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
Review
. 2025 Mar 28;9(1):e82.
doi: 10.1017/cts.2025.50. eCollection 2025.

Characteristics of research review boards in the context of community-academic settings: A scoping review

Katarzyna Wilczek  1 , Ashley Nordsletten  1 , Patricia Piechowski  1 , Luther Evans  2 , Sharon Saddler  2 , Ella Greene-Moton  2 , Susan Woolford  1   3   4 , Polly Y Gipson Allen  1   5 , Jodyn E Platt  1   6
Affiliations
Review

Characteristics of research review boards in the context of community-academic settings: A scoping review

Katarzyna Wilczek et al. J Clin Transl Sci. .

Abstract

Community advisory boards (CABs) have traditionally been formed in the context of discrete projects and served to support community protections within the confines of the associated investigation(s). However, as funding bodies increasingly prioritize health equity, CABs have shifted - evolving into long-running organizations with broader scope and value. An emerging cornerstone of these project-independent boards (PICABs) has been the formation of "Research Review Boards" (RRBs). While unified in their goal of promoting community protection and representation in health research, it is unknown to what degree RRBs differ on key features including membership, leadership, service reach, and - crucially - impact. A scoping review was conducted according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines to analyze current practices for RRBs. Of screened articles (n= 1878), 25 were included, corresponding to 24 unique RRBs. Findings indicated overlaps in the stated missions, funding structures, and processes of most RRBs. Differences in membership composition, location, service-reach, leadership structures, evaluation procedures, and perceived impact were evident. Where data is available, RRBs receive positive endorsement from both internal members and external users. Standardization of evaluation procedures is needed to fully quantify impact. Additional challenges to sustainability, communication, and conflicts (e.g., of interest, commitment, and power differentials) merit further consideration.

Keywords: Community advisory board; community engagement; equity; research; review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are of relevance to the content of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
PRISMA flow diagram for eligible article selection.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Key KD, Furr-Holden D, Lewis EY, et al. The continuum of community engagement in research: a roadmap for understanding and assessing progress. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2019;13(4):427–434. doi: 10.1353/cpr.2019.0064. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bracht N, Tsouros A. Principles and strategies of effective community participation. Health Promot Int. 1990;5(3):199–208. doi: 10.1093/heapro/5.3.199. - DOI
    1. Weijer C, Emanuel EJ. Protecting communities in biomedical research. Science. 2000;289(5482):1142–1144. doi: 10.1126/science.289.5482.1142. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Silvestre AJ, Quinn SJ, Rinaldo CR. A twenty-two-year-old community advisory board: health research as an opportunity for social change. J Community Pract. 2010;18(1):58–75. doi: 10.1080/10705421003766685. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Koné A, Sullivan M, Senturia KD, Chrisman NJ, Ciske SJ, Krieger JW. Improving collaboration between researchers and communities. Public Health Rep. 2000;115(2-3):243–248. doi: 10.1093/phr/115.2.243. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources