 ongoing funding, 48 , 72 and enhanced research networks. 52 Still others quantify the number of publications, policy revisions, and solicited funding opportunities to judge the effectiveness of the partnership's efforts. 60 , 72 , 81 Yet, few measures in our sample directly assessed how engagement improved research practice or outcomes. The CBPR Model Visioning Guide encourages stakeholders to consider research productivity (ie, papers, grant applications, and awards) as an intermediate outcome, if applicable to their CBPR partnership. 82

Some measures examined more distal outcomes of the project such as policy changes 60 , 83 , 84 , 85 or community empowerment. For example, the Knowledge Ownership Social Network Analysis asks partners to rank stakeholders according to whether they held important information relating to the project. 74 Meant to be conducted longitudinally, the measure allows partners to track whether knowledge is elicited and owned equitably among stakeholders, reflecting a more active, empowered role of the community. Similarly, the Ripple Effect Tool quantifies the social connectedness or enhanced relationships and resource sharing within an engaged project. 83 Finally, the Engage for Equity Community Engaged survey asks about health outcomes to evaluate longer‐term changes to community health status or health outcomes of interest that may arise from the engaged project. 60

Through a mapping review technique and multipronged search, we identified 28 measures appropriate for a context evaluation, 43 process measures, and 43 outcome or impact measures of CEnR that have been developed over the past decade. The majority of the measures assessed community capacity for engaged research, either as a context evaluation to understand the community's skills and resources for engaged work or as an outcome or goal of an engaged project. This is in contrast to two recent systematic reviews, 16 , 29 which found a focus on process measurement.

Our work also supports the assertion of many authors that there is a lack of consensus on the goals of CEnR (see Appendix Table 2); we found substantial variation in how study authors conceptualized and defined even similar domains to measure. Although all measurement is important to understanding the impacts of engaged research, achieving more consistency in the ways that partnerships evaluate key constructs could reduce some of the measurement confusion apparent in the literature. Although many authors have valiantly attempted to systematically organize this complex body of literature, it is still difficult for partnerships to identify measures to use in their engaged projects. In the context of CEnR, it is important to highlight the inherent tension between a researcher‐driven approach to selecting established and validated metrics and a community‐driven process of developing and/or adopting metrics that may be more trusted, relevant, and useful in the local setting. Based on our experiences conducting engaged research, discussions with colleagues and community members, and CEnR's overarching goal of an equitable partnership where no member is more or less important than another, 31 , 86 , 87 it seems that a hybrid approach in which researchers and community members propose and discuss both measures of the broader domains of engaged research and the specific needs and goals of the community allows for both consistency and local tailoring. In addition, a hybrid approach that encourages partnerships to identify common metrics and develop locally important measures may represent a process whereby the desired outcomes of CEnR such as synergy, shared power, and shared ownership can flourish. 88 In that spirit, we hope that the included data visualization will serve as a convenient resource to help academic‐community partnerships identify common measures to consistently include in their projects. Similarly, although many research groups and organizations have attempted to create models to guide the practice of CEnR, 32 , 86 , 89 , 90 more collaborative work needs to be done to promote a consistent framework for engaged research. A clear, guiding model built and tested across settings and data sources, such as the one proposed recently by Oetzel and colleagues, 91 can encourage more systematic measurement of important domains.

In contrast to systematic reviews by Sandoval and colleagues 29 and Esmail, Moore, and Rein, 16 we discovered many context measures, which could indicate a growing interest in understanding the conditions in which CEnR will take place. As described earlier, these measures predominantly assessed the community's capacity for engaging in research, such as skills in literature review or experiences with academic researchers. This is a strong step forward in improving overall measurement of engaged research. As Sandoval and colleagues purport, “differences in context significantly influence processes, which form the core operational partnership features of CBPR. These differences … matter in terms of partnership success.” 29 Thus, understanding the context in which engagement takes place is a critical step in understanding the academic‐community partnership and measuring the impact of engaged research. We recommend that partnerships include measures throughout the life cycle of the engaged project so that the context, processes used, and impacts are all assessed. Ultimately, the strength of the partnership and ability to identify project impacts may be facilitated by carefully made decisions at the project's start to include systematic measurement. Recent toolkits and planning exercises 49 , 82 , 92 , 93 can facilitate equitable participation among stakeholders in this critical stage.

Nevertheless, many of the measures that we uncovered can be used at multiple points in the engaged research; for example, a process measure administered at the start and end of the project may simultaneously represent an evaluation of the engagement process as well as an outcome or impact of the project (eg, change in the partnership or process). Although our goal is to point partnerships toward valid and reliable common measures that can be used across settings, we do not suggest that partnerships rely solely on these measures for evaluation purposes. It is critical for academic‐community partners to have the flexibility to adapt measures to best fit their needs and local settings. Many of the qualitative guides or workbooks that we include in this paper are designed to encourage partnerships to self‐reflect on the type of measurement that best fits their needs. 49 , 82 , 92 , 94 , 95

Encouragingly, we identified a growing number of measures of the outcomes or impacts of engaged research, in contrast to the findings of previous systematic reviews. 16 , 26 , 29 , 40 , 41 In our analysis, investigators chose to measure such outcomes as change in community capacity (eg, increased information exchange or resource sharing), perceptions of whether the project aligned with CBPR principles, the number of activities or goals that the partnership achieved, the perceived benefits of the project, and satisfaction with the project. Although these outcomes can be easily documented from project activities or elicited from participants, there is much more to be done to determine the impact of engaged research. Recent efforts in this direction provide valuable practical guidance for addressing the heterogeneity of impacts in the literature 96 and the challenges of measuring across local settings and partnerships. 32 Similar to multiple reviews, 16 , 26 , 29 , 39 we found a lack of attention to long‐term outcomes such as improved uptake of research or an effect on health outcomes. We recommend that partnerships include both measures of the immediate effect of the research process or project (eg, increased group cohesion) as well as consider follow‐up measurement of more distal outcomes over time.

As previously mentioned, many systematic reviews call for the need to develop psychometrically valid and reliable quantitative measures in order to further understanding of the mechanisms at work (see Appendix Table 2). We agree that it is critical for the field to move toward validation of existing quantitative measures as well as the continued production of new instruments in order to assure that engaged research models and measures are evidence‐based. Nevertheless, we affirm that there is value in including qualitative measurement in engaged research projects, following our choice to include interview and focus group guides in our mapping review. Hearing directly from stakeholders in their own words can lend insight that can lead to better conceptualization and operationalization of engagement. In turn, this can lead to more valid and reliable quantitative measures. Additionally, the nonspecific effects of engagement that are theorized to be influential, such as cohesive relationships or feelings of being valued, may not be fully captured by a 7‐point Likert scale. As Conklin and colleagues mention, “the emphasis placed on assessing outcomes/impact of public involvement risks missing the normative value of public involvement as intrinsically good because it is a deliberative democratic process.” 41 There is likely inherent value in engaging community members in research beyond the targets of any intervention. Integrated qualitative and quantitative measurement may best capture these complex effects.

There are several limitations to our work. Although we relied on multiple strategies to ensure as comprehensive a search for measures as possible, we did not conduct a systematic review, due to the wide scope and ambiguity of the literature. As a result, we may have unintentionally missed a measure for inclusion. In addition, we reviewed only those measures whose individual items were described in the peer‐reviewed or online literature. It is possible that organizations have developed useful measures but have not identified an effective way to share them with other engaged groups. If readers have developed or identified measures for engaged work to recommend, we encourage them to contact the lead author for inclusion in the interactive data visualization.

Researchers and community members who have partnered on research together can attest to the perceived benefits of CEnR; many practical lessons learned and conceptual models can be found in the literature. Simultaneously, CEnR approaches and methods have been taken up by health care systems, funders, and communities looking for solutions to intractable problems, within the context of funding evidence‐based interventions. This means it is more important than ever for those conducting CEnR to be able to demonstrate impacts of CEnR over time, and for the field as a whole to make a case for the value of CEnR. Nevertheless, models and concepts of engaged research still remain muddy. We have compiled a body of recent measures and developed an interactive data visualization to facilitate more consistent measurement of the theoretical domains of CEnR. Along with previous systematic reviews, we hope that our work will support academic‐community partnerships to identify key domains to be measured within their projects and instruments with which to do so.

Appendix Table 1

Selected Measures of Community Engagement (Organized by Context, Process, or Outcome Evaluation Based on Study Authors’ Descriptions)

Appendix Table 2

Characteristics of Reviews (2009‐2018)

Supporting information

Supplemental Table 1 . Measures of Community Engagement (Organized by Context, Process, or Outcome Evaluation based upon Study Authors’ Descriptions)

Funding/Support

Drs. Hamilton and Luger were partially supported during the conduct of this review by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development, VA QUE 15–272 and VA SDR 10–012. Dr. True received support from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, South Central Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures : All authors have completed the ICMJE form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No disclosures were reported.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

How people learn about their local community

[embeded: src=”https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/old-assets/flash/140.swf” width=”585″ height=”640″ ]

Full Report: How People Learn About Their Local Community

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

Most Popular

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

Research on Community Resilience to Climate Change

Extreme weather events, large wildfires and other environmental disasters are becoming more frequent as a result of a warming plant. These climate-driven events are impacting communities in many ways, impairing air and water quality, polluting land and increasing health risks of residents. As communities work to protect public health from more heat waves, wildfire smoke, flooding and other climate-related disasters, they need resources and information to better prepare for, withstand and recover from them.

 EPA is at the forefront of research to empower communities to become more resilient to climate change

The research goals are to:

• Better identify communities most vulnerable to climate change impacts, including communities with environmental justice concerns. 
• Assess effects of climate change and associated extreme events on health and well-being. 
• Develop science-based resources and approaches that communities can use to create and implement climate change adaptation and resilience strategies.
• Create more sustainable communities that protect public health from the impacts of climate change. 

The results can lead to more resilient communities that can respond to a changing environment and recover quickly from climate-related disasters. 

Research to Support Climate Justice 

The research will assist all communities, and particularly communities that are most vulnerable to climate change, including communities with environmental justice concerns and tribes. 

EPA defines environmental justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. Climate change is an environmental justice concern, greatly impacting some communities more than others. These communities suffer a greater burden from floods, drought, wildfires and other environmental disasters. They have been historically overburdened with environmental health problems such as poor air and water quality and often face repeated threats from extreme weather events such as hurricanes and heavy rainfall from storms.  

Research Highlights: Identify and Engage Vulnerable Communities Impacted by Climate Change 

• Develop Approaches to Evaluate Vulnerabilities to Climate Change:  Research is under way to develop consistent approaches that will assist communities with environmental justice concerns in identifying and evaluating their susceptibilities and vulnerabilities to climate impacts and evaluating adaptation measures and options to improve resilience. Researchers will evaluate the effectiveness of these approaches and monitor their implementation for continuous improvement. 
• Develop Effective Community Engagement Strategies to Address Environmental Justice Concerns and Communicate Risks: Research based on social science is being conducted to provide the information and resources needed to develop effective engagement strategies to address environmental justice concerns, build trust in communities for change and communicate health risks to the public.  Public health officials, environmental managers, emergency responders, and others who work to protect public health during an extreme weather event can benefit from the development and use of effective community engagement and risk communication strategies. 
• Develop Interactive Engagement Tools on Climate Change: Interactive tools are being developed to translate emerging climate-related research in a way that informs individuals and communities about what they can do to prepare and respond to climate change threats. Research is being conducted to support the design of interactive, community-engaging tools and approaches using social and behavioral science approaches and evaluate their effectiveness.
• Develop Interventions to Reduce Exposures From Wildland Fire Smoke: Researchers are identifying, evaluating and developing strategies to reduce exposures to wildland fire smoke, increase public awareness of public health impacts of smoke exposure, and reduce the health burden of smoke exposures, especially in at-risk populations. These strategies can assist public health professionals and others with providing intervention strategies for reducing wildfire smoke exposures. 
• Build Environmental Health Literacy to Inform Health Decision Making: Research is under way to develop innovative approaches to increasing literacy about climate change impacts in communities with environmental justice concerns, and to explore the application and use of innovative approaches to increase evidence-based decision making about exposures to climate change-related stressors. 
• Support Development of Cumulative Impact Assessments for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Communities: Research is under way to develop methods and provide data and tools to quantify, map, and evaluate natural, social and economic assets and vulnerabilities to climate change and environmental injustice issues. This includes exploring ways to enhance existing tools such as EnviroAtlas, EPA’s interactive mapping tool that allows users to explore the relationship between the environment and human health and wellbeing. The new resources can be used by communities to identify and assess the cumulative impacts of environmental risks and develop resiliency plans to address them. 
• Provide Local-Scale Assessments and Information for Decision Making: Research is underway to provide local-scale assessments of climate impacts and vulnerabilities to inform local decisions to increase resilience. The research also includes building tools and networks that can deliver climate information to states and communities to inform decisions at the local scale. Special emphasis is being placed on addressing decision needs in communities with environmental justice concerns. 

Research Highlights: Provide New Approaches and Solutions to Prepare and Respond to Climate Change  

• Develop Approaches to Make Communities Resilient to Floods and Drought:  Climate change is resulting in more extreme precipitation events that bring flooding, permafrost melt and drought to frontline communities. Research is being conducted to provide information and approaches that can be used by communities with environmental justice concerns and tribes to prepare, respond, and adapt to these events.
• Conduct Social Analysis of Disaster Waste and Debris Management for More Equitable Decisions and Outcomes: Research is being conducted to further bring additional social considerations such as environmental justice concerns into remediation decisions at the state and local level. The information can be used to better navigate stakeholder conflicts that may arise during an emergency response. Resources such as assessment frameworks and field guides are being developed to assess long-term impacts in environmental justice communities and improve decontamination best practices to address equity concerns.

Develop Methods, Models and Other Tools That Provide Local-Scale Data for Communities: Communities require local-scale data and information to make decisions to develop resiliency to climate change impacts. National scale model projections of temperature and precipitation may not provide details needed for local decision making. Research is providing more localized or finer spatial resolution for model projections of temperature and precipitation and other tools that can be used by both skilled and non-skilled practitioners to inform local resilience decisions.

Investigate Nature-Based Solutions to Reduce Climate Change Impacts: Research is being conducted to understand how adopting nature-based solutions may mitigate some local climate-driven threats to public health and the environment and reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The research is providing information on the capabilities and limits of nature-based solutions and improving understanding of how partners and stakeholders can implement nature-based solutions for a variety of communities. 

EPA is collaborating with partners and stakeholders in the Chesapeake Bay region to investigate the ability of natural infrastructure, such as wetlands, tidal marshes, and seagrasses, to mitigate climate change impacts to coastal communities . 

Advance Approaches and Tools for Waste and Materials Management: The increased incidences of extreme weather events and natural disasters resulting from climate change means that better and more resilient waste and materials management planning is needed by communities. Researchers are developing and evaluating more scalable waste treatment technologies and advancing the development of an existing suite of waste management tools for addressing climate disaster cleanup. 

Resilience-Related Tools

• Environmental Resilience Tools Wizard
• EnviroAtlas
• EPA Science, Models, and Research Tools (SMaRT) Search
• Decision Support Tools for Incident Response

Related Links

• Emergency Response Research
• EPA's Climate Change Homepage
• Environmental Justice at EPA 
• EPA’s Environmental Justice Plan  
• Environmental Justice Research: Understanding Mitigating Environmental Health Disparities and Risks
• Learn more about EPA's research in the Strategic Research Action Plans Fiscal Years 2023-2026
• Climate Change Research Home
• Air Quality
• Community Resilience
• Ecosystems & Water
• Human Health
• Tools & Resources

Community broadband provides a local solution for a global problem

Associate Professor, Media and Communication Studies, Athabasca University

Postdoctoral Fellow, Computer Science, University of Washington

Associate Dean, Master of Design, Emily Carr University

Disclosure statement

Michael Lithgow has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Esther Jang is affiliated with the University of Washington and Local Connectivity Lab. In the past she has received funding from the Internet Society, IEEE Connecting the Unconnected, King County, and City of Seattle grants in support of community networks.

Katherine Gillieson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Washington provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

According to a 2023 study by the International Telecommunications Union, approximately 2.6 billion people are unconnected to the internet . It’s a staggering figure.

There are many reasons for this, including poverty, reliability of service, access to linguistically and culturally relevant content, leisure time, access to equipment and training. But perhaps the most debilitating barrier is access to network infrastructure .

One way communities are overcoming network access barriers is by creating networks themselves. A digital network built and operated by the people who use it is a collective response to what is often a systemic problem. Communities are building and operating their own broadband networks all over the world .

Developing network literacy

One of the key challenges that arises when people want to build their own broadband network is ensuring community members have the knowledge and skills required to address the complexities involved. Many different kinds of information have to be assembled and strategically navigated .

This is the problem we set out to solve with the Community Network Roadmap .

We came together as a small team of engineers, social scientists and designers to create a document that helps non-experts design, create and sustain a community-run broadband network. The elements of a network need to not only be built and installed, but also maintained, repaired and replaced over time. These elements include both technical and social infrastructure such as key personnel and community relationships .

Building and maintenance

The Roadmap is based on research evaluating success strategies of community networks in Argentina and Mexico. Members of the team also had experience building networks in North America and working with community network builders from around the world. In the Roadmap, we wanted to emphasize two strategic priorities: building and maintaining.

Building encompasses the urgency and complexity of getting a network off the ground, while maintaining considers planning for long-term network sustainability .

We designed the Roadmap using visual strategies for clarity — for example, we strategically differentiated the layout with colour coding, using yellow for “Build” and purple for “Maintain.” This design approach improves understanding and also anticipates future challenges related to both the inception and maintenance phases of the community network’s lifecycle.

Inclusive information design

Information design can organize complex information in more accessible and inclusive ways . We organized the content structurally and visually to provide a clear, accessible, easy-to-navigate and usable document for as broad an audience as possible .

The Roadmap emphasizes community efforts aimed at inclusion, accountability, group decision-making and long-term planning. And it also presents the technical steps and stages required for building a network in an accessible way — including local needs assessments, network mapping, equipment choices and deploying a pilot network.

The publication structure, guided by principles of information design, breaks up complex blocks of information into manageable chunks using accessible design features such as cross-referencing and signposting strategies. The Roadmap is a quick and ready resource for learning and training.

Harnessing community knowledge

Another key strategy identified in the Roadmap is how to pool technical knowledge among community members tackling a network project. The Roadmap lays out strategies for documenting and sharing troubleshooting and problem-solving resources, so that emerging community network wisdom does not get lost.

Community networks in different contexts will present unique opportunities and challenges. In creating this tool we drew on research and experience collaborating with community networks in rural Mexico and Argentina, the Philippines , and First Nations and Indigenous groups in Canada and the United States.

Our hope is that the Roadmap will provide both short and long-term considerations that a wide range of communities will find helpful in their own efforts to overcome connectivity barriers.

Read more: Broadband is the key infrastructure for the 21st century

Planning and maintaining networks

The Community Network Roadmap is designed for communities in both the early stages of considering a community network, as well as for those who already have a network and require resources for troubleshooting and maintenance.

For communities in early stages of thinking about a community network, the Roadmap offers thorough and research-based explanations of the many different issues, dimensions and considerations that can arise in the process of building and sustaining a community-run broadband network. For example, community relationships and accountable decision-making processes are as important to consider as network maps and equipment choices.

In addition, communities starting a network often overlook longer-term issues like succession planning, network expansion, equipment upgrades and changing local needs. Bringing in medium and long-term considerations at the outset can make growth and change easier to manage.

The Roadmap can also be used as a resource for troubleshooting specific problems.

A global community resource

The Roadmap is designed with a DIY method in mind — it is a document that we hope will help communities achieve connectivity goals using resources they have available. Feedback from communities will help us update and adapt it to better reflect the needs of those who use it.

Connectivity today plays a central role in allowing individuals and communities to fully realize citizenship and belonging. How we navigate everyday life and participate politically and socially, and how we access educational opportunities all now manifest, at least in part, through digital networks.

To be excluded from digital communication is often paramount to be being excluded from society. When communities are able to build and maintain broadband networks in accessible and reliable ways, they are afforded all of the opportunities and advantages of digital communication.

Shraddha Kumbhar contributed to the writing of this article; she was the lead information designer for the Roadmap and is a graduate from Emily Carr University’s Master of Design program.

• Internet access
• digital design
• Inclusive design

Head of School, School of Arts & Social Sciences, Monash University Malaysia

Chief Operating Officer (COO)

Clinical Teaching Fellow

Data Manager

Director, Social Policy

American Psychological Association

The impact of transgender legislation

Psychological science points to an increased risk of suicide and poor mental health amid a record number of bills aimed at restricting the rights of the LGBTQ+ population

APA policy supporting transgender, gender diverse, nonbinary individuals

Membership in APA

APA Community

A new exclusive destination tailored for APA members

Membership benefits

Unlock the tools, discounts, and services included with your membership

Renew your membership

Keep your benefits and access to leading psychological information

Psychology topics spotlight

Misinformation and disinformation

Resources to navigate trauma

Tips to foster a healthy workplace

Science and practice of psychology

Ethics Code

Continuing Education

Grants, Awards, and Funding

Standards and Guidelines

Networks and communities

Network with peers, enhance your professional development, expand your personal growth, and more

APA Divisions

High school teachers

Undergraduate educators

Graduate students

Early career psychologists

Managing your career

Resources to help you throughout your career in psychology, including finding a job, salary data, finances and money management, mentoring and supervision, and training and professional development

Explore career paths

Psychologist profiles

How did you get that job?

Events and training

Featured jobs

Apa publications and products.

Write with clarity, precision, and inclusion

Children’s books

Monitor on Psychology

Newsletters

Reports and surveys

Continuing education

Merchandise

Real Siblings

Jacob's Missing Book

Harper Becomes a Big Sister

Attachment-Based Family Therapy for Sexual and Gender Minority Young Adults and Their Non-Accepting Parents

Dismantling Everyday Discrimination

APA Services

Learn how you can help APA advocate for psychology-informed federal policy and legislation, and support psychological research

APA Services, Inc.

A companion professional organization to APA, serving all members and advocating for psychology

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Welcome to the Purdue Online Writing Lab

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Online Writing Lab at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service of the Writing Lab at Purdue. Students, members of the community, and users worldwide will find information to assist with many writing projects. Teachers and trainers may use this material for in-class and out-of-class instruction.

The Purdue On-Campus Writing Lab and Purdue Online Writing Lab assist clients in their development as writers—no matter what their skill level—with on-campus consultations, online participation, and community engagement. The Purdue Writing Lab serves the Purdue, West Lafayette, campus and coordinates with local literacy initiatives. The Purdue OWL offers global support through online reference materials and services.

A Message From the Assistant Director of Content Development 

The Purdue OWL® is committed to supporting  students, instructors, and writers by offering a wide range of resources that are developed and revised with them in mind. To do this, the OWL team is always exploring possibilties for a better design, allowing accessibility and user experience to guide our process. As the OWL undergoes some changes, we welcome your feedback and suggestions by email at any time.

Please don't hesitate to contact us via our contact page  if you have any questions or comments.

All the best,

Social Media

Facebook twitter.

Harris County Jail inmates to use tablets in hopes of preventing violence

HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) -- Electronic tablets are coming to the Harris County Jail.

They won't cost taxpayers a penny, and administrators say they will make the jail safer and help inmates by allowing them to reach family members and research their cases.

The tablets are already in some parts of the Harris County jail and will be given to every inmate by September.

They were provided by a Dallas-based company called Securus Technologies and have been in Texas state prisons since 2021.

The tablets are strictly monitored and not fully connected to the internet.

Inmates won't be able to get on social media, and they will only be able to call people on pre-approved lists.

The tablets have free apps that give inmates access to a law library, religious texts, and self-help resources.

"Idle time can lead to issues. So that they can engage in education and other services that come on the tablets, it helps them keep busy and occupied, which in turn makes it a lower jail climate," HCSO Asst. Chief Phillip Bosquez said.

But, one of the concerns is that the technology company charges inmates for the calls.

Some say tablets are just another way to profit off a group of people with a lot of free time.

As of Friday, the average stay at the Harris County Jail is 184 days.

"I talk to my wife every night. I have five kids as well, so I get to talk to my kids, my wife, and my mom," inmate Carlos Garcia said. "We're all humans. We all make mistakes, and it's good to have something like this in jail because you know it helps you. Sometimes it gets violent in here, and this will reduce a lot of violence going on in the dorms."

Inmates can also purchase approved movies and TV shows on the tablets.

For more on this story, follow Pooja Lodhia on Facebook , X and Instagram .

Related Topics

• HARRIS COUNTY
• HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE
• CRIME PREVENTION

Too much screen time linked to detrimental effects in kids: Study

Kick off Amazon Prime Day with these tech products

FCC approves $50 monthly internet subsidies for low-income households

HISD will spend $31 million on laptops and hotspots

Top stories.

Man opens fire at woman, causing stand-off in W. Houston, police say

Teen in custody for employee's death turned in by mom, sources say

Ozone Pollution Watch Saturday, storm chances return next week

Tollway victim may have agitated shooter for driving slow, family says

Man in hoodie seen running away after deadly shooting in SE Houston

Wrong-way crash shuts down EB lanes of Westpark Tollway near HWY 6

16-year-old dead after being hit by car in Sharpstown, HPD says

• 2 hours ago

14-year-old Houston Farmers Market suspected shooter arrested

How Notre Dame, South Bend and Indiana are working together like never before

SOUTH BEND — Here along the southern edge of the University of Notre Dame’s iconic world-renowned campus, a fresh vibe spills across Angela Boulevard from both directions.  

Once a distinct boundary between the world-class college and working-class South Bend, the now vibrant corridor has evolved into a connector of communities rather than a divide.  

Notre Dame President The Rev. John I. Jenkins refers to the stretch as “the front yard of the university,” as it symbolizes the profound and deliberate effort to not only interact with, but champion the success of the city around it.  

“One thing clear to me early on was that Notre Dame was not going to flourish if the community didn’t flourish,” Jenkins said. “It’s important to attracting faculty and new students who want to come to a place that is vibrant.” 

More: 'Learn every day': The Rev. John Jenkins reflects on legacy of 19 years leading Notre Dame

Jenkins, 70, is retiring as the university’s leader on June 1 after 19 years in the office. One of his lasting legacies will be Notre Dame’s growing commitment to bolstering the relationship between South Bend and the northern Indiana region. 

That commitment doesn’t seem lost on those with a stake in the welfare of South Bend. 

“From day one Father John has made an intentional commitment to not only be a force for good around the world, but here in our own community,” said Jeff Rea, president and CEO of the South Bend Regional Chamber of Commerce since 2010. “I give Father John the credit for building that culture at the university and inspiring the team under him to become super involved in the community around them and help solve local problems.” 

The former Mishawaka mayor pointed to the development of Eddy Street Commons directly south of Angela Boulevard as an example of how campus life is flowing deeper into the heart of South Bend.  

The now completed three-phase mixed-use development first opened in 2009. It contains 450 apartments and townhomes, retail, restaurants, hotels, office space and a long-awaited Trader Joes’s grocery store. 

Just east of the Twyckenham Drive bypass, a new $100 million redevelopment of Campus View apartments is nearing completion, adding 328 new apartments. A little farther south near the old, “Five Points” intersection where South Bend Avenue now curves into Eddy Street, prep is underway for another four story, 100-unit apartment building.  

All of which illustrates people's desire to come to South Bend and invest in being close to campus.

“In so far that the community is stronger, Notre Dame is stronger; and in so far that the community is not, we have challenges,” Jenkins said. “... Right now I feel there is a great partnership at work in this region to make it as strong as possible.” 

Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb can feel it. Finishing up his eight years leading the state, the Republican has often leaned on Jenkins and Notre Dame to advance the state’s interests and economic standing, crediting the university for “burying the mote around campus,” and helping to solve 21 st century problems, not as a “think” tank, but an action “tank.” 

That, he says, starts by embracing those around it. 

“Notre Dame has become a model as a community hub,” Holcomb said. “It’s a fountain of talent and creativity and vibrancy and volunteerism. You have people serving on community boards. They have become part of the community fabric.” 

More: When Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins steps down, legacy of research will remain

Taking research to a new level for Notre Dame and South Bend 

Even more than the residual development around campus and its surrounding neighborhoods is Notre Dame’s impact on business, especially start-ups coming from the university’s Innovation Park and the IDEA Center between Angela and South Bend Avenue. 

That, Rea insists, is the engine powering Notre Dame, already St. Joseph County's largest employer, into the top economic development driver of the region. 

Opened in 2009, Innovation Park is an entrepreneurship hub home to approximately 60 companies, many of them startups. The IDEA Center’s mission in managing Innovation is to help bring research and ideas of Notre Dame faculty and students to market.  

Furthermore, Innovation Park is a partner with the city-owned Ignition Park south of Sample Street on the site of Studebaker’s former engine production plant. Both are state certified with the hope that Ignition Park will be a landing pad for Innovation Park start-ups once they mature. 

“Partnership,” Jenkins stresses, is the key word and objective. 

“I remember an early conversation before I became president when someone said that Notre Dame has to stop thinking of South Bend as its service project or charity,” Jenkins said. “That really stuck with me. 

“The local community — South Bend and the region — are our partners and we have to join to make this region the best place that it can be. That’s in terms of cultural events, living experience and economic vitality.” 

Most recently that vitality was quantified in a 2018 study of Notre Dame’s economic impact in the region, drawing data from fiscal 2017. All told, according to the report, the university generates $2.46 billion annually for St. Joseph, Elkhart and Marshall counties. 

Obviously that impact has increased in the years since with continued construction projects, athletic success and research momentum.  

“Father Jenkins understood how the city and the university can work together,” explained South Bend Mayor James Mueller, now in his second term. “We’ve had a great working relationship. He’s very thoughtful, kind and a great partner to have. When you’re talking about doing big things you need the trust of a partner who’s committed.”  

More: Rev. Robert A. Dowd to replace Jenkins in July as president of University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame's renewed commitment to South Bend

Punctuating that commitment is Part III, section D of Notre Dame’s most recent strategic framework. For the first time in the school’s history the mission document addresses direct engagement with the South Bend Community and the state. 

“In the modern knowledge economy, the advancement of any global research university is wedded to the capacity of the surrounding community,” the report reads. “... It is now clearer than ever before that for Notre Dame to thrive, the South Bend region must also prosper. And a more prosperous South Bend strengthens Notre Dame.” 

Those who work closely with Jenkins can almost hear his voice in that passage.  

Holcomb can recite the examples from the Statehouse 150 miles south in Indianapolis, describing them as “bucket-list” experiences.  

Notre Dame football games. Garth Brooks and Billy Joel concerts. An NHL “Winter Classic” hockey game. Countless world-class plays and performances at the DeBartalo Performing Arts Center.  

“All that works hand and glove, “Holcomb said. “We’re better off when we’re working in unison — a city or town and a university or college — for a shared purpose. That’s when the community’s vibrancy becomes obvious and easy to sell.” 

Mueller sees it every day as the city and university integrate beyond campus.  

It may start at the weld between campus and Eddy Street Commons, but is punctuated by a new bike/pedestrian trail linking campus to downtown, continued revitalization of northeast neighborhoods and the research partnership between Innovation and Ignition parks.  

Lynn Coleman, a former assistant Mayor of South Bend under Stephen Luecke (1997-2012) has long been a leader and advocate of the city's Black community. He says he's always had a great relationship with Notre Dame and Father Jenkins, but does wonder if the university can do more to help advance the community's minority populations.

In 2001 Notre Dame opened the Robinson Community Learning Center south of campus to connect the university of with the Northeast Neighborhood community through education, access to the arts and civic engagement.

"I can't imagine what South Bend would be without Notre Dame," Coleman said. "The Black community here is better off because we have Notre Dame. That said, could Notre Dame be doing more? Probably. Father Jenkins has been great, and I hope Father Dowd will take off the mantle and continue to improve those relationships."

Coleman added that he and various other community organizations such as The Boys & Girls Club and LA Casa de Amistad met last month with Notre Dame representatives at the Robinson Learning Center to talk about how to continue to try and meet areas of community need.

Connecting with downtown is a need that Mueller is excited about as he emphasized Notre Dame's purchase of the former South Bend Tribune building at the intersection of Lafayette Boulevard and Colfax Avenue with the intent of investing in the city’s center. 

“The stage is set here,” Mueller said, “for truly a transformational partnership that will elevate both the university and the city.” 

More: Notre Dame president Jenkins commends police for 17 arrests to end pro-Palestinian protest

That’s why, Jenkins explained, that the free-flowing community connection around Angela Boulevard providing easy community access to the university’s art, sports and culture is so vital. 

It's a physical, emotional and even spiritual bond between the two. 

"We’re proud to be part of this community,” Jenkins said. “Notre Dame’s best years are ahead. I’d also say that for the region and for South Bend. If we can continue the partnership we’ve forged, this is a vibrant, vital, dynamic place to live and to work.” 

Michael Wanbaugh is an editor at the South Bend Tribune. Email at [email protected] or follow on Twitter @MWanbaugh .

40 Facts About Elektrostal

Written by Lanette Mayes

Modified & Updated: 01 Jun 2024

Reviewed by Jessica Corbett

Elektrostal is a vibrant city located in the Moscow Oblast region of Russia. With a rich history, stunning architecture, and a thriving community, Elektrostal is a city that has much to offer. Whether you are a history buff, nature enthusiast, or simply curious about different cultures, Elektrostal is sure to captivate you.

This article will provide you with 40 fascinating facts about Elektrostal, giving you a better understanding of why this city is worth exploring. From its origins as an industrial hub to its modern-day charm, we will delve into the various aspects that make Elektrostal a unique and must-visit destination.

So, join us as we uncover the hidden treasures of Elektrostal and discover what makes this city a true gem in the heart of Russia.

Key Takeaways:

• Elektrostal, known as the “Motor City of Russia,” is a vibrant and growing city with a rich industrial history, offering diverse cultural experiences and a strong commitment to environmental sustainability.
• With its convenient location near Moscow, Elektrostal provides a picturesque landscape, vibrant nightlife, and a range of recreational activities, making it an ideal destination for residents and visitors alike.

Known as the “Motor City of Russia.”

Elektrostal, a city located in the Moscow Oblast region of Russia, earned the nickname “Motor City” due to its significant involvement in the automotive industry.

Home to the Elektrostal Metallurgical Plant.

Elektrostal is renowned for its metallurgical plant, which has been producing high-quality steel and alloys since its establishment in 1916.

Boasts a rich industrial heritage.

Elektrostal has a long history of industrial development, contributing to the growth and progress of the region.

Founded in 1916.

The city of Elektrostal was founded in 1916 as a result of the construction of the Elektrostal Metallurgical Plant.

Located approximately 50 kilometers east of Moscow.

Elektrostal is situated in close proximity to the Russian capital, making it easily accessible for both residents and visitors.

Known for its vibrant cultural scene.

Elektrostal is home to several cultural institutions, including museums, theaters, and art galleries that showcase the city’s rich artistic heritage.

A popular destination for nature lovers.

Surrounded by picturesque landscapes and forests, Elektrostal offers ample opportunities for outdoor activities such as hiking, camping, and birdwatching.

Hosts the annual Elektrostal City Day celebrations.

Every year, Elektrostal organizes festive events and activities to celebrate its founding, bringing together residents and visitors in a spirit of unity and joy.

Has a population of approximately 160,000 people.

Elektrostal is home to a diverse and vibrant community of around 160,000 residents, contributing to its dynamic atmosphere.

Boasts excellent education facilities.

The city is known for its well-established educational institutions, providing quality education to students of all ages.

A center for scientific research and innovation.

Elektrostal serves as an important hub for scientific research, particularly in the fields of metallurgy , materials science, and engineering.

Surrounded by picturesque lakes.

The city is blessed with numerous beautiful lakes , offering scenic views and recreational opportunities for locals and visitors alike.

Well-connected transportation system.

Elektrostal benefits from an efficient transportation network, including highways, railways, and public transportation options, ensuring convenient travel within and beyond the city.

Famous for its traditional Russian cuisine.

Food enthusiasts can indulge in authentic Russian dishes at numerous restaurants and cafes scattered throughout Elektrostal.

Home to notable architectural landmarks.

Elektrostal boasts impressive architecture, including the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord and the Elektrostal Palace of Culture.

Offers a wide range of recreational facilities.

Residents and visitors can enjoy various recreational activities, such as sports complexes, swimming pools, and fitness centers, enhancing the overall quality of life.

Provides a high standard of healthcare.

Elektrostal is equipped with modern medical facilities, ensuring residents have access to quality healthcare services.

Home to the Elektrostal History Museum.

The Elektrostal History Museum showcases the city’s fascinating past through exhibitions and displays.

A hub for sports enthusiasts.

Elektrostal is passionate about sports, with numerous stadiums, arenas, and sports clubs offering opportunities for athletes and spectators.

Celebrates diverse cultural festivals.

Throughout the year, Elektrostal hosts a variety of cultural festivals, celebrating different ethnicities, traditions, and art forms.

Electric power played a significant role in its early development.

Elektrostal owes its name and initial growth to the establishment of electric power stations and the utilization of electricity in the industrial sector.

Boasts a thriving economy.

The city’s strong industrial base, coupled with its strategic location near Moscow, has contributed to Elektrostal’s prosperous economic status.

Houses the Elektrostal Drama Theater.

The Elektrostal Drama Theater is a cultural centerpiece, attracting theater enthusiasts from far and wide.

Popular destination for winter sports.

Elektrostal’s proximity to ski resorts and winter sport facilities makes it a favorite destination for skiing, snowboarding, and other winter activities.

Promotes environmental sustainability.

Elektrostal prioritizes environmental protection and sustainability, implementing initiatives to reduce pollution and preserve natural resources.

Home to renowned educational institutions.

Elektrostal is known for its prestigious schools and universities, offering a wide range of academic programs to students.

Committed to cultural preservation.

The city values its cultural heritage and takes active steps to preserve and promote traditional customs, crafts, and arts.

Hosts an annual International Film Festival.

The Elektrostal International Film Festival attracts filmmakers and cinema enthusiasts from around the world, showcasing a diverse range of films.

Encourages entrepreneurship and innovation.

Elektrostal supports aspiring entrepreneurs and fosters a culture of innovation, providing opportunities for startups and business development .

Offers a range of housing options.

Elektrostal provides diverse housing options, including apartments, houses, and residential complexes, catering to different lifestyles and budgets.

Home to notable sports teams.

Elektrostal is proud of its sports legacy , with several successful sports teams competing at regional and national levels.

Boasts a vibrant nightlife scene.

Residents and visitors can enjoy a lively nightlife in Elektrostal, with numerous bars, clubs, and entertainment venues.

Promotes cultural exchange and international relations.

Elektrostal actively engages in international partnerships, cultural exchanges, and diplomatic collaborations to foster global connections.

Surrounded by beautiful nature reserves.

Nearby nature reserves, such as the Barybino Forest and Luchinskoye Lake, offer opportunities for nature enthusiasts to explore and appreciate the region’s biodiversity.

Commemorates historical events.

The city pays tribute to significant historical events through memorials, monuments, and exhibitions, ensuring the preservation of collective memory.

Promotes sports and youth development.

Elektrostal invests in sports infrastructure and programs to encourage youth participation, health, and physical fitness.

Hosts annual cultural and artistic festivals.

Throughout the year, Elektrostal celebrates its cultural diversity through festivals dedicated to music, dance, art, and theater.

Provides a picturesque landscape for photography enthusiasts.

The city’s scenic beauty, architectural landmarks, and natural surroundings make it a paradise for photographers.

Connects to Moscow via a direct train line.

The convenient train connection between Elektrostal and Moscow makes commuting between the two cities effortless.

A city with a bright future.

Elektrostal continues to grow and develop, aiming to become a model city in terms of infrastructure, sustainability, and quality of life for its residents.

In conclusion, Elektrostal is a fascinating city with a rich history and a vibrant present. From its origins as a center of steel production to its modern-day status as a hub for education and industry, Elektrostal has plenty to offer both residents and visitors. With its beautiful parks, cultural attractions, and proximity to Moscow, there is no shortage of things to see and do in this dynamic city. Whether you’re interested in exploring its historical landmarks, enjoying outdoor activities, or immersing yourself in the local culture, Elektrostal has something for everyone. So, next time you find yourself in the Moscow region, don’t miss the opportunity to discover the hidden gems of Elektrostal.

Q: What is the population of Elektrostal?

A: As of the latest data, the population of Elektrostal is approximately XXXX.

Q: How far is Elektrostal from Moscow?

A: Elektrostal is located approximately XX kilometers away from Moscow.

Q: Are there any famous landmarks in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal is home to several notable landmarks, including XXXX and XXXX.

Q: What industries are prominent in Elektrostal?

A: Elektrostal is known for its steel production industry and is also a center for engineering and manufacturing.

Q: Are there any universities or educational institutions in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal is home to XXXX University and several other educational institutions.

Q: What are some popular outdoor activities in Elektrostal?

A: Elektrostal offers several outdoor activities, such as hiking, cycling, and picnicking in its beautiful parks.

Q: Is Elektrostal well-connected in terms of transportation?

A: Yes, Elektrostal has good transportation links, including trains and buses, making it easily accessible from nearby cities.

Q: Are there any annual events or festivals in Elektrostal?

A: Yes, Elektrostal hosts various events and festivals throughout the year, including XXXX and XXXX.

Elektrostal's fascinating history, vibrant culture, and promising future make it a city worth exploring. For more captivating facts about cities around the world, discover the unique characteristics that define each city . Uncover the hidden gems of Moscow Oblast through our in-depth look at Kolomna. Lastly, dive into the rich industrial heritage of Teesside, a thriving industrial center with its own story to tell.

Was this page helpful?

Our commitment to delivering trustworthy and engaging content is at the heart of what we do. Each fact on our site is contributed by real users like you, bringing a wealth of diverse insights and information. To ensure the highest standards of accuracy and reliability, our dedicated editors meticulously review each submission. This process guarantees that the facts we share are not only fascinating but also credible. Trust in our commitment to quality and authenticity as you explore and learn with us.

Share this Fact:

• Book a Speaker

Workplace News & Trends

SHRM Online publishes articles each day to help you stay on top of emerging workplace issues and critical news.

Today’s Top Workplace News

If it impacts work, workers and the workplace, SHRM’s award-winning editorial team is reporting on it now. From Supreme Court rulings to workplace trends, we are covering all things work, all the time.

More Workers Are Testing Positive for Marijuana—and Cheating on Drug Screens

More workers are testing positive for marijuana use and cheating on drug tests than ever before. Learn about how employers can navigate compliance complexities.

Automatic, Not Autopilot: Managing 401(k) Plans in the Auto-Enrollment Era

Automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans boosts participation, especially for young and nonwhite workers. Learn how to maximize your plan’s impact and avoid pitfalls.

Buried with Work? Prompt AI to Handle Tedious Tasks

ChatGPT can be your own personal workplace assistant when used properly, according to a CEO who offers some strategies on how HR professionals can use it to their benefit.

Health Care Minimum Wage Delayed Until July 1

Gov. Gavin Newsom, D, signed Senate Bill (SB) 828, which delays the effective date of the health care minimum wage statute by one month.

Mental Health, HR and the Workplace

SHRM research finds a gap between employees’ and leaders’ perceptions of how mentally healthy workplaces are

Publications

Award-winning coverage on the most important issues facing the world of work.

HR Magazine

News, trends and analysis tailored specifically for HR professionals to empower them to transform their workplaces and create positive change.

Managing Smart

With pressures from above and below, managers can have a lot to juggle. Gain the insight and get the tools people managers need to optimize their teams and build great places to work.

Newsletters

Stay informed about human resource news and information with SHRM email newsletters.

Explore insightful interviews, captivating conversations and timely tips for HR professionals and people managers.

SHRM Writers Guidelines

Our  writers guidelines  assist in our goals to provide timely, engaging and useful content.

Recommended by SHRM

HR Daily Newsletter

New, trends and analysis, as well as breaking news alerts, to help HR professionals do their jobs better each business day.

Success title

Success caption

• Trustworthy AI

Our trust in technology relies on understanding how it works. It’s important to understand why AI makes the decisions it does. We’re developing tools to make AI more explainable, fair, robust, private, and transparent.

Tiny benchmarks for large language models

• Foundation Models

IBM’s Granite model is one of the most transparent LLMs in the world

• AI Transparency
• Open Source

What is red teaming for generative AI?

• Adversarial Robustness and Privacy
• Fairness, Accountability, Transparency
• Natural Language Processing

An AI model trained on data that looks real but won’t leak personal information

• Data and AI Security

The latest AI safety method is a throwback to our maritime past

• Explainable AI
• Generative AI

What is AI alignment?

• Automated AI
• See more of our work on Trustworthy AI
• AI Testing We’re designing tools to help ensure that AI systems are trustworthy, reliable and can optimize business processes.
• Adversarial Robustness and Privacy We’re making tools to protect AI and certify its robustness, and helping AI systems adhere to privacy requirements.
• Explainable AI We’re creating tools to help AI systems explain why they made the decisions they did.
• Fairness, Accountability, Transparency We’re developing technologies to increase the end-to-end transparency and fairness of AI systems.
• Trustworthy Generation We’re developing theoretical and algorithmic frameworks for generative AI to accelerate future scientific discoveries.
• Uncertainty Quantification We’re developing ways for AI to communicate when it's unsure of a decision across the AI application development lifecycle.

Science for Social Good

IBM Science for Social Good partners IBM Research scientists and engineers with academic fellows, subject matter experts from NGOs, public sector agencies, and social enterprises to tackle emerging societal challenges using science and technology.

Publications

• Cynthia Dwork
• Kristjan Greenewald
• Frank Libsch
• Steve Bedell
• Assala Benmalek
• Celia Cintas
• Leshem Choshen
• LREC-COLING 2024
• Brian W. Bauer
• JMIR Mental Health

Building trustworthy AI with Watson

Our research is regularly integrated into Watson solutions to make IBM’s AI for business more transparent, explainable, robust, private, and fair.

Victorville program aims to clean up properties, but some say it goes too far

VICTORVILLE, Calif. (KABC) -- A new initiative meant to clean up the city of Victorville is being met with mixed reactions, with some residents saying they can't afford to make the necessary changes to their property.

Rebecca Vigil said she received a notice from city code enforcement earlier this week advising her to remove a non-functional vehicle from the driveway, remove weeds and replace a patch of dirt in her front yard.

"I just feel it's unfair, because we don't have that kind of money to put into redoing our landscaping," Vigil said.

She said a city representative told her if changes aren't made, she could be issued a notice of violation within 30 days.

"They're going to put a lien on my home, and they're going to accumulate more fines, and we cannot refinance or sell our home with those liens and the fines. So I think it's not fair."

Vigil said she, as well as many other community members who received notices, won't be able to make the required changes.

"They're on fixed incomes; they're elderly and they have no idea how they're going to do that," said Vigil. "I have scoliosis in my back, and I cannot bend down to place rocks in the yard by myself, and I can't afford to pay a landscaper $4,000 in this economy. We can't do it."

A city spokesperson said they launched the Community Enhancement Program a few months ago in direct response to the community's desire to clean up the city and improve the quality of life.

"The program is educational first," said city spokesperson Sue Jones. "Code compliance officers visit homes with a checklist of common violations like excessive weeds or inoperable vehicles parked at the property. They are given 30 days to begin correcting the violations."

"We do work with our residents. For example, those who need more time to correct significant violations like landscaping can be granted extra time as long as progress is being made. Depending on the type of violation, we may have programs to assist residents experiencing financial hardships, and we invite them to reach out to us to learn about eligible programs."

The Community Enhancement Program is part of Measure P, which hiked the sales tax from 7.75% to 8.75% when it was approved by Victorville voters in 2020.

Jones said since the Community Enhancement Program began in early 2024, code enforcement officers have reached approximately 2,800 homes. She said more than half of residents make corrections upon receiving the initial notice.

Related Topics

• VICTORVILLE
• SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
• BUILDING CODE VIOLATION
• REAL ESTATE

Top Stories

2 killed in wrong-way crash on 101 Fwy in Ventura; DUI arrest made

IDF rescues 4 hostages; 150 Palestinians killed: Hamas-run Health Min.

• 2 hours ago

Las Vegas logs another record-high

Trump set to speak at Newport Beach fundraiser Saturday

• 1 minute ago

3 swimmers attacked by sharks off Florida Panhandle

OC judge orders halt to UC workers' strike

• 40 minutes ago

Clark left off USA Basketball national team roster, AP Source says

The dangers of thirdhand smoke: is your family at risk?

LGBTQI+ People and Substance Use

• Research has found that sexual and gender minorities, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex people (LGBTQI+), have higher rates of substance misuse and substance use disorders than people who identify as heterosexual. People from these groups are also more likely to enter treatment with more severe disorders.
• People in LGBTQI+ communities can face stressful situations and environments like stigma and discrimination , harassment, and traumatic experiences . Coping with these issues may raise the likelihood of a person having substance use problems.
• NIDA supports research to help identify the particular challenges that sexual and gender minority people face, to prevent or reduce substance use disorders among these groups, and to promote treatment access and better health outcomes.

Latest from NIDA

A Plan to Address Racism in Addiction Science

Find more resources on lgbtqi+ health.

• Hear the latest approaches in treatment and care from experts in the fields of HIV and SUD in this NIDA video series, “ At the Intersection .”
• See the Stigma and Discrimination Research Toolkit from the National Institute of Mental Health.

Fact sheets

• Facts in pictures
• Publications
• Questions and answers
• Tools and toolkits
• HIV and AIDS
• Hypertension
• Mental disorders
• Top 10 causes of death
• All countries
• Eastern Mediterranean
• South-East Asia
• Western Pacific
• Data by country
• Country presence 
• Country strengthening 
• Country cooperation strategies 
• News releases
• Feature stories
• Press conferences
• Commentaries
• Photo library
• Afghanistan
• Cholera 
• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
• Greater Horn of Africa
• Israel and occupied Palestinian territory
• Disease Outbreak News
• Situation reports
• Weekly Epidemiological Record
• Surveillance
• Health emergency appeal
• International Health Regulations
• Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee
• Classifications
• Data collections
• Global Health Estimates
• Mortality Database
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Health Inequality Monitor
• Triple Billion
• Data collection tools
• Global Health Observatory
• Insights and visualizations
• COVID excess deaths
• World Health Statistics
• Partnerships
• Committees and advisory groups
• Collaborating centres
• Technical teams
• Organizational structure
• Initiatives
• General Programme of Work
• WHO Academy
• Investment case
• WHO Foundation
• External audit
• Financial statements
• Internal audit and investigations 
• Programme Budget
• Results reports
• Governing bodies
• World Health Assembly
• Executive Board
• Member States Portal

COVID-19 pandemic triggers 25% increase in prevalence of anxiety and depression worldwide

Wake-up call to all countries to step up mental health services and support.

In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, global prevalence of anxiety and depression increased by a massive 25%, according to a scientific brief released by the World Health Organization (WHO) today. The brief also highlights who has been most affected and summarizes the effect of the pandemic on the availability of mental health services and how this has changed during the pandemic.

Concerns about potential increases in mental health conditions had already prompted 90% of countries surveyed to include mental health and psychosocial support in their COVID-19 response plans, but major gaps and concerns remain.

“The information we have now about the impact of COVID-19 on the world’s mental health is just the tip of the iceberg,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “This is a wake-up call to all countries to pay more attention to mental health and do a better job of supporting their populations’ mental health.”

Multiple stress factors

One major explanation for the increase is the unprecedented stress caused by the social isolation resulting from the pandemic. Linked to this were constraints on people’s ability to work, seek support from loved ones and engage in their communities.

Loneliness, fear of infection, suffering and death for oneself and for loved ones, grief after bereavement and financial worries have also all been cited as stressors leading to anxiety and depression. Among health workers, exhaustion has been a major trigger for suicidal thinking.

Young people and women worst hit

The brief, which is informed by a comprehensive review of existing evidence about the impact of COVID-19 on mental health and mental health services, and includes estimates from the latest Global Burden of Disease study, shows that the pandemic has affected the mental health of young people and that they are disproportionally at risk of suicidal and self-harming behaviours. It also indicates that women have been more severely impacted than men and that people with pre-existing physical health conditions, such as asthma, cancer and heart disease, were more likely to develop symptoms of mental disorders.

Data suggests that people with pre-existing mental disorders do not appear to be disproportionately vulnerable to COVID-19 infection. Yet, when these people do become infected, they are more likely to suffer hospitalization, severe illness and death compared with people without mental disorders. People with more severe mental disorders, such as psychoses, and young people with mental disorders, are particularly at risk.

Gaps in care

This increase in the prevalence of mental health problems has coincided with severe disruptions to mental health services, leaving huge gaps in care for those who need it most. For much of the pandemic, services for mental, neurological and substance use conditions were the most disrupted among all essential health services reported by WHO Member States. Many countries also reported major disruptions in life-saving services for mental health, including for suicide prevention.

By the end of 2021 the situation had somewhat improved but today too many people remain unable to get the care and support they need for both pre-existing and newly developed mental health conditions.

Unable to access face-to-face care, many people have sought support online, signaling an urgent need to make reliable and effective digital tools available and easily accessible. However, developing and deploying digital interventions remains a major challenge in resource-limited countries and settings.

WHO and country action

Since the early days of the pandemic, WHO and partners have worked to develop and disseminate resources in multiple languages and formats to help different groups cope with and respond to the mental health impacts of COVID-19. For example, WHO produced a story book for 6-11-year-olds, My Hero is You, now available in 142 languages and 61 multimedia adaptations, as well as a toolkit for supporting older adults available in 16 languages.

At the same time, the Organization has worked with partners, including other United Nations agencies, international nongovernmental organizations and the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, to lead an interagency mental health and psychosocial response to COVID-19. Throughout the pandemic, WHO  has also worked to promote the integration of mental health and psychosocial support across and within all aspects of the global response. 

WHO Member States have recognized the impact of COVID-19 on mental health and are taking action. WHO’s most recent pulse survey on continuity of essential health services indicated that 90% of countries are working to provide mental health and psychosocial support to COVID-19 patients and responders alike. Moreover, at last year’s World Health Assembly, countries emphasized the need to develop and strengthen mental health and psychosocial support services as part of strengthening preparedness, response and resilience to COVID-19 and future public health emergencies. They adopted the updated Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan 2013-2030, which includes an indicator on preparedness for mental health and psychosocial support in public health emergencies.

Step up investment

However, this commitment to mental health needs to be accompanied by a global step up in investment. Unfortunately, the situation underscores a chronic global shortage of mental health resources that continues today. WHO’s most recent Mental Health Atlas showed that in 2020, governments worldwide spent on average just over 2% of their health budgets on mental health and many low-income countries reported having fewer than 1 mental health worker per 100 000 people.

Dévora Kestel, Director of the Department of Mental Health and Substance Use at WHO, sums up the situation: ”While the pandemic has generated interest in and concern for mental health, it has also revealed historical under-investment in mental health services. Countries must act urgently to ensure that mental health support is available to all.”

Media Contacts

Alison Brunier

Communications Officer World Health Organization

Carla Drysdale

Get the Reddit app

A subreddit for those who enjoy learning about flags, their place in society past and present, and their design characteristics

The flag of Elektrostal, Moscow Oblast, Russia which I bought there during my last visit