Abstract
This study explored the effects of integrating community members into the evaluation of clinical and translational science grants. The University of California, Irvine Institute for Clinical and Translational Sciences (ICTS) engaged 21 community reviewers alongside scientific reviewers in a 2-stage process of evaluating research proposals. In Stage 1 reviewers scored proposals, and during Stage 2 two study sections convened: one a mix of community reviewers and scientific reviewers, and one only engaging scientific reviewers. In total, 4 studies were discussed by both study sections. Comparisons of reviews revealed little difference between ratings of community reviewers and those of scientific reviewers, and that community reviewers largely refrained from critiquing scientific or technical aspects of proposals. The findings suggest that involving community reviewers early in the grant cycle, and exposing them to the entirety of the review process, can bolster community engagement without compromising the rigor of grant evaluations.
Highlights
This study explored the effects of integrating community members into the evaluation of clinical and translational science grants
This investigation was conducted in conjunction with the University of California, Irvine Institute for Clinical and Translational Sciences’ (ICTS) annual process of awarding pilot grants for clinical and translational science research projects
The findings revealed that, of the 19 proposals that advanced to Phase 2, 4 would have been different if the community evaluations had been included
Summary
This study explored the effects of integrating community members into the evaluation of clinical and translational science grants. The University of California, Irvine Institute for Clinical and Translational Sciences (ICTS) engaged 21 community reviewers alongside scientific reviewers in a 2-stage process of evaluating research proposals. In Stage 1 reviewers scored proposals, and during Stage 2 two study sections convened: one a mix of community reviewers and scientific reviewers, and one only engaging scientific reviewers. One reason that community engagement is difficult to effectively integrate into translational science is that it requires interactions with stakeholders (e.g., community leaders, industry) and resources (e.g., legal counsel, product development) that are not inherently involved, or incentivized, in the processes of institutional research. CEnR requires significant time commitments, relationship and trust-building, and perseverance that typically do not lead to quick or numerous publications or grant proposals, so understanding the benefit to scientists of engaging the public in research is critical [3]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
