Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Apr;7(2):156-63.
doi: 10.1111/cts.12141. Epub 2014 Jan 23.

Strengthening community involvement in grant review: insights from the Community-University Research Partnership (CURES) pilot review process

Adam Paberzs  1 , Patricia Piechowski, Debra Warrick, Carolyn Grawi, Celeste Choate, Glenda Sneed, Diane Carr, Kanchan Lota, Kent Key, Valerie Alexander, Pratik Ghosh, Carolyn Sampselle
Affiliations

Strengthening community involvement in grant review: insights from the Community-University Research Partnership (CURES) pilot review process

Adam Paberzs et al. Clin Transl Sci. 2014 Apr.

Abstract

In 2007, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR) at the University of Michigan received a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). Within MICHR, the Community Engagement (CE) program supports partnership efforts between researchers, practitioners, and community-based organizations in specific focal communities throughout Michigan. A key component of the CE program is the Community Engagement Coordinating Council, a group that provides input and guidance on program priorities, strategic planning, and reviews pilot funding proposals for community-academic partnerships. This paper will describe a unique MICHR pilot funding mechanism for Community-University Research Partnerships (CURES) with an emphasis on the ways that community partners are involved in the review process, as well as the benefits, challenges, and insights gained over 5 years of pilot review. There is a growing need for community involvement and expertise in review of funding proposals for community-engaged research at both institutional and federal levels. The CURES pilot review process is one example of an institutional effort to engage community partners in university funding decisions and has demonstrated clear benefit toward accomplishing the aims of the CTSA.

Keywords: Michigan; community-academic partnerships; community-engaged research; grant review; institutional funding; pilot grants.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Description of the CECC and SRC review processes for CURES Pilots.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. CTSA Community Engagement Key Function Committee and CTSA Community Engagement Workshop Planning Committee . Researchers and their communities: The challenge of meaningful community engagement. Duke University. 2009. Available at: https://ctsacorus.org/resources/273/download/Monograph‐ResearchersTheir_.... Accessed May 13, 2013.
    1. Israel B, Schulz A, Parker E, Becker A. Review of community‐based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998; 19(1): 173–202. - PubMed
    1. Sadler LS, Larson J, Bouregy S, Lapaglia D, Bridger L, McCaslin C, Rockwell S. Community–university partnerships in community‐based research. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2012; 6(4): 463–469. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sadler LS, Newlin KH, Johnson Spruill I, Jenkins C. Beyond the medical model: interdisciplinary programs of community engaged health research. Clin Transl Sci. 2011; 4(4): 285–297. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ross LF, Loup A, Nelson RM, Botkin JR, Kost R, Smith GR Jr, Gehlert S. Human subjects protections in community‐engaged research: a research ethics framework. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010; 5(1): 5–17. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types