What question did this study set out to answer?

This analysis aims to explore community engagement programs across UM1 CTSI hubs to identify effective practices and strategies.

May 9, 2026Open Access

264 Strengthening translational science: Community engagement infrastructure across UM1 Clinical and Translational Science Institutions (CTSI) hubs

Key Points

This analysis aims to explore community engagement programs across UM1 CTSI hubs to identify effective practices and strategies.
Reviewed UM1 CTSI websites (n=27) for information on community engagement supports.
Analyzed elements like missions, advisory structures, and funding opportunities of CE cores.
Examined how CE cores promote collaboration and networks essential for translational science.
All CTSIs operated a CE core with common funding offerings and practices.
Over 90% featured community engagement studios, and most (70%) utilized community advisory boards.
Innovative external models were identified to enhance MICHR's community-engaged research initiatives.

Abstract

Objectives/Goals: This poster presents a landscape analysis of UM1 CTSI community engagement (CE) programs. The University of Michigan (U-M) CTSI, CE team compared services and supports across 27 UM1 CTSIs to identify best practices, unique offerings, and potential models to adopt or adapt to strengthen support for community engaged research (CEnR) at U-M. Methods/Study Population: UM1 websites (n=27) were reviewed to assess publicly available information on CE supports, with focus on CTSIs CE cores. Key elements analyzed included missions, advisory structures, service portfolios, funding and training opportunities, and digital accessibility. Attention was given to how CE cores foster bidirectional learning, build trust, lower barriers to collaboration, and sustain networks – all essential for advancing translational science. Findings and recommendations were compiled to inform possible improvements and new strategies for the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR), CE program. Results/Anticipated Results: All CTSIs reviewed operated a CE core, with common offerings in funding and translating science to impact. Over 90% featured community engagement studios; less than 20% charged fees for services. Most (70%) used community advisory boards (CABs) to guide the overall CTSI. Additional services include consultations, matchmaking, and capacity-building to create bridges from early-stage research proposal development through results with real-world impact. Several innovative external models were identified along with unique MICHR offerings. #ₘsocom₁ Discussion/Significance of Impact: This analysis highlights the diversity and commonalities of CE services across UM1 CTSIs, reveals limitations due to online data availability, and identifies opportunities for MICHR to adopt or adapt external best practices to better support community-engaged research and translational science.

Bookmark

View Full Paper