Abstract P3063: Community Partner Engagement Preferences and Needs Across the RESTORE Health Equity Research Network

Abstract

Introduction: Effective and regular engagement of community partners (CPs) is critical to the success of community-based research projects. Informed by the National Academy of Medicine’s Assessing Community Engagement model, we describe the multi-tiered community engagement activities conducted by the RESTORE (AddREssing Social Determinants TO pRevent hypErtension) Network and the adoption of a novel data collection tool: the Community Engagement Tracking Form. Methods: RESTORE is a multi-site collaboration funded by the American Heart Association. It includes 5 independent, community-engaged research projects focusing on nutrition and groceries, physical activity, empowerment, access, linkage, and home blood pressure telemonitoring. In this study, we describe the frequency and type of CP engagement, topics discussed, and categories of CPs engaged. Results: Between September 21, 2021, and September 30, 2024, the Network carried out 758 engagement activities. Formats of engagement employed most were informal field meetings with CPs (n=238, 31.40%), electronic communication through email, phone, and text (n=211, 27.84%), and scheduled meetings partner(s) or partner group(s) (n=149, 19.66%). Of all primary topics discussed (n=915), study implementation was the most common (n=558, 60.98%). Across 28 community advisory board meetings, primary topics (n=68) discussed most frequently were describing, interpreting, and disseminating results (n=26, 38.24%) and study implementation (n=20, 29.41%). Community- and faith-based organizations, local businesses and healthcare organizations were the most frequently engaged CPs. Health insurance organizations, technology companies, private industry, and patients/caregivers were engaged least often. Conclusions: In conclusion, this adoption report highlights key learnings about CP engagement across a multi-site research network. Informal field meetings were used more commonly than both structured or scheduled meetings (possibly due to higher flexibility) and electronic contact (which is interesting given the rise of remote communication since the pandemic). Study implementation required the most attention from study teams and CPs. More holistic and multilateral CP engagement may be needed, with intentionality in inclusion and presence of payers, industry, frontline workers, patients, and caregivers. Future work will explore barriers and facilitators to engaging CPs, data completeness, and responsiveness of study teams to CP input.