Community-engaged research (CEnR) builds on the strengths of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) framework to address health in underserved and minority communities. There is a paucity of studies that identify the process from which trust develops in CEnR partnerships. This study responds to the need for empirical investigation of building and maintaining trust from a multistakeholder perspective. We conducted a multi-institutional pilot study using concept mapping with to better understand how trust, a critical outcome of CEnR partnerships, can act as "social capital." Concept mapping was used to collect data from the three stakeholder groups: community, health-care, and academic research partners across three CTSAs. Concept mapping is a mixed-methods approach that allows participants to brainstorm and identify factors that contribute to a concept and describe ways in which those factors relate to each other. This study offers important insights on developing an initial set of trust measures that can be used across CTSAs to understand differences and similarities in conceptualization of trust among key stakeholder groups, track changes in public trust in research, identify both positive and negative aspects of trust, identify characteristics that maintain trust, and inform the direction for future research.

Objectives

Collaborations between communities, healthcare practices and academic institutions are a strategy to address health disparities. Trust is critical in the development and maintaining of effective collaborations. The aim of this pilot study was to engage stakeholders in defining determinants of trust in community academic research partnerships and to develop a framework for measuring trust.

Methods

The study was conducted by five collaborating National Institute of Health' Clinical and Translational Sciences Awardees. We used concept mapping to engage three stakeholders: community members, healthcare providers and academicians. We conducted hierarchical cluster analysis to assess the determinants of trust in community-academic research partnerships.

Results

A total of 186 participants provided input generating 2,172 items that were consolidated into 125 unique items. A five cluster solution was defined: authentic, effective and transparent communication; mutually respectful and reciprocal relationships; sustainability; committed partnerships; and, communication, credibility and methodology to anticipate and resolve problems.

Conclusion

Results from this study contribute to an increasing empirical body of work to better understand and improve the underlying factors that contribute to building and sustaining trust in community academic research partnerships.

Community-academic research partnerships aim to build stakeholder trust in order to improve the reach and translation of health research, but there is limited empirical research regarding effective ways to build trust. This multisite study was launched to identify similarities and differences among stakeholders' perspectives of antecedents to trust in research partnerships. In 2013-2014, we conducted a mixed-methods concept mapping study with participants from three major stakeholder groups who identified and rated the importance of different antecedents of trust on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Study participants were community members ( n = 66), health care providers ( n = 38), and academic researchers ( n = 44). All stakeholder groups rated "authentic communication" and "reciprocal relationships" the highest in importance. Community members rated "communication/methodology to resolve problems" ( M = 4.23, SD = 0.58) significantly higher than academic researchers ( M = 3.87, SD = 0.67) and health care providers ( M = 3.89, SD = 0.62; p < .01) and had different perspectives regarding the importance of issues related to "sustainability." The importance of communication and relationships across stakeholders indicates the importance of colearning processes that involve the exchange of knowledge and skills. The differences uncovered suggest specific areas where attention and skill building may be needed to improve trust within partnerships. More research on how partnerships can improve communication specific to problem solving and sustainability is merited.

Community-engaged research (CEnR) builds on the strengths of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) framework to address health in underserved and minority communities. There is a paucity of studies that identify the process from which trust develops in CEnR partnerships. This study responds to the need for empirical investigation of building and maintaining trust from a multistakeholder perspective. We conducted a multi-institutional pilot study using concept mapping with to better understand how trust, a critical outcome of CEnR partnerships, can act as "social capital." Concept mapping was used to collect data from the three stakeholder groups: community, health-care, and academic research partners across three CTSAs. Concept mapping is a mixed-methods approach that allows participants to brainstorm and identify factors that contribute to a concept and describe ways in which those factors relate to each other. This study offers important insights on developing an initial set of trust measures that can be used across CTSAs to understand differences and similarities in conceptualization of trust among key stakeholder groups, track changes in public trust in research, identify both positive and negative aspects of trust, identify characteristics that maintain trust, and inform the direction for future research.

Objectives

Collaborations between communities, healthcare practices and academic institutions are a strategy to address health disparities. Trust is critical in the development and maintaining of effective collaborations. The aim of this pilot study was to engage stakeholders in defining determinants of trust in community academic research partnerships and to develop a framework for measuring trust.

Methods

The study was conducted by five collaborating National Institute of Health' Clinical and Translational Sciences Awardees. We used concept mapping to engage three stakeholders: community members, healthcare providers and academicians. We conducted hierarchical cluster analysis to assess the determinants of trust in community-academic research partnerships.

Results

A total of 186 participants provided input generating 2,172 items that were consolidated into 125 unique items. A five cluster solution was defined: authentic, effective and transparent communication; mutually respectful and reciprocal relationships; sustainability; committed partnerships; and, communication, credibility and methodology to anticipate and resolve problems.

Conclusion

Results from this study contribute to an increasing empirical body of work to better understand and improve the underlying factors that contribute to building and sustaining trust in community academic research partnerships.

Community-academic research partnerships aim to build stakeholder trust in order to improve the reach and translation of health research, but there is limited empirical research regarding effective ways to build trust. This multisite study was launched to identify similarities and differences among stakeholders' perspectives of antecedents to trust in research partnerships. In 2013-2014, we conducted a mixed-methods concept mapping study with participants from three major stakeholder groups who identified and rated the importance of different antecedents of trust on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Study participants were community members ( n = 66), health care providers ( n = 38), and academic researchers ( n = 44). All stakeholder groups rated "authentic communication" and "reciprocal relationships" the highest in importance. Community members rated "communication/methodology to resolve problems" ( M = 4.23, SD = 0.58) significantly higher than academic researchers ( M = 3.87, SD = 0.67) and health care providers ( M = 3.89, SD = 0.62; p < .01) and had different perspectives regarding the importance of issues related to "sustainability." The importance of communication and relationships across stakeholders indicates the importance of colearning processes that involve the exchange of knowledge and skills. The differences uncovered suggest specific areas where attention and skill building may be needed to improve trust within partnerships. More research on how partnerships can improve communication specific to problem solving and sustainability is merited.