Table 1.

Engagement and Capacity Building

Engagement and capacity building. This domain includes methods that draw stakeholders into community-engaged research at the initial planning stages, periodically at key points in the project, and on an ongoing basis through the formation of collaborative working and infrastructure support. It also includes strategies for capacity building, with the aim of supporting people to continue to engage with the research.
	Type/Brief Description	Goals	Participants	Strengths	Challenges
Community engagement studio (Joosten et al., 2015, 2018, 2021)	Consultative community review of research	-Project-specific community input is used to enhance the design, implementation, and dissemination of research -Assessing and improving ethics, relevance, and appropriateness of research	-Community residents -Members of the population the research is intended to benefit -Academic researchers	-Feedback from underrepresented and specialized populations -Useful at various stages of the research process	-Requires institutional support -Stakeholders lack decision-making power
CBPR Charrette (Samuel et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2020) See also https://www.involve.org.uk/resources/methods/design-charrettes	A collaborative planning process to assist with partnership development, stakeholder engagement, and decision-making infrastructure	-Provide community and academic research partners with technical assistance -Provide an interactive forum in order to clarify problems that people want to address -Identify needs for different types of knowledge and expertise -Find sources of expertise and technical assistance to support partnership development, engagement, and decision-making	-Community groups and local citizens -Academic researchers -The type of stakeholders depends on the nature of the problem(s) to be addressed	-Tailored, time-limited sessions -Identifies issues and possible solutions -Periodic small-group work informs the larger process -Creates positive collaboration across diverse stakeholders -Reviews feasibility and relevance of possible projects -Produces realistic visions of what can be done and -Co-designed, detailed plan to guide next steps for the partnership	-Participants may not be representative of the wider community -Time compression: Intensive sessions over a short time period may exclude people who cannot commit the time -The logistics for planning the sessions require adequate administrative resources -Potential costs -Involvement of diverse people over a short time period requires skilled community and academic co-facilitators, to ensure participation is not dominated by experts -Transparent communication about the process is needed -May create false expectations
Patient-research networks (PRNs) (Chalmers et al., 2013; Dean et al., 2021; Marschhauser et al., 2021; Nowell et al., 2018)	Networks that bring together patient groups focusing on specific health conditions to set research priorities and contribute to patient-centered outcomes research	-Bring together health data and patient partnerships to enable large-scale patient-centered clinical research Use networks to: -Create patient-centered research agendas -Identify patient-valued outcomes -Design patient-centered research	-Patients and caregivers interested in sharing their health information and participating in research -Researchers	Participant governance helps to: -Prioritize research questions -Enhance research design, including diverse and representative enrollment, data sharing and ethics -Sustain and expand networks -Identify effective approaches to disseminating results	-Conflict and lack of agreement across different patient groups in the network -Skilled facilitation is needed to manage issues of imbalance of power, to develop trust (Abma et al., 2019)
CBPR community advisory board (CAB) (Dias et al., 2018; Keygnaert et al., 2015; Newman et al., 2011)	Collaborative, ongoing leadership for CBPR	-Facilitate community voice in research -Provide feedback on research processes -Identify community needs, interests, and research priorities -Provide ethics oversight	Community advisory board members are typically chosen from the community of interest, e.g. -Community residents -Organizational representatives -Underrepresented groups -People who can access the resources and skills needed	-Improve buy-in, representation, quality, and effectiveness of research -Increase capacity for communities to resolve problems via ongoing training and technical support -Opportunities to translate research into action	-Time consuming and labor intensive -May not be representative of the communities involved -CABs must clarify (often shifting) roles with academic researchers, which may range from a limited advisory role, to collaboration, to active control and oversight of the research project -Differing priorities across community and academic partners -Differing priorities between CAB and research funders