Introduction
Addressing complex societal problems such as health inequality, poverty, and climate and environmental change requires collaboration among teams representing multiple disciplines, sectors, and expertise. As such, funding agencies, research and clinical teams and institutions, and community groups alike are prioritizing research and practices that focus on collaboratively and holistically addressing multiple dimensions of these wicked challenges [Reference Caulfield and Brenner1–Reference Wallerstein, Oetzel and Sanchez-Youngman4]. This phenomenon is evidenced by two intersecting trends. First, investments have grown in research on the relatively nascent field of team science [Reference Stokols, Misra, Moser, Hall and Taylor5–7], – that is, collaborative efforts that integrate strengths of individuals with diverse expertise to address scientific challenges [Reference Vogel, Hall and Fiore8], as well as in the emerging field of the Science of Team Science – empirical inquiry of the processes by which scientific teams conduct research [7]. Second, there is increasing engagement across communities, scientific teams, and healthcare systems to cooperatively, equitably, and more effectively investigate and intervene upon health and its determinants [Reference Hohl, Neuhouser and Thompson9–Reference Holzer and Kass13].
With the emphasis on promoting health equity through improved approaches to translational research across the research continuum (i.e., conceptualization, design, implementation, dissemination), the ability to assemble diverse groups to comprehensively answer specific research questions and solve complex problems is even more critical. Team science has historically focused on convening health professionals (e.g., researchers, clinicians, program staff) to conduct interdisciplinary research, and community engagement has historically focused on community inclusion to pragmatically address the needs of a population. Yet, there is an overlap in potential for and requirements of collaboration between, and integration of, these two fields. For instance, Clinical and Translational Science Awardees (CTSAs), funded by the National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), are explicitly required to include both team science and community engagement as part of their program to increase translational research efficiency and effectiveness. As diverse teams within and beyond the CTSAs aim to both advance community engagement and team science research and address complex societal challenges, it is important to understand the distinctions, overlap, and complementarity of these two fields. This knowledge can increase the potential for team science to advance community-engaged research and vice versa.
Recent reviews of the community engagement literature have investigated the intersection of community engagement and community-engaged scholarship [Reference Ortiz, Nash and Shea2], measures of success [Reference Brush, Mentz and Jensen14,Reference Shalowitz, Isacco and Barquin15], and its utilization in specific disciplines [Reference Harris Nwanyanwu, Grossetta Nardini, Shaughness, Nunez-Smith and Newman-Casey16,Reference Rodriguez Espinosa and Verney17], for specific populations [Reference Julian McFarlane, Occa, Peng, Awonuga and Morgan18–Reference Russell, Rosenbaum, Varela, Stanton and Barnett21], and to prevent and manage specific diseases [Reference Campbell, Yan and Egede22,Reference Shah, Nakagawa and Lieblong23], The few existing reviews of the team science literature have primarily focused on aspects of and influences on collaboration in scientific and interdisciplinary teams [Reference Hall, Vogel and Huang6,Reference Little, St Hill and Ware24–Reference Ghamgosar, Nemati-Anaraki and Panahi26], Some exploratory work into synergies of these two areas has occurred, in which investigators provide recommendations [Reference Wallerstein, Calhoun, Eder, Kaplow, Wilkins, Hall, Vogel and Croyle27], competencies [Reference Mendell, Knerich and Ranwala28], and a framework [Reference Rushforth and Selker29,Reference Selker and Wilkins30] for community engagement with science teams. However, this is the first review of which we are aware that investigates the intersection of community engagement and team science.
Integrated community engagement and team science research approaches are both critical and novel, with few tools existing that describe or guide this practice. An in-depth understanding of the science and practice of this integration is needed to guide future researchers, clinicians, policymakers, funders, the public health workforce, and communities to thoughtfully solve complex problems that require partnership. This exploration requires a thorough review of the scientific literature to understand their language of collaboration and produce a summary of the integration of the fields and directions for future interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and translational research within and beyond the CTSAs. The purpose of this scoping review was to systematically examine how community engagement and team science intersect in empirical studies. We sought to answer the question: How do team science research and community engagement research jointly approach research collaboration? Our aims were to (1) describe the nature and scope of team collaboration in the context of community engagement research as described in empirical studies; (2) articulate the purpose and design of published studies utilizing team science and community engaged research; and (3) describe the overlap of the characteristics of community-engaged and team science research. These aims align with the goals of scoping reviews to identify types of evidence, examine how research is conducted, and identify key characteristics related to a concept [Reference Munn, Pollock and Khalil31] (i.e., integration of team science and community engagement).
Materials and methods
To address the aims of our study while simultaneously achieving the goals of scoping reviews stated above, we followed Levac’s enhancement [Reference Levac, Colquhoun and O’Brien32] of methodological framework for scoping reviews [Reference Arksey and O’Malley33]. Arksey and O’Malley’s framework includes five phases to (1) identify the research question; (2) identify relevant studies; (3) select studies); (4) chart the data; (5) summarize results [Reference Arksey and O’Malley33]. We selected Levac’s scoping review methodology given the addition of a sixth phase--consult external experts. This addition was designed specifically to advance health research by enhancing the application and relevance of scoping studies [Reference Levac, Colquhoun and O’Brien32]. In this scoping review, we engaged individuals outside of the scoping review team who represent academic institutions and have expertise in one or both subject areas, as well as community members who collaborate on scientific teams.
Phase 1. Identifying the research question
To conduct the scoping review, we assembled an interdisciplinary team of nine investigators and librarians from four institutions. Of these, three had expertise in team science, five had expertise in community-engaged research, and one had expertise in both areas of inquiry. The team met approximately twice monthly over 18 months and as needed after studies were selected. In the first meeting, the team agreed upon working definitions to guide this work. The impetus for this review was, in part, driven by the NCATS requirement to utilize both community engagement and team science approaches. Thus, the team relied upon the CTSA Community Engagement Task Force definition of community engagement: “a continuum of community involvement,” and the process of “working collaboratively with and through groups of people affiliated by geographic proximity, special interest, or similar situations to address issues affecting the wellbeing of those people [34–Reference Nooraie, Kwan and Cohn36].” We used Vogel et al.’s definition of team science: “a collaborative effort to address a scientific challenge that leverages the strengths and expertise of professionals trained in different fields,” where “team members with training and expertise in different fields work together to combine or integrate their perspectives in a single research endeavor [Reference Vogel, Hall and Fiore8].” We then collaboratively developed the following research question:
-
1. How do teams conducting community-engaged research and team science research jointly approach research collaboration?
Phase 2. Identifying relevant studies
In collaboration with the full study team, the search strategy was designed and implemented by a health sciences librarian (STW) with the intention to search the health and life science literature. Databases searched included: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature via EBSCO, EMBASE via Elsevier, ERIC via EBSCO, and Scopus. Although the search was not restricted by language, articles that did not have an English translation available were excluded. All database results were collected from the inception of the database through January 2024. Search terms were used to retrieve articles addressing the two main concepts of the search strategy: (1) community engagement and (2) team science (Appendix 1). The search was conducted in PubMed using keyword and MeSH combinations. Results from all databases were exported to EndNote. All 1271 references retrieved were uploaded to Covidence systematic review software (https://www.covidence.org), a web-based tool designed to facilitate the abstraction and review process; 280 duplicates were removed. Titles and abstracts of 991 unique citations were screened.
To develop inclusion and exclusion criteria for each area of inquiry, we determined that a study could be included if it described collaboration between at least one research team and at least one community group. We recognized that our team and the scoping review required a clear conceptualization of “community group.” To facilitate a shared understanding of community group, the team discussed and agreed upon a definition and examples. We conceptualized community group as an entity comprising individuals with a shared identity, a collective interest, and/or one working towards a common purpose and not affiliated with an academic or research institution. Examples of community groups included those with a shared identity (e.g., racial or ethnic identity, health condition), community-based organizations, tribal communities, and regional, state, national, or global groups or organizations. To identify characteristics of community engagement and team science, we generated a list of characteristics of each based on: (1) a brief review of characteristics described in the community-based participatory research and community engagement literature [Reference Ortiz, Nash and Shea2,Reference Wallerstein, Oetzel and Sanchez-Youngman4,Reference Israel, Schulz and Parker37–Reference Wallerstein, Yen and Syme39] and team science literature [Reference Salas, Shuffler, Thayer, Bedwell and Lazzara40–Reference Raue, Tang, Weiland and Wenzlik43]; (2) expertise within our team; and (3) feedback from experts in the field on the list of characteristics of each approach. The final list included 16 community engagement and 12 team science characteristics (Table 1).
Table 1. Community engagement and team science characteristics
Characteristics were developed based on (1) a brief review of characteristics described in the community-based participatory research and community engagement literature [Reference Ortiz, Nash and Shea2,Reference Wallerstein, Oetzel and Sanchez-Youngman4,Reference Israel, Schulz and Parker37–Reference Wallerstein, Yen and Syme39] and team science literature [Reference Salas, Shuffler, Thayer, Bedwell and Lazzara40–Reference Raue, Tang, Weiland and Wenzlik43]; (2) expertise within our team; and (3) feedback from experts in the field on the list of characteristics of each approach.
Phase 3. Selecting studies
All titles and abstracts were screened by one community engagement researcher (SH, LK, or MR) and one team science researcher (EB, SH, or BZ) using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. A study was included if it:
-
1. Was a data-based paper that included primary or secondary data analysis;
-
2. Was published in a peer-reviewed journal;
-
3. Described collaboration between at least one group representative of communities and at least one research team;
-
4. Described at least 2 characteristics of community engagement (Table 1);
-
5. Described at least 2 characteristics of team science (Table 1).
A study was excluded if it:
-
1. Was not a research paper or study;
-
2. Described an evaluation of a training program or organization;
-
3. Did not address a minimum of two team science criteria and a minimum of two community engagement characteristics;
-
4. Was not available in English; or
-
5. Did not have full text available.
Following title and abstract review, one team science researcher (EB, SH, TJ, BZ) and one community engagement researcher (SH, LK, MR, DV) reviewed each full-text article to confirm that selected articles met the inclusion criteria. We adapted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Scoping Review flow diagram (Figure 1) [Reference Tricco, Lillie and Zarin44]. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus during team meetings.
Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews adapted flow diagram for January 2023 scoping review of team science and community engagement research.
Phase 4. Charting the data
Seven team members collaboratively agreed upon variables to include in a data abstraction instrument. The instrument included variables across three sections: (1) study contextual characteristics (e.g., publication year, journal, authors); (2) Scholarly origin, frameworks, theories, and outcomes; (3) Community engagement and team science characteristics. The full instrument is available in Appendix 2. Each team member independently abstracted data from 3 to 5 articles to ensure the abstraction approach was appropriate and that variables were consistent with the purpose of the review. Both the pilot and final instrument utilized REDCap electronic data capture tools [Reference Harris, Taylor and Minor45] to abstract article characteristics. To address potential bias and abstraction quality, 13 (19%) articles were abstracted by two team members [Reference Mathes, Klaßen and Pieper46].
Phase 5. Summarizing the results
The lead author compared data across abstractors and consulted with two team members in rare instances when conflicts arose. Data from REDCap were uploaded into SPSS (Version 28) statistical software to calculate descriptive statistics. To better understand the overlap of specific characteristics of community engagement and team science, we assessed the strength of associations between community engagement and team science characteristics described across studies using chi-square tests and a significance level of 0.05.
Phase 6. Consulting external experts
Our team consulted both team science and community engagement experts in two phases of the scoping review. First, to identify and define characteristics of team science and community engagement as part of Phase 1, we sent a list of characteristics and definitions identified in the literature and by team members to colleagues in our team science and community engagement research networks and requested their feedback. We incorporated that feedback into the final list of characteristics and definitions (Table 1). Second, in February 2024, the lead author presented preliminary scoping review results and facilitated a discussion among the CTSA Collaboration and Engagement Enterprise Committee [47] to gain perspectives about translating findings into actionable recommendations. The committee comprises representatives of more than 60 academic/medical institutions, their community partners, and funding agencies who are affiliated with the CTSAs. While community partners from all CTSAs are invited to join the Enterprise Committee, the attendance is largely from academic/medical institutions. The overall vision of the committee is to foster collaboration with community partners and the community that they serve through active engagement and promotion of team science. Two members of the scoping review team were present at the meeting and took notes on participant comments. Comments were discussed with the full scoping review team and integrated into the manuscript discussion and recommendations.
Upon completion of the scoping review methodology, the scoping review team discussed the results during multiple team meetings. We collaboratively developed recommendations based on the scoping review findings and suggestions from CTSA Collaboration and Engagement Enterprise Committee members. To support the development of actionable recommendations, we determined specific audience(s) for each recommendation.
Results
A total of 1271 unique articles were identified using the initial search strategy (Figure 1). After completing the title and abstract screening, full text of 251 articles was assessed for eligibility, and 67 articles from 54 unique journals were included in the scoping review (Table 2). Figure 1 illustrates exclusion reasons. The time frame for this search was not limited as we intended to provide an overview of all empirical studies utilizing both team science and community-engaged research. Both U.S.-based and those based outside of the U.S. were published with increasing, but not linear, frequency from 2004 to 2023 (Figure 2). No studies had been published in 2024 at the time the search was conducted on January 19, 2024.
Figure 2. Team science and community engagement publications, 2003–2023.
Table 2. Manuscripts included in review
Funding
Fifty-seven (85.1%) studies were supported by external funding only and eleven (16.4%) were supported by internal institutional funds. Twelve (17.9%) studies were supported by multiple funding sources (Appendix 3). Eleven (16.4%) studies did not list funding sources; none explicitly reported not having been funded.
Topics, study populations, and settings
The studies included in this review included researchers and community partners in diverse settings. Most studies focused on partnerships created to address human health (e.g., chronic and infectious disease, cancer) and its determinants (e.g., hygiene, housing, poverty, climate change, nutrition security). All but three studies (95.5%) focused on human populations with shared experiences (e.g., certain health conditions, members of the same community) or groups of people, such as research teams. Six (9.0%) studies focused on non-human populations or topics, (e.g., animals, agriculture, environmental health; four of these focused on both human and non-human populations/topics). Studies took place in specific geographic or cultural communities (74.6%), health centers (16.4%), research centers and institutes (16.4%), schools (3.0%), or a combination of these settings (10.4%). Thirty-four (50.7%) studies were conducted in North America; of those, 28 were conducted in the U.S., 7 in Canada, 3 in Guatemala and 2 in Mexico. Twenty-four (35.8%) were conducted in Europe, 7 (10.4%) in Africa, 3 (4.5%) in Asia, and 1 (1.5%) in Australia. Five manuscripts (7.5%) described multi-country studies.
Theoretical frameworks and approaches
Over half (65.7%) of studies described having used one or more theoretical frameworks or approaches. Studies reported using behavior change theories (e.g., Theory of Planned Behavior, Social Cognitive Theory, Health Belief Model); participatory action frameworks; Community-based participatory research (CBPR); ecological theory; design theory; and transdisciplinary research frameworks.
Methods and outcomes
Nearly two-thirds (60.9%) of studies utilized qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, focus groups, observations); 26.1% utilized quantitative methods (e.g., descriptive, non-randomized, randomized controlled trial); 47.8% used mixed or multiple methods. The majority (80.6%) of studies assessed at least one outcome and 15 (22.4%) assessed partnership outcomes specifically. Partnership outcomes included quantitative measures and qualitative narratives regarding topics such as challenges to partnership, new social ties (e.g., collaborations between groups or individuals who had not previously interacted), characteristics of collaborative culture, power relations, trust and trust building, bidirectional learning, equity in research participation, and research team well-being.
Community engagement
The studies included in this review were examined for their explicit description of 16 community engagement characteristics (Table 3) [Reference Ortiz, Nash and Shea2,Reference Wallerstein, Oetzel and Sanchez-Youngman4,Reference Israel, Schulz and Parker37–Reference Wallerstein, Yen and Syme39] The greatest number of studies (n = 56; 83.6%) described an asset-based approach wherein all collaborators’ strengths and knowledge were respected and incorporated. Studies described community member roles on the study team as participating in implementation (n = 47 studies, 70.1%); data analysis (n = 47, 70.1%); co-defining the issue (n = 43, 64.2%); and co-designing the study (n = 38, 56.7%). Over half (61.2%) explicitly described a process of reporting findings back to the community through activities such as town halls, community meetings, and reports written in plain language. Conversely, less than a third (n = 22, 32.8%) described having included community members as coauthors on publications, presentations, or reports of findings. Less than half of studies (41.8%) explicitly described their work as focusing on a community identified priority; 26 (38.8%) described ongoing commitment to community members beyond a single funded project, and 14 (20.9%) described paying community members as part of their study teams. The specific type of community partners engaged varied across research studies. In 37 (55.2%) studies, authors described having engaged individuals impacted by the topic addressed (e.g., disease, perceptions of health, partnership, environmental health); 35 (52.2%) described partnering with members of community organizations and 25 (37.3%) described partnering with leaders of community organizations. More than half (52.2%) described collaborating across multiple community partner types.
Table 3. Community engagement and team science characteristics described in empirical studies utilizing both community engagement and team science
Team science
Studies in this review were assessed for their description of 12 team science characteristics (Table 3) [Reference Salas, Shuffler, Thayer, Bedwell and Lazzara40,Reference Lotrecchiano, DiazGranados and Sprecher42,Reference Raue, Tang, Weiland and Wenzlik43]. The greatest number of studies (n = 56, 83.6%) described team partnership goals, such as engaging in bidirectional learning; building capacity of researchers and community partners; conducting outreach, educational, and reflexive efforts among collaborators, and/or identifying and addressing a community priority. Similarly, 51 (76.1%) clearly named team member roles (e.g., identifying the priority issue; co-designing the study and/or data collection instruments; advising) and the same number described how specific roles were needed to leverage the varying expertise of collaborators and 55 (82.1%) described how those roles were necessary to leverage the expertise of different team members. Over three quarters described the organizational context of the team research (n = 52, 77.6%), and 46 (68.7%) described team research management. Fewer studies, however, described team leadership (n = n = 24; 35.8%), the process of facilitating team affect (n = 21; 31.3%), or interpersonal team effectiveness (n = 18, 26.9%).
Team science and community engagement
Associations between specific characteristics of community engagement and team science are reported in Table 4. Reciprocity, co-Defining the issue, sustainability, and ongoing commitment to the community were the most common community engagement characteristics that were significantly associated with any team science characteristic. Team research management, material resources, and team processes were the most common team science characteristics that were significantly associated with any community engagement characteristics. Describing reciprocity, a community-engagement characteristic, was significantly associated with describing multiple team science characteristics that include organizational context, team member roles, team processes, team research management, material resources, and collaborative problem-solving. Describing the community engagement characteristic of asset-based approach was significantly associated with describing team science characteristics team member roles, team processes, team research management, and material resources. Additionally, describing the community engagement characteristic of co-defining the issue was significantly associated with describing the team science characteristics of team leadership, team partnership goals, team processes, communication, team research management, material resources, and collaborative problem-solving. No significant associations were found between any team science characteristic and the community engagement characteristics of instrument co-design, study implementation, policy implications, or advisory boards. No significant associations were found between any community engagement characteristic and interpersonal team effectiveness.
Table 4. Significant associations between community engagement and team science characteristics described in empirical studies utilizing both community engagement and team science
No significant associations between any team science characteristic and these community engagement characteristics: instrument co-design, study implementation, policy implications, advisory boards. No significant association between any community engagement characteristic and interpersonal team effectiveness.
*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Discussion
This manuscript is the first, to our knowledge, to use a scoping review approach to interrogate the intersection of the community engagement and team science literature and provides a foundation for further research in this area. The articles included in this scoping review indicate that publication of empirical studies utilizing both community engagement and team science has been increasing since 2004. This finding is consistent with reviews that found that research studies in community engagement and CBPR have proliferated [Reference Ortiz, Nash and Shea2,Reference Rodriguez Espinosa and Verney17,Reference Julian McFarlane, Occa, Peng, Awonuga and Morgan18]. This growth in interest in team science and community engagement could be a result of an evolving awareness of team functioning and approaches to both partnership and community engaged research in response to COVID-19, or perhaps a widescale desire to reimagine community-engaged research as an approach to social change [Reference Wallerstein, Calhoun, Eder, Kaplow, Wilkins, Hall, Vogel and Croyle27,Reference Gilmore, Ndejjo and Tchetchia48,Reference Henry Akintobi, Jacobs and Sabbs49]. Most studies in our review focused on partnering with both community members and community organizations to ameliorate the health of systematically marginalized communities; however, several studies also utilized team science and community engagement strategies to address topics such as environmental health, agriculture, and fisheries, topics not commonly addressed in community-engagement research. Just under half (42%) of studies were conducted outside of the U.S.
More than three-quarters of studies described community-engagement characteristics such as taking an asset-based approach, focusing on policy implications of the research that will benefit the community, and collaboration grounded in bidirectional exchange. Over half outlined specific roles of communities as part of the research team, such as co-defining the issue and co-designing the study or analyzing data. Unsurprisingly, the team science characteristics most often described in these studies, such as team partnership goals, leveraging expertise of all team members, team member roles, and organizational context align with principles of community engagement. However, the fact that no significant associations were found between any team science characteristic and the community engagement characteristics instrument co-design, study implementation, policy implications, or advisory boards suggests that these factors may be characteristics unique to community engagement, or that they represent a gap in the team science literature.
With the exceptions described above, this review revealed inconsistent and incomplete reporting of community engagement and team science characteristics. Informed by the synergies as well as the inconsistencies and gaps in the literature, we developed recommendations for research teams, research institutions, journals, and funding bodies that we expect will enhance existing efforts and better support and strengthen this important and emerging approach to research (Table 5). For example, less than 25% of studies reported compensating community members of the study team, which may reflect institutional practices. Equitable collaboration across community and academic partners requires equitable compensation [Reference Langness, Morgan, Cedano and Falkenburger50]; yet, few academic institutions have policies in place to compensate community partners. Accordingly, we recommend that institutions create formal policies, guidelines, and processes that facilitate timely compensation for community members who contribute to research teams.
Table 5. Recommendations for research teams, research institutions, journals, and funding bodies
*Community engagement characteristic.
**Team science characteristic.
Addressing a community identified priority is foundational to CBPR [Reference Israel, Schulz and Parker37], a principle that could be facilitated by convening advisory boards comprised of community members [Reference Hohl, Neuhouser and Thompson9,Reference Ortega, McAlvain, Briant, Hohl and Thompson51], and by partnering to develop collaboration and teaming plans [Reference Hall, Vogel and Crowston52]. Yet, fewer than half of the studies in this review described having convened an advisory board or focusing on a need or priority identified by the community. Moreover, fewer than half described an ongoing commitment to the community. Few studies described building community capacity that could be transferrable to future projects and other priorities identified by the community or an ongoing commitment to the community beyond any single funded project, characteristics that are emphasized in CBPR [Reference Israel, Schulz and Parker37]. These practices – or lack thereof – could be a result of the imbalance of the priorities of funders of traditional research, as well as the design of research and academic institutions that don’t always facilitate or support collaborative work in general and community-engaged teamwork and collaboration specifically. For example, evidence shows that CTSA hubs consistently struggle to align community priorities with researcher expertise, academic institution priorities, and funding structures [Reference Holzer and Kass53,Reference Towfighi, Orechwa and Aragón54]. A study of CTSA institutions also found that community and industry partners perceived that academic institutions lack relevant protocols for engaging community partners, including little or no funding for compensating community members [Reference Freeman, Seifer, Stupak and Martinez55]. In addition to challenges related to aligning institutional and community priorities, funding agencies’ definitions of community engagement vary considerably, and most agencies do not explicitly define team science, factors that may lead to inconsistency in reporting, measuring, and integrating domains of the two fields. To address these gaps, we recommend that funding notices be released with sufficient time to allow for meaningful community engagement and integration of community’s input in the planning of the proposal. Moreover, we suggest that funding bodies and research institutions designate funds to form community engaged collaborations, including mechanisms to sustain collaborations over time, incentivize community identified questions, develop team leadership, and enhance team communication. Including explicit, scored sections of grant applications could encourage applicants to design research projects that intentionally integrate community engagement and team science approaches, including teaming plans and community engagement plans. We recommend that journals call for technical papers to describe team and community engagement processes, including aspects such as team formation, decision-making, communication, and addressing conflict.
Overall, team science characteristics were less often described than community engagement characteristics, particularly material resources, team leadership, and interpersonal team effectiveness, all characteristics foundational to team science [Reference Salas, Shuffler, Thayer, Bedwell and Lazzara40]. Collaboration Planning – a participatory team science approach wherein partners organize their collaboration, identify influences on the collaboration, and strategize to work within those influences [Reference Hall, Vogel and Crowston52] – may benefit teams as they integrate team science and community engagement approaches, but few studies referenced such a tool. This absence could be because team science is a relatively nascent field compared to community engaged research, and researchers may be applying team science approaches without knowing the language to describe them. These findings highlight the significance of this work for advancing team science research in general, as well as the Science of Team Science [7]. Moreover, community engagement necessitates team collaboration, but team science does not necessitate community involvement. Applying characteristics and practices from both fields simultaneously has the potential to advance each approach individually and collectively. This is especially relevant as some institutions include both team science and community engagement as part of new appointment, promotion, and tenure policies and faculty codes. Some of the teaming methods characteristic of team science, such as creating communication plans and team agreements, may help those who are or plan to conduct more community engaged research. Similarly, formally applying principles of community engagement, such as identifying and addressing priority issues identified by communities, focusing on ongoing commitment to the community, and sharing study findings could enhance existing team science approaches.
Recognizing that operationalization of engagement fluctuates based on communities, situations, and topics, we have attempted to describe the ways in which communities were engaged and team science approaches were implemented in each research study. However, measuring the extent to which these activities occurred was difficult as it was not always well documented. Authors likely chose which elements of their study to describe based on journal requirements, including word counts and reporting criteria. To our knowledge, although the National Research Council created policy recommendations and guidance for effectively conducting team science in 2015 [7], no standardized reporting requirements exist for community engaged or team science research. The inconsistent and incomplete reporting of community engaged and team science characteristics in this body of work suggests that journal guidelines and checklists similar to COREQ [Reference Booth, Hannes, Harden, Noyes, Harris and Tong56] or Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public [Reference Staniszewska, Brett, Mockford and Barber57] would help elucidate and encourage reporting of which, how, and the extent to which researchers incorporate these characteristics in publications describing their work.
Limitations. The empirical studies in this review may not include all studies that have utilized team science and community engagement research, as we could only assess the characteristics of each approach based on our conceptualizations of each approach and on what was described. This review did not evaluate journals’ reporting criteria, a factor that is likely to influence how and to what extent community engagement and team science characteristics are reported. Moreover, we developed lists of community engagement and team science characteristics that served as our inclusion criteria, based on existing literature and expertise both within and outside of the team. It’s possible that we missed articles that addressed these topics in ways not included in our criteria. Relatedly, a wide range of terms is used to describe community engagement and team science; most articles described the results and not the processes used to conduct their studies, so in many cases the community engagement and team science approaches were inferred from the text available. As we note in our recommendations, we suggest that journals provide guidance on how to report on community engagement and team science characteristics so they can be better understood (Table 5). We separated characteristics of community engagement and team science for the inclusion and exclusion criteria; however, as we saw in our results, there is an overlap between the characteristics of each approach. We did not assess methodological rigor in the study designs or potential sources of bias, both limitations of the scoping review approach. This work could not assess the influence of research institutions’ faculty codes and appointments, promotion, and tenure guidelines, which likely include a spectrum of language, metrics, and incentives for community engagement and team science. Future research should investigate the influence of such factors on the proliferation of community engagement and team science research. Finally, although we included studies published in a language other than English, we only included those with an English translation available; consequently, our approach may have introduced a language bias.
Conclusion
Effective community-engaged research depends on equitable partnerships, shared power, and trust among collaborators [Reference Brush, Mentz and Jensen14], and effective team science research is reliant on a team’s capacity to achieve its goals [7]. As researchers continue to integrate community engagement and team science, either as a requirement of funding and research institutions or as a means for more equitably and effectively addressing complex, multifactorial societal problems, common criteria and strategies for promoting integration of the two approaches are needed. This review advances our understanding of the intersection of community engagement and team science research, highlighting domains important to this integration. It provides language and characteristics to assist teams in discerning the extent to which their project utilizes approaches of each and highlights the need for relevant documentation criteria. The 19 recommendations for research teams, research institutions, journals, and funding bodies serve to facilitate advancement of the science and practice of the integration of community engagement and team science efforts.
Supplementary material
The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.644.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Drs. Melinda Davis, Milton Eder, Daniela Friedman, India Ornelas, and Chau Trinh-Shevrin for their feedback on the community engagement inclusion criteria.
Author contributions
L.K. and L.C.E. conceived of this work. S.T.W. designed and implemented the search strategy. S.D.H. analyzed data and drafted the manuscript. L.K., S.D.H, E.A.B., B.K.Z., D.V., T.J, and M.R. screened abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, and abstracted data. All authors reviewed and revised the manuscript and provided significant intellectual contributions during ongoing team meetings. S.D.H. takes responsibility for the manuscript as a whole.
Funding statement
This work was supported by the Institute of Translational Health Sciences, which is funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under award number UL1TR002319. The REDCap instance used is supported by the Institute of Translational Health Sciences, which is funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under award number UL1TR002319.
Competing interests
None.
Open access
