Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Exploring the potential role of community engagement in evaluating clinical and translational science grant proposals

  • Jeffrey W. Treem, Margaret Schneider, Robynn L. Zender, Dara H. Sorkin
  • Journal:
    Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 2 / Issue 3 / June 2018
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    18 September 2018, pp. 139-146
    • Article
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • Introduction

    This study explored the effects of integrating community members into the evaluation of clinical and translational science grants.

    Methods

    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.

    Results

    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.

    Conclusions

    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.