Deliberative Engagement of Communities in Decisions about Research Spending

描述（由申请人提供）：越来越多的研究人员让社区作为参与者参与研究目标和方法的决策，但社区对研究优先级的影响仍然有限，而研究优先级是公平资源分配的一个关键方面。我们建议开发和评估一种创新工具，让少数民族和服务不足的社区参与制定临床和转化研究的资助优先事项。根据制定和使用“共同选择健康计划”审议工作的经验，并利用社区调查人员、关键举报人和指导委员会，我们将制定与卫生研究重点相关的“共同选择健康计划”内容。为了评估该工具，我们将召集50组9-15名社区成员，他们来自主要的少数民族和服务不足的社区。评估将检查个人和团体对演习的看法，包括团体决策和过程的公平性。我们还将检查审议的质量，以及参与是否会影响知识、对研究人员的信任或参与研究的意愿。我们从决策者那里得到了利用结果影响决策的承诺，我们将检查这是否以及如何发生。成功地发展一种方法，使社区参与卫生研究优先事项的确定，有可能产生巨大的影响，并可能使研究经费的决定更加公正，更加符合社区的需要和价值观。

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Increasingly, researchers involve communities in decisions about research aims and methods, and as participants, but community influence on research priorities, a key aspect of just resource allocation, remains limited. We propose development and evaluation of an innovative tool to engage minority and underserved communities in setting clinical and translational research funding priorities. Building on experience developing and using the CHAT (Choosing Healthplans All Together) deliberation exercise, and drawing on community investigators, key informants, and a Steering committee, we will develop CHAT content relevant for health research priorities (ReCHAT). To evaluate the tool, we will convene 50 groups of 9-15 community members from predominantly minority and underserved communities. Evaluation will examine individual and group views of the exercise, including fairness of group decisions and processes. We will also examine the quality of deliberations, and whether participation affects knowledge, trust in researchers or willingness to participate in research. We have commitments from decision makers to use results to influence decisions, and we will examine whether and how this occurs. Successful development of a method to engage communities in health research priority setting has the potential for enormous impact and could make research funding decisions more just and more aligned with community needs and values. PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: While substantial progress has occurred recognizing community expertise in research, and involving communities in decisions about research aims and methods, community influence on research funding priorities remains limited. Building on experience with developing, testing and using the successful CHAT (Choosing Healthplans All Together) tool, we plan to modify an existing priority setting simulation exercise to develop a tool to engage minority and underserved communities in setting priorities for clinical and translational research, evaluate it from the perspective of those who participate, and examine the extent to which it actually influences research priorities. This tool could be valuable to research funding organizations, community-academic partnerships, community organizations asked to participate in research, and others aiming to engage communities in research.