Building Capacity for Community-Engaged Peer-Focused Research: Results From the IRIS Recovery Research Fellowship

Abstract

Engaging peers and other substance use service providers in research increases the relevance and impact of findings, including ways to further integrate peers into the recovery workforce. Academics also have much to learn about peer recovery by engaging professionals with lived experience in collaborative research. Despite these benefits, there have been few intersectoral, peer-focused initiatives dedicated to building research skills through hands-on scientific inquiry. Grounded in community-based participatory research, the IRIS Recovery Research Fellowship aimed to develop connectedness, commitment to peer workforce integration, trust in research, research skills, and practice-driven studies. Learning sessions and research coaching were provided to a cohort of 17 peers, other agency staff, and academics. Evaluation was conducted using mixed methods. Pre- and post-test surveys measured change over time using paired-sample t-tests. Thematic analysis was used for open-ended responses and Rivers drawings. All fellows completed studies while contributing to a position paper on peer workforce integration. Results indicated statistically significant gains in trust in qualitative research, connectedness, and an array of research skills. The fellowship “drove home the value and necessity of peers,” leading to increased advocacy for peers and enhanced studies on peer services. Additional fellowship and related professional development opportunities are needed to build research capacity for peers and other providers, for researchers to ground inquiry in peer recovery, and for interdisciplinary groups to engage in recovery research. These activities will help to ground practice in the evidence base, support employers to effectively integrate peers into the workforce, and strengthen scientific inquiry.

Introduction

Over 1 million people in the United States have died from drug overdose since 2003, with more than 100,000 such fatalities reported in 2023 and two thirds of these found to involve opioids (Garnett & Miñino, 2024). To address the opioid epidemic, the National Institutes of Health funds research collaborations to rapidly bring science-based solutions to this crisis through its Helping to End Addiction Long-term Initiative (HEAL; https://heal.nih.gov/). As part of this effort, projects grounded in community–academic partnerships formed, including the one described here. Such partnerships may be extremely valuable, as their commitment to concerns of diverse local stakeholders helps to drive research toward services tailored to community needs and empowers recovery organizations to develop, evaluate, and improve their programming (Goytia et al., 2013).

Within substance use services, peers hold a unique and powerful role as persons with lived experience and workers trained to support others’ recovery. Although peer-delivered services have been extensively researched, with numerous associated benefits (du Plessis et al., 2019; Eddie et al., 2019), there is still more to learn about their role, approach, and impact. Peer integration into varied workforce settings has been a challenge, with stigma and a lack of recognition from non-peer co-workers among the barriers (Cronise et al., 2016). Within recovery research, although peers have played increasing roles as advisors or assistants (Greer et al., 2018), little of this inquiry has been peer-led, which limits relevance and benefits of findings. Bringing academics together with peers and other community-based providers to partner around addressing pressing health issues such as addiction can help close gaps between health research and practice (Drahota et al., 2016). Given the ongoing substance use crisis in the United States, and peers’ pivotal role in overdose prevention (Mercer et al., 2021), it is vital for the recovery support system to facilitate such practice-based inquiry.

One challenge to engaging peers and other recovery practitioners in research is a lack of related education, for which capacity-building initiatives have been developed. Eaton and colleagues (2018) found that a blended learning curriculum demonstrated initial effectiveness in training peers living with HIV in community-based participatory research (CBPR). The Partners in Education Evaluation and Research (PEER) training program built research capacity through community-academic partnerships that demonstrated positive impact on health organizations’ work (Jewett-Tennant et al., 2016). One lesson learned from PEER was the need for more attention on building cohort cohesiveness. To develop connections across disciplines and facilitate deep learning experiences, fellowships are among the most immersive professional development options available (Watson, 2023).

Research presented here focuses on the Recovery Research Fellowship (RRF) of the HEAL-funded project, Innovations in Recovery through Infrastructure Support (IRIS; https://www.iris.ssw.umaryland.edu/). IRIS RRF was a research capacity-building initiative focused on substance use recovery and particularly peer recovery support services. The fellowship engaged a diverse cohort, including peers, clinicians, trainers, managers, and researchers. Grounded in CBPR, RRF was delivered with the research objective to assess the following outcomes:

1. To build trust and stronger relationships across recovery support sector roles;

2. To identify barriers to and strategies for effective peer workforce integration;

3. To develop community-engaged research skills focused on peer recovery support;

4. To produce and disseminate research for the opioid recovery system.

Background

The IRIS Project

Based in Baltimore at the University of Maryland School of Social Work, IRIS was created to build capacity for substance use recovery organizations to use research to develop and disseminate effective models for practice, training, and advocacy. This is accomplished through strong, equitable, and sustainable community–academic partnerships. Earlier research from IRIS revealed that community partners appreciated the way staff approached stakeholder engagement with accountability and humility, and the project’s efforts to provide them with immediate and concrete benefits (Gilgoff et al., 2022). In its initial years, IRIS produced online training series and offered research pilot project funding. As IRIS staff developed the RRF model, it was clear the approach would be grounded in community-engaged practices and principles used during the project’s launch phase. During this period, IRIS engaged more than 120 sector leaders, through which the team learned of the common goal of wider and more effective peer workforce integration (Quinn et al., 2023).

Conceptual Framework: Community-Based Participatory Research

CBPR seeks to democratize knowledge and facilitate more direct connections between scientific inquiry and community-driven change (Masuda et al., 2011). It has been used extensively to promote health equity within diverse communities through mutually beneficial partnerships in which power is shared and effective services and policies are produced (Wallerstein & Duran, 2010). The CBPR Conceptual Model has been developed, empirically tested, and validated by researchers from the University of New Mexico’s Center for Participatory Research (Belone et al., 2016). The model presents how various contexts and dynamics inform interventions and outcomes. There were numerous ways the IRIS RRF endeavored to embody CBPR in this way, including by acknowledging the historical context of harm felt by marginalized communities from researchers and endeavoring to reshape this relationship to be more positive and equitable. The IRIS team also recognized the need for capacity building on both sides of community–academic partnerships to collaborate more effectively.

Methods

CBPR-Grounded Program Design Process

Two steps that IRIS took to center RRF on community needs were having fellows craft their own research projects and forming a representative advisory group to support program planning and implementation. This group met monthly from 6 months before project launch until its completion. IRIS also solicited and integrated suggestions from fellows during sessions and as part of evaluation surveys, stressing that this was a pilot, and we were all learning. This feedback loop was central to RRF staff’s ongoing reflection and program improvement process. Fellows thus contributed to designing learning goals and activities. To ensure RRF’s usefulness to fellows’ institutions and translatability of their research, IRIS worked with supervisors to establish alignment with agency priorities. As another power-sharing practice, IRIS provided US$1,000 in compensation to fellows and US$5,000 to their institutions. Fellows also received access to university library databases.

Participant Eligibility, Recruitment, and Screening

IRIS sought a diverse cohort representing varied recovery support system roles: peers, peer supervisors, clinicians, managers, trainers, advocates, other agency staff, graduate students, and professional researchers. Experience with research or a desire to learn was required. Applicants committed to attending at least 8 of 10 learning sessions, completing homework, implementing a research project at their home institutions, and contributing to the group position paper on peer workforce integration. A supervisor needed to commit to supporting the fellow’s full participation. Both parties submitted essays regarding their interest, qualifications, and projected research project. IRIS conducted outreach via email, phone, website, social media, and presentations. There were 21 applicants were interviewed and 17 were accepted based on a rating system and team discussion.

Core Program Components

Learning Sessions

Fellows convened at the university for monthly 9 am to 4:30 pm learning sessions between September 2022 and June 2023. The in-person modality was selected because of numerous associated benefits related to learning outcomes, engagement, attendance, and social–emotional well-being (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Sessions were guided by monthly themes represented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Monthly Fellowship Themes

1. Community building, community-based participatory research, and RRF

2. Using academic literature and other sources to examine peer and other recovery services

3. Using research toward policy advocacy work

4. Using research for program management, evaluation, fundraising - Overview

5. Using research for program management, evaluation and fundraising - Quantitative focus

6. Using research for program management, evaluation and fundraising - Qualitative focus

7. Presenting data and research findings in digestible and engaging ways to stakeholders

8. Meet the Funder event: Telling compelling and data driven stories for sustainable funding

9. Prepping group position paper and individual research projects for community distribution

10. Community presentation of RRF research; reflections on the RRF experience

Team and trust-building, getting grounded in community-engaged research, and topical foci of peer recovery support and peer workforce integration were priorities in earlier months. Fellows were supported to establish research questions and conduct literature reviews, including through library orientation. Middle sessions focused on research methods, with extensive instruction on data collection, analysis, and ethics. Latter sessions supported fellows to produce brief academic papers and research posters, concluding with a community dissemination event, group closure, and final evaluation.

A template agenda was adapted for each session, including networking, reviewing group norms, a team builder, and discussing homework. Two or three presentations occurred each session from IRIS staff and partners, including panels presented by fellowship or community peers, policy advocacy leaders, and funders. The last hour was reserved for fellows’ work on their projects. IRIS also made time each session to work on the group’s position paper.

Research Coaching

Besides in-session support from fellowship staff, fellows were matched with research coaches to receive an hour monthly of research project support. IRIS staff also worked closely with fellows between learning sessions to complete deliverables. Midpoint surveys were conducted with fellows and coaches to assess then improve the coaching experience.

Research Projects

Fellows were supported to design and implement research projects, most of which were conducted as quality improvement initiatives to benefit their institutions. The four fellows who were researchers engaged Institutional Review Boards. Content for the staff-led group position paper on peer workforce integration was drawn from a literature review, interviews with nine key peer recovery stakeholders, and perspectives offered by IRIS fellows.

Evaluation Methods

To assess change over time and collect demographic information, IRIS conducted pre- and post-tests via Qualtrics. Surveys assessed the levels of research knowledge and experience, including for use with program evaluation, fundraising, and advocacy. Surveys also measured trust in research, and connectedness with other parts of the recovery sector. Items were measured using a scale of 1–5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest.

The end-of-session surveys measured fellows’ level of agreement with statements indicating gains in core and session-specific learning outcomes. Satisfaction with curriculum activities, facilitation, logistics, and the day’s overall program was also measured. Quantitative questions used a five-point agreement scale, with open-ended questions related to takeaways, satisfaction, and suggestions for improvement.

To better understand fellows’ experience, Rivers of Life (Rivers) was used as a small group activity during the first and last sessions. Used in participatory research as a reflection tool and for process and outcome evaluation (as done here at the final RRF meeting), this exercise leverages the river metaphor through participants’ creation of visual narratives of their collective experience (Engage for Equity, n.d.; Kenyon et al., 2019). The initial Rivers examined the paths that led fellows to embark on this research journey. As in other participatory groups, the activity was intended to facilitate sharing and build trust and rapport (Howard, 2023).

Additional measures included session attendance and program retention. Each fellow was to complete a research project and write-up, contribute to the position paper, and fellows also decided to produce academic posters.

Data Analysis

IRIS staff analyzed pre- and post-test group differences in targeted outcomes using paired-sample t-tests with Stata software. All 17 fellows completed both pre- and post-tests. Data specific to learning outcomes and satisfaction were analyzed using means across the 10 sessions. To help assess satisfaction with different types of curriculum components, some learning activities were grouped based on similarity (i.e., staff/faculty instructors, guest speakers, panels). Qualitative data from monthly surveys and the post-test, and Rivers drawings, were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-stage thematic analysis. Five research team members coded data, three of these supported theme development, and the lead author wrote up final results. Attendance was taken each session to track retention.

Research Ethics

University of Maryland, Baltimore’s Institutional Review Board determined this inquiry to be non-human subjects research. Researchers still endeavored to uphold the highest ethical standards in conducting the study.

Results

A Diverse Cohort Centering Peers and Practice

Wide outreach with IRIS’s community partners, and intentionality in recruitment and screening, yielded a diverse cohort with broad participation of peers and others with lived experience, and additional practice-based staff and researchers (See Table 2).

Table 2.

Characteristics of Research Fellows (n = 17)

	n	%
Gender
Woman	9	52.94
Man	8	47.06
Racial ethnic group
White	8	47.06
Black or African American	7	41.18
Biracial (White and Black or African American)	1	5.88
Other (Not specified)	1	5.88
Age (years)
Young adulthood (18-34)	5	29.41
Middle adulthood (35-54)	9	52.94
Older adulthood (≥55)	3	17.65
Highest educational degree
H.S. or Associates	5	29.41
Bachelors	5	29.41
Masters or Doctorate	7	41.18
Peer or lived experience
Yes	8	47.06
No	9	52.94
Research as primary role
Yes	4	23.53
No	13	76.47

Attendance, Retention, and Project Completion

Average monthly session attendance was 15.6 (92%) and all 17 participants completed the fellowship. All fellows finished their research projects and academic write-ups, and contributed to position paper completion. There were 14 of 17 (82%) completed academic posters. Fellows’ research projects centered on peer recovery, including peers’ role in supporting medications for opioid use disorder, the financial value placed on peer work, and peers in recovery re-entry homes, adolescent clubhouses, and university research roles. Training for peers was also examined, including comparing Maryland peer certification requirements to other states. The position paper identified numerous barriers and facilitators to effective peer workforce integration, which are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Barriers to and Strategies for Effective Peer Workforce Integration

Barriers	Strategies
Unrecognized research-based benefits of peer services	Build on evidence base for peer recovery services
Lack of clarity on the peer role	Prepare both peers and organizations for peer workforce integration in newer work settings Create mechanisms for interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration
Stigma toward peers	Enhance education and advocacy on peer role and approach Support for peers through peer-delivered supervision
Poor unsustainable funding	Spur greater financial security for peer positions
Lack of centralized coordination for the peer profession	Develop entities and initiative to provide unified support for peer workforce integration

Quantitative Results

Relationship Building, Peer Workforce Integration, and Research Skills Acquisition

Monthly evaluation data revealed that participants felt fellowship content contributed to relationship and knowledge-building around peer workforce integration and recovery research, and that this was applicable to their work and fellowship projects. Table 4 presents the 10-month mean scores of learning outcomes, all of which rated between 4.53 and 4.70 out of 5. Comparison of pre- and post-test results indicated statistically significant gains in trust in qualitative research, connectedness, knowledge in and experience with recovery support services, knowledge of the research process, and a wide array of additional research skills. These included research about the peer workforce, and toward the purposes of program evaluation, policy advocacy, and fundraising (see Table 5).

Table 4.

Attainment of Core Learning Objectives at Monthly Sessions

Learning Objective	Mean (1-5)
Relationship-building within the fellowship	4.68
Knowledge of community-engaged recovery research skills	4.55
Knowledge regarding what research and practice have demonstrated about peer workforce integration	4.53
Relevant to my IRIS fellowship individual research project	4.70
Relevant to the work I do at my institution(s) of work or study	4.62
I am likely to use what I gained from today’s session within the work I do at my institution(s) of work or study	4.62

Table 5.

Change in Fellows’ Trust, Connectedness, Knowledge, and Experience

Survey Item	Pre-test	Post-test	Difference
Trust in quantitative research	3.76	4.29	0.53
Trust in qualitative research	3.65	4.41	0.76*
Connectedness to other parts of recovery support sector	3.76	4.76	1.00**
Knowledge - recovery support services	3.76	4.53	0.77***
Experience - recovery support services	3.47	4.06	0.59*
Knowledge - research process	3.29	4.06	0.77**
Experience - research process	3.29	3.82	0.53
Knowledge - ways to access recovery research and data	3.06	4.29	1.23**
Experience - ways to access recovery research and data	2.82	3.88	1.06**
Knowledge - community-engaged recovery research	2.76	4.00	1.24***
Experience - community-engaged recovery research	2.71	3.94	1.23***
Knowledge - what research has shown about peers in the workforce	2.94	4.24	1.30***
Experience - what research has shown about peers in the workforce	2.94	4.12	1.18**
Knowledge - using research/data as tool for policy/advocacy	2.82	4.18	1.36***
Experience - using research/data as tool for policy/advocacy	2.88	4.12	1.24**
Knowledge - using research/data for program development	2.88	4.18	1.30***
Experience - using research/data for program development	2.71	4.12	1.41***
Knowledge - using research/data for program management	2.88	4.00	1.12***
Experience - using research/data for program management	2.65	3.94	1.29***
Knowledge - using research/data for program evaluation	3.00	4.18	1.18***
Experience - using research/data for program evaluation	2.88	3.94	1.06**
Knowledge - using research/data for fundraising	2.35	3.59	1.24***
Experience - using research/data for fundraising	2.24	3.47	1.23***
Knowledge - presenting data/research in academic publications	2.76	3.94	1.18***
Experience - presenting data/research in academic publications	2.71	3.82	1.11**
Knowledge - presenting data/research in engaging ways to stakeholders	2.71	4.18	1.47***
Experience - presenting data/research in engaging ways to stakeholders	2.71	4.06	1.35***
Knowledge - key funders of recovery research	2.35	3.88	1.53***
Experience - key funders of recovery research	2.29	3.82	1.53***

^*= p < .05,

^**= p < .01,

^***= p < .001

Findings on participant satisfaction with curriculum components indicated the following ratings using a scale of 1–5: opening circle and team builder (4.53), homework review (4.40), working on position paper (4.41), IRIS-delivered instruction (4.54), guest-delivered instruction (4.73), and guest panels (4.78). Overall ratings were facilitation (4.80), logistics (4.72), and total session (4.76).

Qualitative Results

Five themes resulted from the analysis of fellows’ open-ended survey responses and Rivers, representing their sentiments related to targeted outcomes of connectedness, peer workforce integration, and learning and applying recovery research.

Theme 1: “A great journey in building trust through fellowship and across disciplines.”

Fellows valued the camaraderie, networking, community, and sense of fellowship they experienced as a cohort. Fellows expressed that this strong connection related to the group’s demographic diversity and interdisciplinary roles, and the common cause of recovery and particularly the peer role. “We all related because we believed in peer integration.” Fellows also appreciated being among “a room full of experts” who all brought important knowledge.

Theme 2: “Building knowledge and gaining practical experience with community-engaged recovery research.”

Fellows who were graduate school or staff researchers reported substantial learning about service provision, including peer recovery and harm reduction. One researcher fellow stated that, “this fellowship flipped the script,” with its focus on developing research, “from the ground up.” Fellows from the practice side, “learned so much about research.” One stated that, “numbers shouldn’t scare us.” Another said, “research is an important tool when advocating for change.” Representing the impact that fellows felt their research could have, one Rivers drawing showed greenery sprouting from the “fertile soil” of project outcomes.

Theme 3: “I’ve become the loud person in the room…to ensure we support people with lived experience.”

Centering peers within the fellowship, “really drove home the value and necessity of peers.” One peer fellow expressed their deep appreciation that others were genuinely interested in “fair treatment (of peers) and wanted to learn from what we have learned.” Researcher fellows also highly valued this peer focus. They felt better equipped to publish peer-focused papers and were excited to build on fellowship research project results with additional peer-centered studies. Numerous participants stated that the fellowship led them to advocate for hiring and effectively integrating more peers at their institutions.

Theme 4: “I will use the experience to enhance future programming based on community needs and trends.”

In one final Rivers of Live drawing were four words—research, education, advocacy, and health care—representing areas of completed learning and future impact (see Figure 1). Survey results also indicated plans to continue peer-focused initiatives. One fellow stated, “I believe my project is just a start and basis to future work…to influence funding and advocacy for peer work.” Implications for fellows’ research results included a peer who said their project would allow their hospital, “to target employee groups for additional education,” about ways to treat patients using emergent street drugs.

Figure 1.

River of Life Drawing From Final Fellowship Session

Theme 5: “They wanted to learn from us as much as we wanted to learn from them.”

Regarding fellowship strengths, besides the peer focus and cohort diversity, fellows noted staff’s respect for and uplift of their perspectives. Fellows’ sense of belonging and feeling valued were represented thusly, “The staff did a good job of making the fellows feel important.” Fellows expressed that a collaborative, positive, and safe atmosphere, and interactive curriculum modalities, facilitated connection and uplifted their voice. Fellows liked the wide range of activities, describing the “variety of format” as balanced, informative, engaging, and enjoyable. They appreciated “real-life” research examples from speakers, and tools for their projects, such as templates and tip sheets.

Fellows offered feedback for future improvements. One request was clearer and earlier expectations on research projects, including through a fellowship syllabus. Fellows also expressed that project completion felt rushed at the end. One stated, “it might be nice to have 12 months instead of 10 to get all this done!” Reinforcing this point, multiple Rivers drawings showed rocky, whirlpool like waters during final months (see Figure 1). In addition, during the fellowship’s middle months when research methods were covered extensively, fellows felt some fatigue. To maintain engagement, Fellows suggested more hands-on practice, like “quick trial runs of the various research methods.”

Discussion

Results demonstrating fellows’ gains in trust, connectedness, research skills, and investment in peer recovery mirror findings from other studies of initiatives focused on building capacity of peers, other providers, and academics to engage in scientific substance use inquiry. Within the What Works and Why project, a key enabler of meaningful participation of peer organizations within strategic research partnerships was the “visible valuing of peer participation and leadership” (Brown et al., 2019, p. 7). Thompson (2013) found that an interdisciplinary substance use research training program resulted in studies, publications, and mentoring relationships, and new ways of thinking gleaned from a variety of health science scholars. A scoping review of interdisciplinary collaboration in addictions education and training found that learning participants, academic faculty, and community partners had extremely favorable responses, in part because of the unique opportunity for rich exchange of ideas and mutual learning (Broyles et al., 2013).

Implications for Practice

Given this pilot’s success, additional fellowships and similar learning communities would be beneficial. As the peer workforce expands, more professional development opportunities are needed (Stack et al., 2022), including to build research skills. Although the implementation of time- and cost-intensive research fellowships may be beyond organizations’ capacity, integration of practical research training and hands-on practice for peers and other providers to deeply engage with evaluation and quality improvement would pay great dividends. Learning opportunities may be integrated into health organizations’ staff meetings, in-service trainings, and webinar libraries.

Although such workforce development activities often prioritize management staff responsible for research and evaluation, service providers should be included as they are often best positioned to identify needs, raise important questions, and engage communities in piloting, evaluating, and expanding interventions. As an example, the RRF peer-conducted research project which demonstrated gaps in hospital staff knowledge around ways to treat emergent drugs resulted in enhanced professional education to meet this need.

To support research infrastructure building, community–academic partnerships are helpful but may be difficult to develop and sustain. To address this challenge, accessing existing initiatives that provide education and other resources for health promotion program planning and evaluation is one important strategy (Lobo et al., 2014). For institutions focused on substance use prevention, the NIH HEAL Initiative’s Recovery Research Networks, Recovery Research Institute’s Consortium on Addiction Recovery Science, and Peer Recovery Innovation Network’s Recovery Science Collaboratory are all good resources. These groups may also help identify revenue sources, which funders can expand by supporting initiatives with similar aims as RRF and by encouraging grantseekers to integrate evaluation and other quality improvement expenses into their budgets.

Peer certification boards and affiliated training providers can contribute by integrating relevant workshops. Health science universities, license boards, and continuing education unit providers could also deliver course instruction and professional development focused on peer recovery research. IRIS is working with local peer training partners to pilot such a workshop that would then become institutionalized into their course offerings.

In sum, peer-focused educational activities that bridge recovery practice and research are essential for health promotion professionals to increase their understanding of peer-delivered services as a vital recovery support. This work helps to strengthen collaboration among interdisciplinary public health teams, facilitate expansion of this essential practice through effective integration into diverse settings, and improve recovery-oriented systems of care. Additional initiatives such as the RRF will also assist peers and other providers to ground their practice in the evidence base and to collectively strengthen scientific inquiry.

Implications for Research

Additional investigation is needed to document outcomes and lessons learned from workforce development initiatives with similar aims as RRF. A stronger research focus on peer and other community-based recovery supports is also imperative. Although there has been increasing support for research on these services, additional focus is required to develop foundational knowledge (Volkow, 2022). Peers must be central to developing that inquiry, represented in the rallying cry of numerous consumer-driven movements, “nothing about us without us” (Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 2005; Holman & Hinkley, 2018). Greater participation of peers, including those from diverse demographic backgrounds, will contribute to more equitable and inclusive research, which is a growing priority (Santoro, 2023). Diversifying the health science research workforce with more peers is also important, and universities can support such career pathways through campus-based learning opportunities such as RRF and through tailored recruitment for advisory and staff positions.

Limitations and Strengths

Although designed as a pilot, quantitative results must be considered within the context of a small sample size. Another study limitation was having fellowship staff and participants analyze data, instead of independent researchers. Partnering with peers as co-researchers, however, was also a study strength and an important way to contribute to ongoing multidirectional capacity building. The mixed-methods design allowed for triangulation of results and a deeper understanding of fellows’ experience. A large research team working on data analysis improved credibility of results. The fellowship’s focus on peers within the context of interdisciplinary learning and community–academic partnerships was unique and powerful as a research capacity-building initiative.