What question did this study set out to answer?

The aim was to evaluate the implementation of Community Engagement Studios using Proctor’s implementation outcomes framework.

May 9, 2026Open Access

278 Evaluating Community Engagement Studios 2.0: Insights from applying an implementation framework

Key Points

The aim was to evaluate the implementation of Community Engagement Studios using Proctor’s implementation outcomes framework.
Conducted 59 CE Studios across 19 sites from June 2022 to October 2025.
Surveyed 30 researchers and 286 community members about their experiences and perceived impact of community feedback.
Applied Proctor’s Framework focusing on aspects like acceptability and sustainability.
51% of researchers and 67% of community members reported high satisfaction with the CE Studios.
Community input influenced various stages of research, with 28% affecting pre-research and study design.
Increased requests for CE Studios over time indicate recognition of their value in enhancing research.

Abstract

Objectives/Goals: In 2021, Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCaTS) launched CE Studios to enhance community-informed research across a multisite institution. This study applied the Proctor’s implementation outcomes framework to evaluate the implementation efforts across diverse settings. Methods/Study Population: From June 2022 to October 2025, we held 59 CE Studios across 19 sites in Arizona, Florida, and Midwest. CE Studios were done in-person and virtually via Zoom. Researchers and community members completed a survey assessing their experience and perceived influence of communities’ feedback on the research project. Data were collected and analyzed from June 2022 to October 2025. To assess the implementation, we applied Proctor’s Implementation Outcomes Framework, which examines eight constructs: Acceptability, Adoption, Appropriateness, Feasibility, Fidelity, Implementation Cost, Penetration, and Sustainability. Results/Anticipated Results: Thirty (51%) researchers and 286 (67%) community members completed the survey. Both groups indicated high satisfaction with CE Studio planning, format, and facilitation, emphasizing meaningful contribution of community feedback on research. All researchers noted at least one stage of their research was influenced by community input: pre-research (28%), study design (28%), implementation (22%), infrastructure (15%), analysis (1%), and dissemination (6%). Over time, CE Studios requests increased, reflecting recognition of their value in enhancing research. The framework revealed missing structured coordinators’ feedback, a key for understanding implementation and highlighted the need to revise evaluation tools and identify additional data sources aligned with the broader framework. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Applying the Proctor’s Implementation Outcomes Framework revealed areas to strengthen CE Studio implementation such as coordinator feedback, refinement of evaluation tools, data source, and strategies to assess CE Studio sustainability and institutional impact. These insights offer a model to guide similar efforts at other institutions.

Bookmark

View Full Paper