PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 9, 2026Journal of Clinical and Translational Science0 citationsOpen Access

Community Feedback Sessions: An Adaptation of the Community Engagement Studio Model to Enhance Scalability

View Full Paper
SFSimone C. FrankUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillABAlicia BilheimerUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillNDNixola DattaUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Key Points

  • The aim is to adapt the Community Engagement Studio model to develop a scalable Community Feedback Session service.
  • Modified the CE Studio model to enhance recruitment, onboarding, virtual delivery, and compensation.
  • Conducted 46 Community Feedback Sessions engaging 302 attendees over 19 projects from January 2022 to August 2025.
  • Utilized surveys to evaluate participant and researcher satisfaction with the CFS service.
  • 99% of attendees expressed willingness to participate again.
  • 97% of researchers rated the CFS service as Good or Excellent, recommending it to colleagues.
  • Researchers reported making significant changes to projects based on feedback from CFS sessions.

Abstract

Introduction:The Community Engagement (CE) Studio is an established approach for integrating community and patient perspectives into research.Despite its widespread implementation, little information is available about how this model has been adapted across institutions to accommodate varying resources and capacities. Methods: The Patient and Community Engagement in Research (PaCER) Program at UNC-Chapel Hill modified the CE Studio modelwith adaptations to recruitment, onboarding, virtual delivery, compensation, and session planningresulting in the development of a new Community Feedback Session (CFS) service.This adaptation yielded a scalable model that requires fewer resources, supports capacity-building within research teams, and leverages technology.We then evaluated the CFS approach via surveys distributed to CFS attendees and researchers.Results: Between January 2022 and August 2025, we conducted 46 CFSs across 19 projects engaging 302 attendees; 149 attendees and 34 researchers completed evaluation surveys.Of these, 99% of attendees indicated they would participate again, and 97% of researchers rated the CFS service as Good or Excellent and recommended it to colleagues.Respondents appreciated the structure, facilitation, composition, and size of the sessions, and many had no suggestions for improvement.Researchers described changes they made to projects based on feedback received during CFSs, including amending study protocols, altering intervention content and delivery modalities, and revising a variety of study-related materials.Conclusions: Evaluation data support the acceptability, feasibility, and utility of the CFS approach, indicating that this modified and scalable service accomplishes researcher goals, informs research in an impactful way, and provides value to partners.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Frank et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fecf16b9154b0b82876260https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2026.10745
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper