Exploring the potential role of community engagement in evaluating clinical and translational science grant proposals

Exploring the potential role of community engagement in evaluating clinical and translational science grant proposals

This study explored the effects of integrating community members into the evaluation of clinical and translational science grants. The University of California, Irvine Institute for Clinical and Translational Sciences (ICTS) engaged 21 community reviewers alongside scientific reviewers in a 2-stage...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical and translational science Vol. 2; no. 3; pp. 139 - 146
Main Authors: Treem, Jeffrey W, Schneider, Margaret, Zender, Robynn L, Sorkin, Dara H
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: England Cambridge University Press 01-06-2018
Subjects:
Clinical medicine
Community
Community engagement
Consortia
evaluation
Funding
Grants
Implementation, Policy and Community Engagement
Medical research
Participation
Peer review
Product development
Public health
Research methodology
Researchers
Science
scientific merit
scientific review
Scientists
Stakeholders
Studies
Translation
Michigan
evaluation
grants
scientific review
Community engagement
scientific merit
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study explored the effects of integrating community members into the evaluation of clinical and translational science grants. The University of California, Irvine Institute for Clinical and Translational Sciences (ICTS) engaged 21 community reviewers alongside scientific reviewers in a 2-stage process of evaluating research proposals. In Stage 1 reviewers scored proposals, and during Stage 2 two study sections convened: one a mix of community reviewers and scientific reviewers, and one only engaging scientific reviewers. In total, 4 studies were discussed by both study sections. Comparisons of reviews revealed little difference between ratings of community reviewers and those of scientific reviewers, and that community reviewers largely refrained from critiquing scientific or technical aspects of proposals. The findings suggest that involving community reviewers early in the grant cycle, and exposing them to the entirety of the review process, can bolster community engagement without compromising the rigor of grant evaluations.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:2059-8661
2059-8661
DOI:10.1017/cts.2018.311