research topics about local community

Search NORC

Enter Search Value

The Community-Engaged Research Framework

Anmol Sanghera

• Sabrina Avripas
• Ashani Johnson-Turbes

For inquiries, email:

Download Equity Brief

Print Version

This Equity Brief describes the Community-Engaged Research Framework and highlights strategies for applying the principles of the Framework in practice. The Framework consists of six principles, grounded in theory and practice, that inform community engagement. It serves as a conceptual model to guide researchers in authentically engaging community members and organizations in social and behavioral science research.

Introduction

This Equity Brief describes the Community-Engaged Research (CEnR) Framework, or “the Framework,” six principles for engaging communities throughout the full research process and strategies for applying the principles in practice. The Framework is grounded in theory and existing community engagement literature and frameworks (e.g., inclusive research, community-based participatory research, community-based participatory action research, community-directed research, emancipatory research). [1-6] It serves as a conceptual model for researchers and communities to use to authentically engage each other in social and behavioral science research.

Community-Engaged Research

Community-engaged research is an approach to inclusive and equitable research [i] that joins researchers with communities as partners throughout the full cycle of the research process. [1,5,7,8] Its emphasis is on the relationship between researchers and communities, not on the methodological approach to conduct the research; teams [ii] can use both qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. [7,8] Community-engaged research may improve validity and relevance of data and results from the study, increase the data’s cultural relevance to community needs, enhance use of the data to create behavioral, social, services, or policy change, and increase the capacity of both communities and researchers. [7,8]

Exhibit 1: Continuum of Community Engagement in Research

Source: Adapted from the ATSDR Principles of Community Engagement and Wilder Involving Community Members in Evaluation: A Planning Framework

Community-engaged research exists along a continuum (Exhibit 1) that ranges in spectrum of community involvement from less (community as advisor) to more (community as equal partner or as leader) engagement. [1,5,7,8] Teams should strive to reach a level of shared leadership; however, time and resource constraints, historical mistrust, and competing priorities may make this level of engagement in every project difficult. [7-9]

The Community-Engaged Research Framework (Exhibit 2) consists of six principles for researcher and community partnerships to apply when engaging throughout the full research process. The inner circle displays the six principles essential to community engagement throughout each phase of the research process. The principles are not listed in any specific order and apply to all steps of the research process. These principles apply regardless of where a research study is on the continuum of community engagement. [1,7,8,10] The outer ring lists the phases of the research process, adapted from the Culturally Responsive Evaluation Framework, which centers both the theory and practice of “evaluation in culture” and ensures evaluation is responsive to values and beliefs. We have modified this evaluation framework to include the research process more broadly.

Exhibit 2: Community-Engaged Research Framework

© 2023 NORC. Source: Adapted from the Culturally Responsive Evaluation Framework and based on principles adapted from various frameworks for community-engaged research.

This section describes each principle and the actionable strategies teams can use to apply the principle throughout the research process. While we describe strategies within a specific principle, many are applicable across principles.

PRINCIPLE: AVOIDANCE OF HARM

All team members understand the immediate and broader implications of the research in context (e.g., community, society, systems) and actively avoid harming [iii] or marginalizing the communities in which the project is embedded. [5]

All team members recognize their own conscious and unconscious biases, how the research process can impact communities, and how the community and researchers benefit. [5,10-12] Avoidance of harm also requires listening to and respecting community expertise to better understand harm and strategies for avoidance. [5] Avoiding or doing no harm is especially important in research with historically and contemporarily marginalized and minoritized populations. [5,10]

Avoidance of harm prevents researchers from perpetuating a cycle of negative or exploitative interactions between communities and researchers, governments, and other systems, which has resulted in distrust among historically marginalized and minoritized communities. [5,8,9] It also helps teams develop appropriate protections to mitigate risks.

Actionable Strategies

Understand historical and contemporary contexts and their impact on community(ies). [5,10] Understanding communities’ context, needs, and sociopolitical environment is iterative; it requires remaining open, asking questions, conducting needs assessments, and stepping back when needed. [5,11]  

• Define community and harm in partnership with communities, and understand key principles and trauma.4,5 Understand how aspects of racism and other systems of oppression influence study design, implementation, and dissemination, and adapt research processes and analysis to this context. [5,13]
• Critically deliberate on and pursue opportunities that address inequities due to race, ethnicity, class, caste, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, and other social constructs. [4]
• Actively challenge systems of oppression and injustice, including those lingering in some research traditions, by improving coordination, enhancing existing services, and identifying, mobilizing, and strengthening assets and resources that enhance community’s capacity to make decisions.

Implement strategies to mitigate harm. Researchers’ actions may unknowingly or unintentionally harm communities. 

• Develop in partnership with communities or use existing frameworks [iv] to mitigate harm if there are adverse effects of research actions. 
• Prioritize the expertise of communities most affected by the harm when developing solutions to mitigate harms and challenges. 

Maintain community-researcher relationships beyond one project or funding period. Allocate adequate resources to maintain relationships with communities over the long-term. Continually reflect, assess, and communicate to maintain and deepen relationships for long-term action and sustainability. Take part in community meetings and events, meet community leaders, and build and foster relationships.

PRINCIPLE: SHARED POWER AND EQUITY IN DECISION-MAKING

All team members participate collaboratively, equitably, and cooperatively in all decisions within each phase of the research process. [5,14]

Shared power and equity in decision-making ensures teams incorporate the experiences and needs of communities into every aspect of the research process, from conception to dissemination, and use of findings to inform policies, programs, and services. Teams establish a governance structure that includes the voices of communities directly impacted by the issue or topic they are researching and employ equitable structures of decision-making and contribution. [4-6,13,14] This approach helps overcome non-participatory governance structures that are researcher-led with little room for community input or involvement, which can result in research that does not address community needs or interests. [2,7]  

Create a diverse and inclusive team. Include people with subject matter expertise and lived experiences to ensure the team reflects the community in which the project is embedded. Identify gaps in expertise and engage additional partners to fill gaps. [6]

Establish governance structures that eliminate Non-Participatory power hierarchies that de-value community experience and expertise.

• Create structures that promote equity and power sharing to overcome power differentials. Include avenues for shared decision-making (e.g., co-principal investigators, equal representation on steering committees). [4,5,13,14]
• Overcome relational dynamics that limit opportunities for economically and socially marginalized and disadvantaged groups that are part of project teams. Treat all team members with integrity and respect (e.g., do not undermine or invalidate people’s experiences, thoughts, or ideas; practice active listening; be considerate of others’ time, schedules, language, and cultural norms). [4,8,9]

Discuss up front what communities want to contribute and ultimately get from the research. Collectively establish parameters for data ownership and dissemination of findings. Be inclusive of communities’ right to access their collective data and research protocols by giving data and results back to the communities in which the research takes place. [6,14]

PRINCIPLE: TRANSPARENCY & OPEN COMMUNICATION

Researchers and community partners communicate openly and honestly about power dynamics and decision-making processes around project objectives and research processes, resources and finances, challenges and limitations, data, research findings, and dissemination strategies. [4,5,15]

Transparency and open communication require that all team members know who is involved in the study and why; the intent and purpose of a project; how resources are shared and allocated; and the apparent and hidden potential benefits, harms, and limitations of a project. [4,5]  

Lack of transparency may result in lack of trust if communities feel like they are being taken advantage of or do not understand researchers’ motivations and intentions. [16-18] Transparency and open communication create more authentic working relationships, build trust, and help mend relationships between researchers and communities; build on avoidance of harm to reduce the risk of unintentionally harming communities; demonstrate integrity for working through difficult issues; and improves investment in the relationship to promote sustainability. [16-18]

Collaboratively establish open communication approaches and channels. 

• Determine methods, cadence, and mode of communication and meeting coordination. 
• Set schedules, establish points of contacts and preferred formats for communication, and set timelines and frequencies of communication. 

Minimize hierarchy in communication processes, “gatekeepers,” and barriers to lines of communication. Share information readily with each member of the team about research processes and objectives, roles, motives, resources and finances, progress, timelines, etc. at every stage and at every level of the project. [4,5,17]

PRINCIPLE: MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY & RESPECT

Develop an equitable structure of incorporating input into decision-making processes, promoting commitment, and addressing discord directly.

Teams collaboratively define roles and decision-making authority, establishing a shared vision for the partnership and the research. [14,15] They also continually assess progress towards achieving that vision throughout the decision-making process. Teams facilitate discussions that allow for respectful discord and a process for reconciling discord in every phase of the research process. [4]

Non-participatory research that lacks mutual accountability and respect risks members losing interest and investment in the work, leading to a lack of respect for values and needs. Mutual accountability and respect promote a more equitable collaboration and continued involvement of members throughout all phases of the research. [19]

Collectively develop charters and establish ground rules. 

• Develop partnership arrangements (e.g., memorandum of understanding) that document the scope and nature of the partnership and align scope with each member’s capacity. Determine where on the continuum of engagement the study and relationships lie and set expectations for that relationship early and often.
• Delineate responsibilities and expectations for each person on the team. [14,15] Set realistic commitments and provide opportunities to share progress towards those commitments. [19]
• Develop a vision statement for the work and a charter for upholding and making progress towards that vision. Revise the charter as needed. [20]
• Create and implement decision-making protocols to promote follow through and commitment to roles and responsibilities, ways to track progress on achieving the goals and vision of the partnership, and continually share lessons learned. [20]

Establish structures to overcome discord. 

• Develop ground rules for reconciling discord. Make time and space for individuals to speak comfortably and express discord without fear. 
• Acknowledge missteps, challenges, and limitations and work openly to address them. Be willing to adapt throughout the partnership and process. [5]

PRINCIPLE: ACCESSIBILITY & DEMONSTRATED VALUE

Value time and contributions of all team members and develop flexible and equitable methods of engagement. [5,13]

Teams demonstrate accessibility and demonstrated value through fair and equitable compensation, reasonable and thoughtful requests for time, and flexibility and accessibility in methods of engagement and communication. [5,15]

Non-participatory research may prioritize researcher views, perspectives, and methods of engagement. Participatory research recognizes that each team member brings their own unique perspectives and skills and adds valuable experiences, resources, and social networks to the research process. [19] It also considers each team member’s barriers to engagement and establishes approaches to overcome those barriers. Accessibility and demonstrated value promote greater acceptance of alternative perspectives and trust, inclusivity, and engagement.

Acknowledge all team members and value their expertise, skills, and contributions. 

• Create a shared space that equally values all team members’ contributions and voices to facilitate co-design, co-creation, and shared decision-making, and to advance individual and collective development, growth, and learning. [15]
• Integrate opportunities for relationship-building activities, informal networking, team building, and engagement outside of project activities. [19]
• Ask how individuals and communities would like to be acknowledged and give credit for contributions. Create publication and data use guidelines.
• Collaboratively determine adequate compensation structures for all members’ contribution and time in their preferred method and form of value. [15]

Demonstrate cultural responsiveness [v]  and inclusivity. 

• Understand that engagement and relationship building take time. Allow sufficient time to establish relationships and account for the limited time some members have to engage in research. 
• Practice cultural humility. [vi] Conduct self-reflection about your own biases, power, and privileges. [4,5,10] Ask questions and take time to understand local and cultural practices and nuances. [4,5]
• Understand and address barriers to engagement. Provide accessible modalities of participation and access, including flexibility in meeting times and location, interpreters and translated materials, plain language materials, childcare, transportation, and technology support. [15] Conduct engagements at times and in places convenient to communities. Offer disability accommodations and be flexible with requests for time commitment and deadlines. [5,15]

PRINCIPLE: CAPACITY BRIDGING & CO-LEARNING

All team members learn from each other and engage in bi-directional feedback and conversation. [vii]

Capacity bridging and co-learning expands tools, resources, skills, and knowledge among all team members. [21–23] It also promotes sustainability beyond one research project or funding opportunity. [23] Embedded throughout the research process are educational opportunities for all team members to become agents for community change. Teams should work together to re-define the research process and relationship, not to transform community partners into researchers (unless that is the ask of community partners). [15] Non-participatory research that focus solely on building the capacity of community members fall short in fostering bi-directional knowledge, skills, and capacity. Researchers should learn about historical and contemporary local culture and context, lived experiences of community partners, and community engagement strategies. [14]

Facilitate the reciprocal transfer of knowledge, skills, and capacity. [21,22] Maintain open dialogue, conduct and receive trainings, and bi-directionally share information, tools, and data. [14]

Translate knowledge into action. Document and share lessons learned about what works and what does not work about the process, and partnership successes, weaknesses, and challenges to further facilitate co-learning. [19] Understand how results from the study can improve programs, policies, or services to benefit both the advancement of science and the community. [19]

Affirm community strengths and assets. Conduct activities like community asset mapping and strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analyses, and practice positive marginality [viii] to understand each team member’s perspectives, knowledge, and expertise. Highlight and affirm community strengths. [4] Employ multiple methods and forums for community involvement beyond inclusion of community members on the project team (e.g., advisory boards, town halls, listening sessions, public comment).

The Community-Engaged Research Framework is a conceptual model that guides community engagement using the following six key principles: (1) Avoidance of harm; (2) Shared Power and Equity in Decision-Making; (3) Transparency and Open Communication; (4) Mutual Accountability and Respect; (5) Accessibility and Demonstrated Value; and (6) Capacity Bridging and Co-learning. 

Applying these principles and their associated actionable strategies facilitates conduct of inclusive and equitable research and evaluation that centers people’s cultures and community. Community-engaged research will vary depending on the community, project, client, capacity, and available funding and resources. The Community-Engaged Research Framework is a model that teams can tailor as needed to their specific research, needs, context, and communities under inquiry. This Equity Brief shares NORC’s Community-Engaged Research Framework. A subsequent equity brief will discuss strategies for putting the framework into practice.

Download This Equity Brief

Acknowledgements.

This Community-Engaged Research Framework was made possible with funding from NORC’s Diversity, Racial Equity, and Inclusion (DREI) Research Innovation Fund. We thank the following:

• Work group members: Manal Sidi, Anna Schlissel, Chandria Jones, James Iveniuk, Jocelyn Wilder, and Stefan Vogler for their contributions to framework development. 
• NORC reviewers: Roy Ahn, Michelle Johns, Carly Parry, and Vince Welch. 
• External reviewers: Carmen Hughes, Health IT Division Director, National Center for Primary Care, Morehouse School of Medicine and Hager Shawkat, Program Director, Sauti Yetu Center for African Women. 

[i] Inclusive & Equitable Research are “the methods of practice for Equity Science that is collaborative research embracing a range of theoretical frameworks and mixed methods that are focused on centering and empowering people and communities under inquiry and democratizing the research process to promote equity.” Johnson-Turbes, A., Jones, C., Johns, M.M., & Welch, V. (2022). Inclusive and Equitable Research Framework [Unpublished Manuscript]. Center on Equity Research, NORC at the University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

[ii] A “team” consists of individuals, community-based organizations, researchers, evaluators, community leaders, and other key individuals or entities partners as determined by the project.

[iii] “Do No Harm,” a principle requiring healthcare providers to consider if the risk of their actions will hurt a patient versus improve a patient’s condition, is central to healthcare. Its origins trace back to the Hippocratic Oath and its development in the 1990s by Mary Anderson as an approach to working on conflict affected situations. The term is widely used (and sometimes, misused) to the design and conduct of research to ensure inclusivity and advance equity. In social science research, the interpretation of “do no harm” should also weigh the risk of harming an individual or potential benefits from data collection, analysis, or results dissemination. Like in medicine, the goal of research should be to advance equity and promote wellbeing, in line with beneficence. See Kinsinger FS. Beneficence and the professional’s moral imperative. J Chiropr Humanit. Published online 2009.

[iv] For example, Glover et al 2020’s Framework for Identifying and Mitigating the Equity Harms of COVID-19 Policy Interventions adapts the idea of “duty to warn” for research to inform communities about potential harm.

[v] Cultural responsiveness is the “ability to learn from and relate respectfully to people from your own and other cultures,” which promotes increased level of comfort, knowledge, freedom, capacity, and resources and knowledge. [23]

[vi] Cultural humility is the practice of self-evaluation and self-reflection to examine our own biases, acknowledgement and shift of power dynamics and imbalances, and accountability for one’s own actions as well as those of its organization or institution. [12]

[vii] Capacity building refers to building capacity, knowledge, and skills, of someone, usually a community person, to a research team. [21] Capacity bridging expands this notion to acknowledge that one person can bring many things to their position on a team. [21] It also acknowledges the reciprocity of knowledge sharing between academics, researchers, community-based researchers, and individuals—so that all members are learning from each other. [21] This term was coined by the AHA Centre. 

[viii] Positive Marginality promotes the idea that injustice is rooted in structural determinants rather than personal or community behavior. It promotes the idea that “belonging to a non-dominant cultural or demographic group can be advantageous rather than oppressive.” [24]

[1]  Wilder Foundation. Using a Framework for Community-Engaged Research. Published 2018. Accessed December 12, 2022.

[2] Nind M. What Is Inclusive Research. Bloomsbury Academic; 2014.

[3] International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research. What Is Participatory Health Research? (PDF) ; 2013. Accessed January 1, 2024.

[4] New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Community Engagement Framework (PDF) ; 2017. Accessed January 2, 2024.

[5] Michigan Public Health Institute (MPHI), Michigan Health Endowment Fund. Community Engagement & Collective Impact Phase 1 Environmental Scan (PDF). Accessed January 2, 2024.

[6] Black Health Equity Working Group. A Data Governance Framework for Health Data Collected from Black Communities in Ontario. ; 2021. Accessed January 2, 2024. 

[7] McDonald MA. Practicing Community-Engaged Research (PDF). Duke Center for Community Research. Published 2009. Accessed December 11, 2022. 

[8] NIH Publication No. 11-7782. Principles of Community Engagement Second Edition (PDF) ; 2011. Accessed December 12, 2022. 

[9] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR’s Community Engagement Playbook (PDF). Accessed January 1, 2024.

[10] Ross L, Brown J, Chambers J, et al. Key Practices for Community Engagement in Research on Mental Health or Substance Use (PDF). Accessed December 11, 2022.

[11] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A Practitioners Guide for Advancing Health Equity: Community Strategies for Preventing Chronic Disease (PDF) ; 2013. Accessed December 12, 2022. 

[12] Hughes-Hassell S, Rawson CH, Hirsh K. Project READY: Reimagining Equity & Access for Diverse Youth, Module 8: Cultural Competence & Cultural Humility. University of North Carolina, Institute of Museum and Library Services. Accessed December 13, 2022. 

[13] NORC. Community Engagement Panel: Community Engagement through Participatory Analysis.

[14] Wilder J, Agboola F, Vogler S, Rugg G, Iveniuk J. Chicago Community Alliance: Guidelines for Creating Community Engaged Research.; 2022.

[15] Sheridan S, Schrandt S, Forsythe L, Hilliard T, Paez K, Advisory Panel on Patient Engagement (2013 inaugural panel). The PCORI Engagement Rubric: Promising Practices for Partnering in Research (PDF). Ann Fam Med. Published online 2017:165-170. Accessed February 14, 2024.

[16] Jamshidi E, Morasae EK, Shahandeh K, et al. Ethical Considerations of Community-based Participatory Research: Contextual Underpinnings for Developing Countries. Int J Prev Med. 2014;5(10):1328-1336.

[17] Jones Mcmaughan D, Dolwick Grieb SM, Kteily-Hawa R, Key KD. Promoting and Advocating for Ethical Community Engagement: Transparency in the Community-Engaged Research Spectrum (PDF). Accessed February 6, 2024. 

[18] Goodman LA, Thomas KA, Serrata JV, et al. Power through Partnerships: A CBPR Toolkit for Domestic Violence Researchers. National Resource Center on Domestic Violence ; 2017. Accessed February 6, 2024. 

[19] Marquez E, Smith S, Tu T, Ayele S, Haboush-Deloye A,, Lucero J. A Step-by-Step Guide to Community-Based Participatory Research (PDF) ; 2022. Accessed February 6, 2024.

[20] Lo L, Aron LY, Pettit KLS, Scally CP. Mutual Accountability Is the Key to Equity-Oriented Systems Change How Initiatives Can Create Durable Shifts in Policies and Practices Background and Mutual Accountability Framework.; 2021.

[21] AHA Centre. Capacity Bridging Fact Sheet ; 2018. 

[22] CDAC Network. The CDAC Capacity Bridging Initiative Facilitating Inclusion and Maximising Collaboration in CCE/AAP (PDF). Accessed February 6, 2024.

[23] Kozleski E, Harry B. Cultural, Social, and Historical Frameworks That Influence Teaching and Learning in U.S. Schools ; 2005.

[24] Streets VN. Reconceptualizing Women’s STEM Experiences: Building a Theory of Positive Marginality. Vol Dissertation ; 2016. Accessed December 13, 2022. 

NORC at the University of Chicago conducts research and analysis that decision-makers trust. As a nonpartisan research organization and a pioneer in measuring and understanding the world, we have studied almost every aspect of the human experience and every major news event for more than eight decades. Today, we partner with government, corporate, and nonprofit clients around the world to provide the objectivity and expertise necessary to inform the critical decisions facing society.

Research Divisions

• NORC Health

Departments, Centers & Programs

• Center on Equity Research
• Petry S. Ubri
• Health Equity

Want to work with us?

Explore NORC Health Projects

Evaluation of minnesota’s home and community-based services assessment process.

Community-engaged evaluation to understand disparities in Minnesota's home and community-based services (HCBS) assessment process

Assessment of User Experiences During Phase 3 of PCORnet®

Exploring the experiences of PCORnet® users, potential users, and Network Partners to inform future enhancements to the Network

Estimating Costs and Mortality of Hospital-Acquired Conditions

Quantifying the burden of hospital acquired conditions in America

An official website of the United States government

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.

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.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.98(2); 2020 Jun

Measuring Community‐Engaged Research Contexts, Processes, and Outcomes: A Mapping Review

Tana m. luger.

1 VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Health Services Research and Development Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy

ALISON B. HAMILTON

2 David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles

3 Southeast Louisiana Veterans Healthcare System, South Central Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center

4 Louisiana State University School of Medicine, Section of Community and Population Medicine

Associated Data

Policy points.

• Community‐engaged research (CEnR) engenders meaningful academic‐community partnerships to improve research quality and health outcomes. CEnR has increasingly been adopted by health care systems, funders, and communities looking for solutions to intractable problems.
• It has been difficult to systematically measure CEnR's impact, as most evaluations focus on project‐specific outcomes. Similarly, partners have struggled with identifying appropriate measures to assess outcomes of interest.
• To make a case for CEnR's value, we must demonstrate the impacts of CEnR over time. We compiled recent measures and developed an interactive data visualization to facilitate more consistent measurement of CEnR's theoretical domains.

Community‐engaged research (CEnR) aims to engender meaningful academic‐community partnerships to increase research quality and impact, improve individual and community health, and build capacity for uptake of evidence‐based practices. Given the urgency to solve society's pressing public health problems and increasing competition for funding, it is important to demonstrate CEnR's value. Most evaluations focus on project‐specific outcomes, making it difficult to demonstrate CEnR's broader impact. Moreover, it is challenging for partnerships to identify assessments of interest beyond process measures. We conducted a mapping review to help partnerships find and select measures to evaluate CEnR projects and to characterize areas where further development of measures is needed.

We searched electronic bibliographic databases using relevant search terms from 2009 to 2018 and scanned CEnR projects to identify unpublished measures. Through review and reduction, we found 69 measures of CEnR's context, process, or outcomes that are potentially generalizable beyond a specific health condition or population. We abstracted data from descriptions of each measure to catalog purpose, aim (context, process, or outcome), and specific domains being measured.

We identified 28 measures of the conditions under which CEnR is conducted and factors to support effective academic‐community collaboration (context); 43 measures evaluating constructs such as group dynamics and trust (process); and 43 measures of impacts such as benefits and challenges of CEnR participation and system and capacity changes (outcomes).

Conclusions

We found substantial variation in how academic‐community partnerships conceptualize and define even similar domains. Achieving more consistency in how partnerships evaluate key constructs could reduce measurement confusion apparent in the literature. A hybrid approach whereby partnerships discuss common metrics  and  develop locally important measures can address CEnR's multiple goals. Our accessible data visualization serves as a convenient resource to support partnerships’ evaluation goals and may help to build the evidence base for CEnR through the use of common measures across studies.

W hile the traditional approach to health research treats individuals and populations as the subjects of inquiry, community‐engaged research (CEnR) involves establishing and maintaining authentic partnerships between researchers and those who are being researched, including local community members and organizations. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 CEnR is an umbrella term used to describe a range of activities and approaches (eg, stakeholder engagement, patient engagement, public involvement, participatory action research), with community‐based participatory research (CBPR) being the longest standing and best known of these related to health. 6 Yet, all approaches to CEnR borrow from CBPR's emphasis on community members as equal partners in many aspects of the research process, from the identification and selection of priority topics and research questions, to developing data collection materials and analytical strategies, to drafting and disseminating the publication of findings. 1 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 In addition, CEnR often aims to build the future capacity of academic‐community partnerships by improving community members’ research literacy and researchers’ concurrent understanding of the community's history and needs. 2 , 3 , 5 , 11

CEnR is theorized to impact research evidence and community health outcomes through a number of different mechanisms. 1 , 3 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 For example, including community input into research design is likely to result in evidence and subsequent interventions that are more applicable to the community's needs and thus, more readily accepted by the community. 12 , 14 , 16 , 17 Community input can also improve the translation of research findings to practice by providing evidence that is tailored to the setting and population of interest. 1 , 3 , 13 , 14 Similarly, community members are likely to greatly improve the translation and dissemination of research evidence by championing the findings within the community and suggesting alternatives to publication. 11 , 16 , 20 Finally, the process of CEnR can build trust and mutual respect and facilitate future research participation, especially in populations that have traditionally been mistreated by or excluded from health research. 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 19

The potential impacts of CEnR on population health outcomes are less established in the literature. Yet, engaged research is theorized to empower community members to become educated about their own health and activated to participate in their health care. 12 Engagement in research may also lead community members to make better health decisions based on the knowledge uncovered, which can improve long‐term health outcomes. 17 Finally, participation in engaged research may contribute to greater community acceptance of research, subsequently guiding community action. 12

Much of the literature on participatory approaches has relied on case studies, qualitative inquiry, or literature review to suggest conceptual models and best practices for conducting engaged research. 11 , 16 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 Although many proximal and distal outcomes are assumed to be affected by community engagement, there is, in fact, little evidence in the literature to demonstrate these relationships. Recent systematic reviews have shown that popular evaluation techniques are to (a) count the number of participants involved in engaged projects or events, 25 or (b) elicit researcher and community member impressions of the impact of participation through qualitative approaches such as interviews or focus groups, 10 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 which, while valuable, limits the ability to systematically measure change and compare outcomes across studies. Some CEnR projects have developed their own limited‐item scales to assess the short‐term health outcomes or processes most relevant to the particular researcher‐community partnership. 25 , 30 The selection of locally relevant tools is essential to the practice of CEnR as it allows researchers and community members to share control of all stages of the research process, including which outcomes are most relevant to the partnership. 31 Nevertheless, the reliance on local tools impedes the comparison of outcomes across studies or the validation of broader CEnR constructs, which could help to strengthen the impact of the field and increase recognition of CEnR as a scientific endeavor. 32 To achieve CEnR's broader goals of improved health and research, there may be value in partnerships utilizing common or broadly generalizable measures of engagement in projects alongside locally tailored tools. We encourage partnerships to consider the multiple aims of CEnR when discussing evaluation practices to assess their projects.

CEnR approaches have been increasingly adopted by health care systems, funders, and communities looking for solutions to seemingly intractable problems. 13 , 17 , 22 , 33 Although researchers and community members who have partnered can attest to the benefits of CEnR, there is a growing emphasis in health research on funding evidence‐based interventions. 34 Thus, it is more important than ever for engaged partnerships to demonstrate evidence of the positive impacts of CEnR. To facilitate consistent measurement of the impact of engaged research across projects over time and contribute to a clearer understanding of the value of community engagement, our aims were to:

• Identify and categorize evaluation tools or measures of community engagement contexts, processes, and outcomes that can be used across a variety of CEnR projects in conjunction with locally tailored measures
• Characterize current gaps in measurement
• Serve as a resource for future CEnR projects

Search Strategy

To achieve our stated aims, we opted to conduct a mapping review. Mapping reviews categorize existing literature according to a particular theoretical model, participant population, or setting. This allows the reviewers to identify gaps in the literature, which can inspire further reviews or primary research. 35 , 36 In addition, mapping reviews often present results in a user‐friendly visual format to support future work. 35 , 36

To ensure a comprehensive search for measures of engagement, we adopted multiple strategies. First, we scanned the peer‐reviewed literature using two popular electronic bibliographic databases: Web of Science (including Medline/PubMed), and Academic Search Premier (including PsycINFO). The Web of Science Core Collection includes citations across the social science disciplines, allowing for a search across an index of 148 sociology, 140 psychology, 90 anthropology, and 82 health policy/services peer‐reviewed journals as examples. 37 Academic Search Premier similarly indexes across more than 3,900 peer‐reviewed journals across disciplines. 38 We limited our search to include only English‐language articles published between January 2009 and December 2018, as other reviews have targeted earlier time frames. 16 , 29 , 39 , 40 , 41 Four separate searches were conducted; search terms were entered into the databases using quotation marks and included (1) community‐engaged research AND evaluation , (2) stakeholder‐engaged research AND evaluation , (3) community‐based participatory research AND evaluation , and (4) participatory action research AND evaluation for a total of 2,708 abstracts to review (1,399 via Web of Science and 1,309 via Academic Search Premier).

The lead author (T.L.) reviewed each title and abstract to eliminate duplicate records, study protocols, and those that diverged from community member, stakeholder, patient, or public engagement in research ( n = 1,666). At this stage, the following inclusion criteria were also applied: (a) the study must describe an assessment or evaluation (qualitative or quantitative) of an engaged project, thus excluding articles that only described conceptual models or practical steps for conducting engaged research ( n = 482), and (b) the assessment or evaluation must measure the context, process, or outcome of engaged research. These evaluation targets were selected based on the theoretical and practical premise that understanding the context and process of engaged research is critical to interpreting the ultimate impact. 16 , 27 In addition, we aimed to uncover a body of “universal” measures that could be used by partnerships consistently across studies in addition to locally tailored tools. Thus, the lead author excluded articles where the only results reported were study‐specific and would not readily generalize to other engaged research settings. These included varied outcomes such as blood glucose level in a diabetes population, environmental health literacy in a sample of school children, or level of trauma awareness in a clinician group (to name a few) ( n = 353). Although this decision likely excludes a number of specific health‐related items that could be useful for some engaged partnerships, it was not feasible to include and analyze the wide breadth of study‐specific outcomes in this particular review.

As a secondary approach, we conducted a scan of “community‐engaged research organizations” (via Google search and discussions with colleagues engaged in CEnR) to identify academic centers and working groups actively pursuing engaged research; we searched these organizations’ websites for additional evaluation resources and tools not captured by the bibliographic databases. This yielded a total of 25 additional white papers and instruments. Thus, the full text of 126 articles and white papers were obtained and reviewed to glean specific qualitative and quantitative assessments. After eliminating all papers that did not describe the measurement scales or items used ( n = 57), this left a total of 69 final measures for data abstraction.

Data Abstraction, Validation, and Visualization

The lead author abstracted data from the individual study authors’ own descriptions of (a) the purpose of the measure, and (b) the domains measured. Additionally, the lead author classified the measures according to whether the study authors’ stated purpose or goal of the measure most aligned with a context evaluation (examining the conditions in which CEnR will be conducted), process evaluation (examining how the engagement is done), or outcome/impact evaluation (examining the intended effects). 16 , 27 Measures were also allowed to represent multiple goals—for example, a measure of how partnership conflict was resolved could be used during engagement to measure the process and postengagement to determine if a change has occurred—if indicated in the study author's stated purpose and the item descriptions of each subscale or subsection. Our aim in allowing measures to serve in multiple evaluation categories is for academic‐community partners to consider these measures according to what would be useful for their specific contexts.

If an article did not include a discussion of the measure's domains, the measure's items were summarized with key phrases to provide a cross‐item description. To validate the data abstraction, the other two authors (A.H. and G.T.) each independently coded half of the measures as described, so that all 69 measures were reviewed by two authors. All three authors met biweekly to arbitrate coding conflicts through consensus. The authors also maintained individual process memos to highlight patterns and themes within the data. Selected measures from each evaluation type (context, process, and outcome) can be found in Appendix Table 1. The full 69 measures are represented in Online Supplemental Table 1.

To serve as a resource for future CEnR projects, we utilized Tableau Public to produce interactive data visualizations of the discovered measures and the domains represented. 42 Through this visual display, we hope to support researchers and community members to identify measures of engagement to use in their own CEnR projects, according to their own goals. We encourage readers to explore this resource at https://public.tableau.com/profile/tana.luger#!/vizhome/MeasuresofCommunityEngagement/AuthorsandDomains .

Across the literature and measures reviewed, we found substantial variation in how researchers conceptualized and defined domains to measure. For example, the academic‐community partnership central to CEnR has been described in the literature with such disparate phrases as “reciprocal relationships,” 19 “collaborative partnerships,” 5 “mutually effective partnerships,” 19 “mutual respect and acceptance of differences,” 43 and “shared power and decision‐making,” 13 , 44 , 45 among others. In addition, nearly half (47.8%, n = 33) of the included measures could be applicable to more than one domain (ie, context, process, or outcome evaluations).

We found the boundaries between core CEnR concepts were similarly unclear. For example, although many studies attempted to evaluate the role that community members had adopted within the engaged research, the scope of the evaluation varied significantly. Some studies asked community members to quantify the specific tasks in which they engaged. 46 , 47 Some focused on the community members’ roles in the research and communication processes that promote role clarity. 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 Still other studies focused on the community's perception of the impact that their specific activities had on the research project. 52 , 53 , 54

In order to place our results within the context of the larger literature and characterize gaps, we present a brief table of the systematic reviews ( n = 12) that were uncovered utilizing our specific search criteria (see Appendix Table 2). As our aim was not to conduct a review of reviews, but to discover measures of engagement, it is important to note that these 12 are not an exhaustive representation of the previously reviewed literature. Nevertheless, the authors of the included systematic reviews frequently call for the need to develop reliable and valid measures in order to better understand contextual factors, partnerships, and the impacts of engagement. Many of the systematic reviews also acknowledge the value of quantitative and qualitative measurement for better analyzing engagement processes.

Context Measures

We identified 28 measures that assess the context of engaged research (see Figure  1 ); these measures predominantly focus on the conditions under which the research will be conducted and considerations for effective collaborations between researchers and community members. The majority of context measures evaluate the community's capacity for engaged research (see Figure  2 ), including training and past CEnR experiences. For example, a quantitative needs assessment by Goytia and colleagues. inquires about the experiences of community organizations in research and evaluation, their interest in building specific research skills like survey development or literature review, and interest in partnering in the future. 55 Similarly, the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement's tool encourages community organizations to self‐evaluate their capacity to utilize research evidence, a key skill for active participation in an engaged project. 56 In addition, a survey by Rubin and colleagues asks community members to assess their level of confidence in working with researchers as well as motivations and attitudes toward research. 57 Many context measures also assess the strengths and resources of the community that may be brought to bear in an engaged research project such as social capital and organizational linkages. A qualitative interview guide by Gibbons and colleagues encourages community members to reflect on the strengths within the community that may be drawn on for an academic‐community partnership. 58 This includes a variety of community resources such as social groups, occupations, and sources of information. In addition, the Partnership River of Life participatory exercise published by Sanchez‐Youngman and Wallerstein encourages partners to develop a “communal narrative” about the origins and key events of their partnership in order to better understand the larger historical, social, political, and economic context in which the partnership is aiming to function. 59

Engagement Measures by Evaluation Type

For interactive data visualization, please visit https://public.tableau.com/profile/tana.luger#!/vizhome/MeasuresofCommunityEngagement/AuthorsandDomains .

Number of Domains Represented in Engagement Measures by Evaluation Type

Several measures evaluate the academic researcher's capacity for engaged research, such as researchers’ sufficient knowledge and understanding of the community or expectations and goals for engagement. The Engage for Equity Key Informant survey asks partners to rate whether the principal investigator of an engaged project is from a similar cultural background as the targets of the project and whether the project has provided any training or discussions about oppression and cultural sensitivity. 60 Another survey, this one by DiGirolamo, asks researchers to assess their current skills and interests related to conducting CBPR (such as coalition‐building or how to obtain funding) for the purpose of uncovering needed academic infrastructure to support CBPR projects. 61

Finally, a few context measures encourage reflection on the specific logistics of an engaged project before it begins. For example, the Patient Engagement Workbook takes researchers through a number of important considerations for engaged research with patients, including the patient's role across the stages of research, methods to identify and recruit patient partners, institutional requirements, how patient concerns will be addressed, and processes for sharing data. 49 As another example, the Community Priority Index allows researchers and community members to rate the importance and ease of change of community issues in order to quantify the partnership's priorities for engaged research projects. 62

Process Measures

We identified 43 measures that evaluate the process of engaged research—ie, aspects of how community engagement occurred (see Figure  1 ). Manyprocess measures examine group dynamics within the partnership, 20 , 44 , 45 , 48 , 53 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 typically adapted from a 2003 instrument by Schulz, Israel, and Lantz. 68 For example, interview questions by Paige and colleagues elicit community members’ general experiences in the partnership to characterize the academic‐community collaboration. 67

Following the overarching goals of CEnR, many measures inquire about perceptions of influence and power, respect, trust, and communication across group interactions to ensure an equitable collaboration. 44 , 45 , 48 , 52 , 53 , 69 For example, the Youth‐led Participatory Action Research Process Template allows team members to rate the power‐sharing observed between teachers and students during an engaged project. 70 The Partnership Assessment in Community‐based Research (PAIR) survey encourages stakeholders to assess the fundamental characteristics of a strong partnership, including open and honest communication, equitable collaboration, shared partnership values such as mutual respect and trust, and a plan for sustaining the partnership. 43 In addition, quantitative measures by Braun and colleagues and Goodman and colleagues allow stakeholders to reflect whether the processes utilized within their partnership align with the goals of community‐based participatory research (CBPR). 64 , 65 The partnership is rated on the basis of how well or how often it “fosters capacity‐building for all partners” and “seeks and uses the input of community partners,” among others. 65 These measures allow stakeholders to determine whether the engaged project is being conducted in the spirit of equitable, collaborative CEnR.

Another body of measures examine partnership synergy, or enhanced collaboration among partner members. For example, the CBPR Rating Scale by Pivik and Goelman asks partners to rate the importance of shared decision making, goals, and values to their engaged work. 71 Similarly, the Engage for Equity Community Engaged survey encourages partners to assess the level at which they develop shared goals and strategies and respond to challenges and community needs. 60

Another process survey measures the practicalities of the engaged project, such as satisfaction with the organization and structure of project meetings. 53 Other measures examine the leadership in place for the engaged research, assessing the effectiveness of leadership and outlining governance decisions. 43 , 48 , 72 The Engage for Equity Community Engaged survey also asks respondents about project governance, such as who approved participation in the project on behalf of the community and who controlled project resources. 60 Such measures would be useful for obtaining feedback to inform effective partnership strategies for future engaged research.

Outcome and Impact Measures

We identified 43 measures that evaluate the outcome or impact of engaged research or the intended effects of community engagement (see Figure  1 ). Although a number of measures ask open‐ended questions about the benefits and challenges of participating in engaged research, 20 , 44 , 73 others more formally assess the perceived benefits of engaged research through survey methods in order to elicit reported impacts and costs within each academic‐community partnership. 51 , 52 , 53 , 58 Often, this involves asking stakeholders directly about their satisfaction with the partnership. 52 , 53

The majority of included outcome measures evaluate the systems and capacity changes produced by the engaged research, such as increased information and resource exchange among stakeholders, 44 , 74 , 75 joint activities or events, 75 ongoing or new funding for partnered work, 72 and improvements to services and programs. 48 Others focus especially on measuring improved community capacity for research, such as the knowledge and skills for future research engagement 51 , 53 , 73 , 76 as well as self‐efficacy and confidence in research participation. 70 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80

Similarly, many measures appraise the sustainability of the partnership by gauging stakeholder commitment to the work, 43 , 48 , 53 , 65 ongoing funding, 48 , 72 and enhanced research networks. 52 Still others quantify the number of publications, policy revisions, and solicited funding opportunities to judge the effectiveness of the partnership's efforts. 60 , 72 , 81 Yet, few measures in our sample directly assessed how engagement improved research practice or outcomes. The CBPR Model Visioning Guide encourages stakeholders to consider research productivity (ie, papers, grant applications, and awards) as an intermediate outcome, if applicable to their CBPR partnership. 82

Some measures examined more distal outcomes of the project such as policy changes 60 , 83 , 84 , 85 or community empowerment. For example, the Knowledge Ownership Social Network Analysis asks partners to rank stakeholders according to whether they held important information relating to the project. 74 Meant to be conducted longitudinally, the measure allows partners to track whether knowledge is elicited and owned equitably among stakeholders, reflecting a more active, empowered role of the community. Similarly, the Ripple Effect Tool quantifies the social connectedness or enhanced relationships and resource sharing within an engaged project. 83 Finally, the Engage for Equity Community Engaged survey asks about health outcomes to evaluate longer‐term changes to community health status or health outcomes of interest that may arise from the engaged project. 60

Through a mapping review technique and multipronged search, we identified 28 measures appropriate for a context evaluation, 43 process measures, and 43 outcome or impact measures of CEnR that have been developed over the past decade. The majority of the measures assessed community capacity for engaged research, either as a context evaluation to understand the community's skills and resources for engaged work or as an outcome or goal of an engaged project. This is in contrast to two recent systematic reviews, 16 , 29 which found a focus on process measurement.

Our work also supports the assertion of many authors that there is a lack of consensus on the goals of CEnR (see Appendix Table 2); we found substantial variation in how study authors conceptualized and defined even similar domains to measure. Although all measurement is important to understanding the impacts of engaged research, achieving more consistency in the ways that partnerships evaluate key constructs could reduce some of the measurement confusion apparent in the literature. Although many authors have valiantly attempted to systematically organize this complex body of literature, it is still difficult for partnerships to identify measures to use in their engaged projects. In the context of CEnR, it is important to highlight the inherent tension between a researcher‐driven approach to selecting established and validated metrics and a community‐driven process of developing and/or adopting metrics that may be more trusted, relevant, and useful in the local setting. Based on our experiences conducting engaged research, discussions with colleagues and community members, and CEnR's overarching goal of an equitable partnership where no member is more or less important than another, 31 , 86 , 87 it seems that a hybrid approach in which researchers and community members propose and discuss both measures of the broader domains of engaged research and the specific needs and goals of the community allows for both consistency and local tailoring. In addition, a hybrid approach that encourages partnerships to identify common metrics and develop locally important measures may represent a process whereby the desired outcomes of CEnR such as synergy, shared power, and shared ownership can flourish. 88 In that spirit, we hope that the included data visualization will serve as a convenient resource to help academic‐community partnerships identify common measures to consistently include in their projects. Similarly, although many research groups and organizations have attempted to create models to guide the practice of CEnR, 32 , 86 , 89 , 90 more collaborative work needs to be done to promote a consistent framework for engaged research. A clear, guiding model built and tested across settings and data sources, such as the one proposed recently by Oetzel and colleagues, 91 can encourage more systematic measurement of important domains.

In contrast to systematic reviews by Sandoval and colleagues 29 and Esmail, Moore, and Rein, 16 we discovered many context measures, which could indicate a growing interest in understanding the conditions in which CEnR will take place. As described earlier, these measures predominantly assessed the community's capacity for engaging in research, such as skills in literature review or experiences with academic researchers. This is a strong step forward in improving overall measurement of engaged research. As Sandoval and colleagues purport, “differences in context significantly influence processes, which form the core operational partnership features of CBPR. These differences … matter in terms of partnership success.” 29 Thus, understanding the context in which engagement takes place is a critical step in understanding the academic‐community partnership and measuring the impact of engaged research. We recommend that partnerships include measures throughout the life cycle of the engaged project so that the context, processes used, and impacts are all assessed. Ultimately, the strength of the partnership and ability to identify project impacts may be facilitated by carefully made decisions at the project's start to include systematic measurement. Recent toolkits and planning exercises 49 , 82 , 92 , 93 can facilitate equitable participation among stakeholders in this critical stage.

Nevertheless, many of the measures that we uncovered can be used at multiple points in the engaged research; for example, a process measure administered at the start and end of the project may simultaneously represent an evaluation of the engagement process as well as an outcome or impact of the project (eg, change in the partnership or process). Although our goal is to point partnerships toward valid and reliable common measures that can be used across settings, we do not suggest that partnerships rely solely on these measures for evaluation purposes. It is critical for academic‐community partners to have the flexibility to adapt measures to best fit their needs and local settings. Many of the qualitative guides or workbooks that we include in this paper are designed to encourage partnerships to self‐reflect on the type of measurement that best fits their needs. 49 , 82 , 92 , 94 , 95

Encouragingly, we identified a growing number of measures of the outcomes or impacts of engaged research, in contrast to the findings of previous systematic reviews. 16 , 26 , 29 , 40 , 41 In our analysis, investigators chose to measure such outcomes as change in community capacity (eg, increased information exchange or resource sharing), perceptions of whether the project aligned with CBPR principles, the number of activities or goals that the partnership achieved, the perceived benefits of the project, and satisfaction with the project. Although these outcomes can be easily documented from project activities or elicited from participants, there is much more to be done to determine the impact of engaged research. Recent efforts in this direction provide valuable practical guidance for addressing the heterogeneity of impacts in the literature 96 and the challenges of measuring across local settings and partnerships. 32 Similar to multiple reviews, 16 , 26 , 29 , 39 we found a lack of attention to long‐term outcomes such as improved uptake of research or an effect on health outcomes. We recommend that partnerships include both measures of the immediate effect of the research process or project (eg, increased group cohesion) as well as consider follow‐up measurement of more distal outcomes over time.

As previously mentioned, many systematic reviews call for the need to develop psychometrically valid and reliable quantitative measures in order to further understanding of the mechanisms at work (see Appendix Table 2). We agree that it is critical for the field to move toward validation of existing quantitative measures as well as the continued production of new instruments in order to assure that engaged research models and measures are evidence‐based. Nevertheless, we affirm that there is value in including qualitative measurement in engaged research projects, following our choice to include interview and focus group guides in our mapping review. Hearing directly from stakeholders in their own words can lend insight that can lead to better conceptualization and operationalization of engagement. In turn, this can lead to more valid and reliable quantitative measures. Additionally, the nonspecific effects of engagement that are theorized to be influential, such as cohesive relationships or feelings of being valued, may not be fully captured by a 7‐point Likert scale. As Conklin and colleagues mention, “the emphasis placed on assessing outcomes/impact of public involvement risks missing the normative value of public involvement as intrinsically good because it is a deliberative democratic process.” 41 There is likely inherent value in engaging community members in research beyond the targets of any intervention. Integrated qualitative and quantitative measurement may best capture these complex effects.

There are several limitations to our work. Although we relied on multiple strategies to ensure as comprehensive a search for measures as possible, we did not conduct a systematic review, due to the wide scope and ambiguity of the literature. As a result, we may have unintentionally missed a measure for inclusion. In addition, we reviewed only those measures whose individual items were described in the peer‐reviewed or online literature. It is possible that organizations have developed useful measures but have not identified an effective way to share them with other engaged groups. If readers have developed or identified measures for engaged work to recommend, we encourage them to contact the lead author for inclusion in the interactive data visualization.

Researchers and community members who have partnered on research together can attest to the perceived benefits of CEnR; many practical lessons learned and conceptual models can be found in the literature. Simultaneously, CEnR approaches and methods have been taken up by health care systems, funders, and communities looking for solutions to intractable problems, within the context of funding evidence‐based interventions. This means it is more important than ever for those conducting CEnR to be able to demonstrate impacts of CEnR over time, and for the field as a whole to make a case for the value of CEnR. Nevertheless, models and concepts of engaged research still remain muddy. We have compiled a body of recent measures and developed an interactive data visualization to facilitate more consistent measurement of the theoretical domains of CEnR. Along with previous systematic reviews, we hope that our work will support academic‐community partnerships to identify key domains to be measured within their projects and instruments with which to do so.

Appendix Table 1

Selected Measures of Community Engagement (Organized by Context, Process, or Outcome Evaluation Based on Study Authors’ Descriptions)

Appendix Table 2

Characteristics of Reviews (2009‐2018)

Supporting information

Supplemental Table 1 . Measures of Community Engagement (Organized by Context, Process, or Outcome Evaluation based upon Study Authors’ Descriptions)

Funding/Support

Drs. Hamilton and Luger were partially supported during the conduct of this review by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veteran Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development, VA QUE 15–272 and VA SDR 10–012. Dr. True received support from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, South Central Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures : All authors have completed the ICMJE form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No disclosures were reported.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 30 March 2021

Exploring community engaged research experiences and preferences: a multi-level qualitative investigation

• Hae-Ra Han   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9419-594X 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Ashley Xu 1 ,
• Kyra J. W. Mendez 1 ,
• Safiyyah Okoye 3 ,
• Joycelyn Cudjoe 4 ,
• Mona Bahouth 1 , 5 ,
• Melanie Reese 2 , 6 ,
• Lee Bone 2 , 3 &
• Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb 1 , 2  

Research Involvement and Engagement volume  7 , Article number:  19 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

21k Accesses

36 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

Community engagement may make research more relevant, translatable, and sustainable, hence improving the possibility of reducing health disparities. The purpose of this study was to explore strategies for community engagement adopted by research teams and identify areas for enhancing engagement in future community engaged research.

The Community Engagement Program of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research hosted a forum to engage researchers and community partners in group discussion to reflect on their diverse past and current experiences in planning, implementing, and evaluating community engagement in health research . A total of 50 researchers, research staff, and community partners participated in five concurrent semi-structured group interviews and a whole group wrap-up session. Group interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using content analysis.

Four themes with eight subthemes were identified. Main themes included: Community engagement is an ongoing and iterative process; Community partner roles must be well-defined and clearly communicated; Mutual trust and transparency are central to community engagement; and Measuring community outcomes is an evolving area. Relevant subthemes were: engaging community partners in various stages of research; mission-driven vs. “checking the box”; breadth and depth of engagement; roles of community partner; recruitment and selection of community partners; building trust; clear communication for transparency; and conflict in community engaged research.

The findings highlight the benefits and challenges of community engaged research. Enhanced capacity building for community engagement, including training and communication tools for both community and researcher partners, are needed.

Peer Review reports

Plain ENGLISH summary

Involving communities in the research process can make better the way research is planned, carried out, and used. With growing interest and support for community engagement, it is important to understand the views and insights of people who experienced community engaged research. To explore the key lessons learned by community engaged research teams, we held five group interview sessions with 50 research investigators, research staff, and community partners. Our findings showed that community engagement is not static but a dynamic, ongoing process. Community partners felt that involving them earlier and in all aspects of the research process would make for better science. Researchers were often torn between “checking the box” to meet community engagement requirements set by the funder of their research and engaging community partners in various stages of research to advance the scientific mission because of time pressure. There were strong themes around clearly defined community partner roles as well as mutual trust and transparency, as they were considered central to successful engagement of communities in research. Related, participants noted that conflict between the researchers and community partners is a familiar part of the community engaged research process. Two common sources of tension were misaligned research priorities between researchers and community partners and lack of communication about study results. Lastly, there was little agreement between researchers about how to measure community engaged research impact outcomes or which impact outcomes matter the most. Our findings support the need for training and communication tools for both community and researcher partners.

Introduction

Community engagement is defined as the process of meaningfully involving communities affected by a research finding in the research process [ 1 ]. Community engagement in research is recognized as a key process to improve the way the research is prioritized, translated, and used in a real-life setting, and can reduce health disparities [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Community engagement can occur across all stages of research including identifying study topics, planning and designing the study, strengthening recruitment strategies, collecting and analyzing data, and interpreting and disseminating findings. Several United States federal health agencies including the National Institutes of Health and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute offer funding for community and other stakeholder engaged research, highlighting growing interest and support at the national level [ 6 ].

While evidence regarding the methods of community engagement is increasing, detailed information about the role and scope of community engagement or specific approaches to successful community engagement across the full spectrum of the research cycle is still limited [ 7 ]. Additionally, a systematic review of clinical trials that report patient engagement for the purposes of research revealed that an estimated less than 1% of clinical trials engage patients in the research process and that engagement of minorities occurred in only about a quarter of trials [ 8 ]. Growing interest in the participation and contributions of community involvement make it an opportune time to examine the key success strategies adopted by research teams and other lessons learned, and to consider the implications for future community engaged health research.

One of the goals of the National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program is to promote knowledge translation by engaging patients and communities in the research process. The Community Engagement Program of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research—Hopkins CTSA—hosted a forum to engage researchers and community partners in a dialogue to reflect on their past and current experiences in a variety of aspects of community engaged research . This paper reports the main themes identified from semi-structured group discussions among diverse forum participants in relation to their past and current experiences in planning, implementing, and evaluating community engaged research .

Participants and setting

Group discussions were chosen to identify norms of research teams in their conduct of community engaged research. The forum was publicized to researchers, research staff, and community partners within the greater Maryland-Washington region through email invites using existing lists and word of mouth. In order to ensure diversity in our forum participants, we also sent out personal, verbal, and email invitations to 100 researchers and community partners conducting community engaged research. The forum was also publicized during the public announcement section of meetings hosted by community advisory boards and local agencies. A total of 36 researchers and 14 community members participated in five concurrent group discussion sessions. Researcher participants consisted of research staff (e.g., research program coordinators, research assistants), post-doctoral fellows, and faculty investigators. Community participants included patient consultants and prior study subjects. About 86% of forum participants indicated that they were involved in a community or other stakeholder engaged research project at the time of the forum, and 59% had prior exposure to community engaged research.

A planning committee was formed to develop the goals, agenda and format of the forum. The planning committee included key faculty and staff from the Hopkins CTSA. Also included were members of the Johns Hopkins Community Research Advisory Council—a research review committee consisting of community residents, representatives of local community organizations, and community advocates. The planning committee met over a 3-month time period for a total of 12 meetings and developed forum goals and objectives as well as format, content, and discussion methods. The planning committee set the main goal of the forum to bring together investigators, patients, community members, and other stakeholders to share their experiences working together on research that addresses health and social issues that impact Greater Baltimore, Maryland. The 3-h forum began with opening by Director of Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, followed by the keynote presentation by a director of one of the health disparities research centers at the Johns Hopkins University. Participants were then asked to join one of five breakout groups to discuss the following topics: 1) identification and selection of community partners; 2) community partner roles and responsibilities; 3) approaches to promoting community engagement; 4) process and impact evaluation of engagement; and 5) scope of community engagement (see Table  1 for example questions). The forum planning committee grouped the participants into five breakout discussion groups based on their topical preferences, past experiences, and their expertise that were collected during registration. Following the breakout sessions, forum participants reconvened and representatives from each breakout group briefly summarized their discussion and presented the key themes of their respective breakout group discussion.

Four of the five breakout groups included both researchers and community members. The fifth group included community members only in order to maximize comfort and sharing of relevant experiences by community members. Each breakout group included 7–11 members and had a moderator to facilitate the discussion (except for the community member-only group which had two co-moderators—one community leader and one researcher), a note taker to transcribe key discussion points for the facilitation of post breakout discussion report out, and two recording devices to record discussion content. Moderators were all well-established researchers with prior and/or current community engaged projects. They had experiences in working with community members and had prior experiences in moderating group discussions. The moderators had specific instructions with a semi-structured discussion guide to follow in order to maximize the exchange of information and facilitate productive discussion. The note takers were all doctoral students who had previous experiences in qualitative research. They were all briefed and trained on the forum purpose and methods. The duration of each group discussion was 1 h. Forum participants provided written permission to audio record the discussion and transcribe notes. The Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board considered this a quality improvement project and waived it from a full review.

Each group discussion was audio recorded and transcribed verbatim by the original note takers. Following transcription, qualitative content analysis was performed by identifying common themes across group discussions. A standard theme-based content analysis approach was used to analyze the discussion results [ 9 ]. Relevant phrases and statements from each group discussion were identified. Phrases and concepts expressed by more than one participant were considered validated and were included in the analysis, with all of the validated phrases and concepts sorted into thematic groups according to similarity. The transcriptions were then read multiple times, key phrases that provided specific information relevant to the research questions were highlighted, and key themes were identified and supported by direct quotes.

We identified four themes and eight subthemes from the forum. Main themes included: Community engagement is an ongoing and iterative process; Community partner roles must be well-defined and clearly communicated; Mutual trust and transparency are central to community engagement; and Measuring community engagement outcomes is an evolving area. Each theme with accompanying subthemes are detailed in the following section.

Community engagement is an ongoing and iterative process

Forum participants indicated that the amount of time community partners were engaged and the process of engaging community partners were different at various stages of research. The perceived importance and desire to be involved in the designing and planning stage was discussed more frequently than the desire to be involved in the other stages. Engaging in early phases of research was important to identify a problem and formulate the appropriate research questions. We identified three subthemes in relation to community engagement process: Engaging community in various stages of research, mission-driven vs. checking the box, and breadth and depth of engagement.

Engaging community partners in various stages of research

“We should be engaged in all stages of the research process” was a universal and oft-repeated sentiment within the Community partner group. Community partners felt researchers should be cognizant that community engagement is an iterative process, and that researchers’ ability to include community members and other stakeholders in all aspects of the research process is the key to success. In particular, community partners expressed that involving them earlier in the research process would make for better science:

“I think the framework is critical. The way that the research question is framed is critical. And I think that the community and the specific community, should be involved in developing the research question. Not too many folks would find fault with efforts to improve that disease or whatever may be, but if it’s not framed so that it applies … ” (Participant 6; Member of community research advisory council)

Researchers discussed actively engaging community partners in research through a series of ongoing, interactive process. Having open community forums (i.e., local forums of residents and community groups to identify issues faced by particular communities and neighborhoods and work together to address those issues) was one method to get community partners on same page, understand the needs of the community, and develop trust and rapport with the community. One researcher noted:

“I will say that the iterative process can actually be big advantage … I think that’s an incentive at least for most of the individuals that I have worked with that they really appreciate how their ideas have taken shape and how their input has been utilized. I think that can make things take a little bit more time but ultimately it is beneficial.” (Participant 1; Research investigator)

Mission-driven versus checking the box

Engaging community partners in all stages of research, however, was challenging at times. Participants discussed the importance of community engagement to advance the scientific mission. Yet, researchers stated that some grant mechanism requirements seem to have a list of community engagement requirements throughout the research study that may not always be productive to the project nor respectful of community partner time. Researchers noted that they do not want to waste community partners’ time unless there is a clear need for their feedback building on their skillset or life experiences. Valuing participant time was highlighted as one of the most difficult but important aspects of conducting research with community partners:

“I think the most challenging part of our current research is for the patients that I pushed so hard to get, for them to care about this really high level, you know, methodologic question … We don’t have monthly meetings … We try to call on them for mission driven things … We are very strategic about what we ask for [community partners] to provide input on … we don’t just waste their time just for the sake of checking a box.” (Participant 3; Research investigator)

Breadth and depth of engagement

Overall, community engagement was centered around identifying a research question or problem. Participants agreed that having communities identify research questions or problems is the most effective and pragmatic way of conducting community-based research. This process would ensure community buy-in when researchers decide to plan future studies in these same communities. One community member remarked on the good back and forth communication between community members and researchers present when she participated in a group of people living with high blood pressure that consulted researchers on relevant research questions:

“So that meant a lot to us for the fact, OK, you’re listening, and you’re actually developing something that’s going to, you know, cause I think what they did was they did something that was a consensus of what all of us had said. So we were really encouraged by it, and so when it comes time to actually do the study we want to be a part of the study, you know. ” (Participant 4; Patient).

Community partner roles must be well-defined and clearly communicated

Researchers expressed the need to consider the role of the community partners before beginning the research process—what is a community partner, the role of community partners, and the best ways to identify and recruit them. There were two subthemes directly addressing these questions: Roles of community partners and recruitment and selection of community partners.

Roles of community partners

Often, a bidirectional relationship with the community helped researchers determine the role of community partners. Participants noted that it is important to distinguish the role of community partners, as they are the liaisons that bring the researchers into the community while also acting as advisors, decision makers, and validators. Some participants called a community partner, the “mayor of the block,” the person that people in the community go to or someone who would be recognized by the community, and could “hold their own” in discussions about the community. This person would assist in translating what is going on in the community and monitor checks and balances.

The researchers in this discussion underscored the importance of clear communication about each community partner’s role to assure use of common language and clarity of roles in order to optimize the partnership and research. A research staff member talked about the importance of clarity in communication about the community partner roles by stating:

“We can be clear … I feel sometimes that there is a sense of, um people because they [community partners] don’t know what’s expected of them, feeling like they are not doing what they are supposed to be doing or that they’re we’re not...so we want to avoid that.” (Participant 9; Research staff).

Recruitment and selection of community partners

Community participants discussed the various ways they first became involved in research and collaborated with research teams. A common theme was engagement in research as a form of advocacy for a medical condition of interest. A community partner, the parent of a child with autism, shared her experience:

“I knew about clinicaltrials.gov , discovered a trial, participated in that trial and then subsequently asked to share my PHI [protected health information] for further research purposes and that was sort of the first time that I felt like I was asked by the research community to share information about my son’s autism and how it affects our family and so forth.” (Participant 11; Parent of a patient).

From the researcher perspective, it was important to first identify the type of community partner that the study requires and then to discuss who is the individual community member. Funding announcements, dissemination and implementation strategies, and knowing the skill sets of the individual community members were useful for selecting community partners. Nevertheless, difficulty identifying the right people to serve as community partners was a common challenge identified by researchers. Participants acknowledged the importance of relying on community resources and various stakeholders to identify and recruit community partners. For example, working with spiritual leaders and health departments, as well as getting to know and building trust with a community helped to identify community partners. To this end, participants noted that it would be ideal to the research team to establish presence and courtship to the community of interest and establish a relationship. Being active, involved, and partnering with community-based organizations would increase exposure and, in turn, enhance community partner engagement.

“ Having a conversation early on about what are your networks and really documenting that and understanding the kinds of networks that everyone brings to the table and how you can connect with those kinds of individuals or groups so that you can have those relationships built in advance so that when you get to the end of the process you can talk about your findings, you are not scrambling. You’ve established that.” (Participant 13; Research staff).

Mutual trust and transparency are central to community engagement

Participants noted that central to conducting community engaged research is the need to develop trust and value the unique contributions of the community partners who are invested in the project. The need to develop trust between researchers and community partners was a universal priority for forum participants. Subthemes to discuss trust to promote community engagement were: building trust, clear communication for transparency, and conflict in community engaged research.

Building trust

Participants stressed the importance of building trust long-term with the community and not coming to the partnership without consideration of community partners’ agendas. Building trust among community members and other stakeholders was also noted as an important aspect of conducting ethical and effective health research:

“That does make a huge difference … when the community sees somebody there, not with their hands out but actually wanting to be there month in and month out so when you do come calling or knocking or you need support, you have the stakeholders that relationship built that you can go to the head, the leadership of the community and they know you and they trust you.” (Participant 8; Member of community advisory council).

Clear communication for transparency

Participants underscored that researchers must make the research process as transparent as possible to community members. This included clear, honest and transparent communication with community members about funding, study findings, study team commitment to the community, duration of the study, and the overall goals of the study. Some community members felt, however, there was a lack of information from researchers to participants regarding results of the study.

“They very often don’t even let you know what, why they collected it, and how it impacted the analysis and then what they’re going to do with it. We never hear that part …” (Participant 5; Patient and member of community research advisory council).

Conflict in community engaged research

Researchers acknowledged that conflict between the researchers and community partners is a familiar part of the community engaged research process. Two sources of tension discussed by community partners were misaligned research priorities between researchers and community partners and lack of communication about study results. Researchers and community partners noted, however, that conflict was not always reported. When it was reported, it was not always clear how to manage conflict:

“I’ve been thinking a lot about [conflict] in many different [ways], but … as with muscles and anything, it is essential for growth and you need pain and destruction to move on. That’s how you know how you exercise well. When your muscles are torn and they need to regrow and repair. Otherwise you haven’t worked out enough... It’s the same for group engagement ... So how to manage [conflict] I don’t know but … that’s key.” (Participant 17; Research investigator).

Measuring community engagement impact outcomes is an evolving area

Researchers discussed a variety of community engagement outcomes they believed should be measured, such as participant attendance at meetings or activities, community partner needs, conflicts and conflict resolution, the amount of money and funding raised by community partners, and community partner self-efficacy. The researchers acknowledged it is easier to measure and evaluate short-term community engaged research outcomes like impact on study design rather than impact on health or impact of community engaged research on a community. However, they noted the lack of a commonly accepted impact measurement framework to guide the measurement of community engaged research for its impact. There was little agreement between researchers about how to measure community engaged research impact outcomes or which impact outcomes matter the most. Community engaged research might lack a commonly accepted impact measurement framework because it is an emerging field or as a result of differing goals of engagement that guide the evaluation of impact outcomes between projects. In the discussion about impact measurement, a researcher stated:

“What if we did this on the principle of justice? How would you measure justice? We get back to what you said about the goals. The goal is to incorporate justice, and that’s really why we are doing it. Can you measure something like that or do you want to be democratic. Or how would you measure whether your process was democratic and just or to some extent inclusiveness? It’s very hard to measure these types of things.” (Participant 20; Research investigator).

Researchers and policy-makers alike increasingly recognize the importance of seeking diverse and inclusive perspectives in translational research. Nonetheless, limited information is available about the role and scope of community engagement or specific approaches to community engagement across the full spectrum of the research cycle [ 7 ]. In particular, this paper offers the diverse perspectives of research investigators, staff, and community partners actively involved in community engaged research. This forum discussion allowed these diverse forum participants an opportunity to share their experiences and perspectives about the benefits and challenges of community engaged research. Our participants noted that community engagement is an ongoing and iterative process to which mutual trust and transparency are central and that the roles of community partners must be well-defined and clearly communicated for the engagement to be successful. These main themes are overall consistent with the key principles of engagement (i.e., reciprocal relationships, partnerships, co-learning, and transparency-honesty-trust) as highlighted in the recent literature [ 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 ].

Whereas all forum participants recognized the benefits of community engaged research, some of the subthemes such as engaging community in various stages of research suggest the need for closer dialogue between researchers and community partners in earlier phases of research. It was interesting to note that researchers felt engagement should happen less, once the research started; it was important for them to not waste community partners’ time by focusing on “mission driven things.” We did not find a similar concern about time burden among community partners. An essential element of community engaged research is the meaningful participation of a broadly representative group of stakeholders whose contributions are sought through all phases of the research, beginning with the planning and research question [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Indeed, the researcher participants in the forum noted that the most effective community engaged research involved community partners to identify a problem and formulate the appropriate research questions. Some of the data driven approaches such as the discrete choice experiment—a quantitative technique to uncover how individuals value selected attributes of a program by asking them to state their choice over different hypothetical alternatives [ 15 ]—may be useful to elicit community preferences as a way of enhancing their engagement in the early phase of research. For example, a recent systematic review [ 16 ] revealed that the discrete choice experiment, when applied to designing and characterizing therapies in the planning phase of research, resulted in increased acceptability and appropriateness.

Engagement in “all stages of the research process” came through as a strong theme within the Community partner group. Community partners in the forum appreciated the “back and forth” interaction between researchers and community members. A mixed methods study [ 17 ] showed that researchers do not routinely give feedback to community partners. Yet, community partners who receive feedback are motivated for further engagement as they feel it supports their learning and development while prompting researchers to reflect on the impact of community partners [ 17 ]. One of the ways in which researchers can provide such feedback would be to bring study findings back to the community—a lacking area in the research process, as noted by the community members. A survey of 109 community partners involved in health research with academic institutions [ 18 ] reported “research results disseminated to the community” as one of the top indicators of successful community engagement. Taken together, these findings suggest the need for culturally relevant and appropriate strategies to promote mutual feedback and better integration of community partners in the research process.

Many of the challenges discussed by the forum participants in the subthemes of mission-driven vs. checking the box, breadth and depth of engagement, and conflict in community engaged research occurred because priorities, motivations, and ways of working differed between researchers and community partners, which caused conflict and power struggles. Some of the practical issues associated with these subthemes (e.g., difficulty recruiting a set of experienced partners well connected to the target community or patient group, long-term commitment needed from partners, and time and cost limits imposed on studies) were recognized in a focus group study [ 19 ] in which problems connecting with the right person at the right time, individual member reluctance, and lack of skills and training were identified as main barriers to stakeholder engagement.

As suggested by our participants, clear and transparent communication is central to resolving potential conflicts in community engaged research. In particular, transparency in communication between community partners and researchers in terms of budget and research administrative processes [ 20 ] has been noted as key factors for improved community engaged research partnerships. Additionally, shared training opportunities for community partners and researchers may be helpful to build community partner skills about research and facilitate engagement on both sides [ 19 ]. The subtheme of recruitment and selection of community partners underscores the importance and need for the development of community capacity to facilitate more meaningful engagement in research. At the policy level, community engaged research needs to build in appropriate time, and funders should acknowledge this need as part of providing an appropriate context and budget for community engagement, to create the conditions where engagement has the potential to have a positive impact.

Forum participants considered a variety of impact assessments for their research and overall reported positive impact of community engagement on research, ensuring its appropriateness and relevance. They noted that it was difficult to have a common impact measure because of differing goals of engagement between projects. Indeed, a recent review of 68 studies addressing measures of community engagement reported that most studies used narrative descriptions of impact data [ 21 ]. Similarly, a mixed-methods study in which documents of 200 primary care research projects were examined and 191 researchers were surveyed noted qualitative reporting of community engaged research impact for study processes (e.g., designing methods or developing participant information) or on individual principal investigators (e.g., developing the grant application, managing the research, conducting the research, or the reputation of the principal investigator’s institution) [ 22 ]. A qualitative investigation [ 23 ] in the United Kingdom also revealed diverse views among stakeholders on what to measure and how to measure their impact. Taken together, the evidence base as to what constitutes adequate impact measures of community engaged research seems evolving. The findings suggest further substantive methodological development in terms of the way in which the impact of community engaged research is measured and reported, a clearer conceptualization of the nature of “impact,” and qualitative and quantitative methods for assessment of impact [ 23 ].

There are a number of study limitations to discuss. First, this was a convenience sample that was created for the purpose of the forum. In particular, we targeted researchers and community members who were already supportive of the idea of community involvement in research. Therefore, generalizability of the findings is limited. Additionally, we did not collect detailed sociodemographic information about the forum participants. The interpretation of the qualitative data might have looked different had we had this information such as age, working status (working/retired), or other relevant characteristics (roles, past experiences, etc.). Finally, it is possible that some of the moderators and notetakers of the concurrent discussion groups may not have been independent of the participants in his/her group and might have influenced the discussion either positively or negatively. We attempted to minimize the potential bias and impact of moderators and notetakers on the nature and direction of the discussion in each group by training them prior to the forum and offering them with an interview guide.

Successful implementation of healthcare interventions relies on community engagement at every stage, ranging from assessing and improving the acceptability of innovations to the sustainability of implemented interventions. In order to optimize the implementation of healthcare interventions, researchers, administrators, and policymakers must weigh the benefits and costs of complex multidimensional arrays of healthcare policies, strategies, and treatments [ 24 ]. This cannot be accomplished without meaningful engagement of key community partners throughout the research process. Challenges identified by the study teams underscore the need for enhanced community engagement training, joint planning of engagement activities, agreeing upon community partner roles and expectations in the early-planning stages of the proposed study, and increased opportunities for community participation in the research process.

Availability of data and materials

The data (anonymized transcripts from the group interviews used for the purpose of this analysis) that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Clinical and Translational Science Awards

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Forsythe LP, Ellis LE, Edmundson L, Sabharwal R, Rein A, Konopka K, Frank L. Patient and stakeholder engagement in the PCORI pilot projects: description and lessons learned. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(1):13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3450-z .

Wennerstrom A, Springgate BF, Jones F, Meyers D, Henderson N, Brown A, Niyogi A, Martin D, Smith, III J, Kirkland AL, Jones L, Norris KC. Lessons on patient and stakeholder engagement strategies for pipeline to proposal awards. Ethn Dis. 2018;28(Suppl 2):303–10. https://doi.org/10.18865/ed.28.S2.303 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kwon SC, Tandon SD, Islam N, Riley L, Trinh-Shevrin C. Applying a community-based participatory research framework to patient and family engagement in the development of patient-centered outcomes research and practice. Transl Behav Med. 2018;8(5):683–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibx026 .

Silberberg M, Martinez-Bianchi V. Community and stakeholder engagement. Prim Care. 2019;46(4):587–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pop.2019.07.014 .

Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. FAQs for applicants. http://www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/how-apply/faqs-applicants#RESEARCH%21WE%20FUND . Accessed 3 Dec 2020.

Manafo E, Petermann L, Mason-Lai P, Vandall-Walker V. Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of patient engagement in health research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0282-4 .

Fergusson D, Monfaredi Z, Pussegoda K, Garritty C, Lyddiatt A, Shea B, Duffett L, Ghannad M, Montroy J, Murad MH, Pratt M, Rader T, Shorr R, Yazdi F. The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4(1):17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-018-0099-x .

Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci. 2013;15(3):398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048 .

Forsythe LP, Frank LB, Hemphill R, Tafari AT, Szydlowski V, Lauer M, Goertz C, Clauser S. Researchers, patients, and stakeholders evaluating comparative-effectiveness research: a mixed-methods study of the PCORI reviewer experience. Value Health. 2018;21(10):1161–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.03.018 .

Granados-Santiago M, Valenza MC, López-López L, Prados-Román E, Rodríguez-Torres J, Cabrera-Martos I. Shared decision-making and patient engagement program during acute exacerbation of COPD hospitalization: a randomized control trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(4):702–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.12.004 .

Sheridan S, Schrandt S, Forsythe L, Hilliard TS. Paez KA; advisory panel on patient engagement (2013 inaugural panel). The PCORI engagement rubric: promising practices for partnering in research. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15(2):165–70. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2042 .

Haynes SC, Rudov L, Nauman E, Hendryx L, Angove RSM, Carton T. Engaging Stakeholders to Develop a Patient-centered Research Agenda: Lessons Learned From the Research Action for Health Network (REACHnet). Med Care. 2018;56(Suppl 10):S27–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Concannon TW, Fuster M, Saunders T, Patel K, Wong JB, Leslie LK, Lau J. A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(12):1692–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-2878-x .

Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in health care. BMJ. 2004;328(7436):360–1. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7436.360 .

Salloum RG, Shenkman EA, Louviere JJ, Chambers DA. Application of discrete choice experiments to enhance stakeholder engagement as a strategy for advancing implementation: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0675-8 .

Mathie E, Wythe H, Munday D, Millac P, Rhodes G, Roberts N, Smeeton N, Poland F, Jones J. Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient and public involvement: a mixed methods study. Health Expect. 2018;21(5):899–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12684 .

Skinner JS, Williams NA, Richmond A, Brown J, Strelnick AH, Calhoun K, de Loney EH, Allen S, Pirie A, Wilkins CH. Community experiences and perceptions of clinical and translational research and researchers. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2018;12(3):263–71. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2018.0050 .

Harrison JD, Anderson WG, Fagan M, Robinson E, Schnipper J, Symczak G, Hanson C, Carnie MB, Banta J, Chen S, Duong J, Wong C, Auerbach AD. Patient and family advisory councils (PFACs): identifying challenges and solutions to support engagement in research. Patient. 2018;11(4):413–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0298-4 .

Carter-Edwards L, Grewe ME, Fair AM, Jenkins C, Ray NJ, Bilheimer A, et al. Recognizing cross-institutional fiscal and administrative barriers and facilitators to conducting community-engaged clinical and translational research. Acad Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003893 .

Bowen DJ, Hyams T, Goodman M, West KM, Harris-Wai J, Yu JH. Systematic review of quantitative measures of stakeholder engagement. Clin Transl Sci. 2017;10(5):314–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12474 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Blackburn S, McLachlan S, Jowett S, Kinghorn P, Gill P, Higginbottom A, Rhodes C, Stevenson F, Jinks C. The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: a mixed methods study. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4(1):16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-018-0100-8 .

Crocker JC, Boylan AM, Bostock J, Locock L. Is it worth it? Patient and public views on the impact of their involvement in health research and its assessment: a UK-based qualitative interview study. Health Expect. 2017;20(3):519–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12479 .

Norris JM, White DE, Nowell L, Mrklas K, Stelfox HT. How do stakeholders from multiple hierarchical levels of a large provincial health system define engagement? A qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0625-5 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

The study was supported, in part, by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR003098 and U54AI108332). Additional funding was received from the National Institute of Nursing Research (P30NR018093) and National Institute on Aging (R01AG062649). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD, USA

Hae-Ra Han, Ashley Xu, Kyra J. W. Mendez, Mona Bahouth & Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb

The Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Community Engagement Program, Baltimore, MD, USA

Hae-Ra Han, Melanie Reese, Lee Bone & Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb

The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

Hae-Ra Han, Safiyyah Okoye & Lee Bone

Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC, USA

Joycelyn Cudjoe

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

Mona Bahouth

Older Women Embracing Life, Baltimore, MD, USA

Melanie Reese

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

HRH conceived of the study. All authors contributed to data acquisition. HRH, AX, KJWM, SO, JC, and MB analyzed and interpreted the qualitative data regarding the community engaged research experiences and preferences. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hae-Ra Han .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board considered this a quality improvement project and waived it from a full review.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Han, HR., Xu, A., Mendez, K.J.W. et al. Exploring community engaged research experiences and preferences: a multi-level qualitative investigation. Res Involv Engagem 7 , 19 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00261-6

Download citation

Received : 15 December 2020

Accepted : 09 March 2021

Published : 30 March 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00261-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Community engaged research
• Qualitative
• Group interviews

Research Involvement and Engagement

ISSN: 2056-7529

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Community Psychology Research Paper Topics

This page provides a comprehensive list of community psychology research paper topics , serving as a crucial resource for students dedicated to exploring the intersection of psychology, community development, and social justice. Recognized for its focus on the systemic issues that influence individual and community well-being, community psychology offers a rich tapestry of research areas aimed at enhancing the quality of life for communities worldwide. From examining the psychological underpinnings of community engagement and empowerment to developing interventions that address societal inequalities and promote mental health, these topics encourage students to delve into research that not only advances academic understanding but also has practical implications for societal improvement. This collection aims to inspire students to pursue research topics that are both meaningful and transformative, contributing to the ongoing growth of community psychology as a field dedicated to social change and the betterment of society as a whole.

100 Community Psychology Research Paper Topics

Community psychology stands at the crossroads of individual well-being and societal health, aiming to bridge the gap between psychological understanding and social action. It is a discipline deeply rooted in the principles of social justice, equity, and the empowerment of marginalized communities. By focusing on the dynamics of power, oppression, and resilience within communities, community psychology seeks to address and solve the complex social issues that impact mental health and community well-being. The diversity of research topics within this field reflects its interdisciplinary nature, drawing from psychology, sociology, public health, and environmental studies, among others. These topics encourage a holistic approach to research, emphasizing the importance of context, culture, and community in the pursuit of psychological health and social change.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

• Historical development of community psychology
• Key theories and models in community psychology
• Principles of ecological systems theory
• The role of empowerment theory in community psychology
• Community psychology and social capital
• The concept of resilience in communities
• Sense of community and community cohesion
• Critical psychology perspectives in community research
• The intersection of community psychology and social justice
• Participatory action research in community psychology
• Strategies for effective community organizing
• Community asset mapping and resource identification
• The psychology of community leadership
• Models of community engagement and participation
• Building sustainable community partnerships
• Community development projects and mental health
• The impact of gentrification on community well-being
• Rural and urban community psychology differences
• Community advocacy and capacity building
• Technology and social media in community organizing
• Psychological underpinnings of social movements
• Mental health advocacy in community settings
• Addressing systemic inequalities through community psychology
• The role of community psychologists in policy advocacy
• Grassroots activism and community mobilization
• Intersectionality and its implications for community psychology
• Gender justice in community psychology practice
• Advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights in communities
• Anti-racism strategies in community interventions
• Disability rights and inclusivity in community projects
• Community mental health services and access issues
• Stigma reduction strategies in community mental health
• Peer support and self-help groups in communities
• Trauma-informed community practices
• Substance abuse prevention and treatment in communities
• Suicide prevention strategies in community settings
• Integrating mental health care into primary health care settings
• Cultural considerations in community mental health
• The role of spirituality in community mental health
• Mental health literacy and education in communities
• Community-based prevention programs
• Designing interventions for at-risk youth in communities
• Violence prevention and conflict resolution in communities
• School-based interventions and community psychology
• Early childhood development programs in communities
• Preventive interventions for elder mental health
• Community responses to natural disasters and crises
• Sexual health education and community interventions
• Nutrition and physical health programs in community settings
• Digital interventions and e-mental health strategies
• Principles and practices of participatory research in communities
• Engaging communities in research design and implementation
• Ethical considerations in community-based participatory research
• Building trust and rapport in community research
• Participatory methods for data collection and analysis
• Action research projects in community psychology
• Collaborative knowledge production with communities
• Challenges and barriers in participatory research
• Case studies of successful community-based research projects
• Evaluating the impact of participatory research on communities
• Developing cultural competence in community psychology practice
• Multiculturalism and diversity in community settings
• Addressing cultural conflicts within communities
• Indigenous methods and perspectives in community psychology
• Cultural adaptations of psychological interventions
• Language barriers and communication in diverse communities
• Racial and ethnic identity development in communities
• Immigrant and refugee communities: Challenges and supports
• Cultural humility and self-reflection in community work
• Promoting inclusivity and diversity in community programs
• The psychological impact of community environments
• Green spaces, nature, and community well-being
• Community design and accessible spaces
• Environmental justice and community health disparities
• The role of community gardens in social cohesion
• Urban planning and psychological health
• Community responses to environmental crises
• The psychology of place attachment
• Sustainable community initiatives and psychological outcomes
• Environmental stressors and their community impact
• Methods for evaluating community programs and interventions
• Community needs assessments and asset evaluations
• Logic models and theories of change in community programming
• Qualitative and quantitative methods in program evaluation
• Participatory evaluation approaches
• Outcome and process evaluation strategies
• Measuring community well-being and quality of life
• Feedback mechanisms and community input in evaluations
• Challenges in community program evaluation
• Case studies of effective program evaluations
• Community psychology’s influence on public policy
• Advocating for community needs in policy-making processes
• Policies to promote community health and well-being
• The role of community psychologists in legislative advocacy
• Developing policy briefs and position statements
• Collaborating with policymakers and stakeholders
• Social policies and their impact on community dynamics
• Policy analysis and critique from a community psychology perspective
• Grassroots policy development and community empowerment
• Evaluating the effectiveness of community-focused policies

The exploration of community psychology research paper topics provides students with a unique opportunity to delve into issues that are at the heart of societal health and individual well-being. By choosing to engage deeply with these diverse and meaningful topics, students can contribute significantly to the field of community psychology, impacting real-world issues and promoting positive change. This list serves not only as a guide for academic exploration but also as an invitation to participate in the ongoing conversation about how psychological principles can be applied to address complex social problems, enhance community resilience, and foster environments where all individuals can thrive.

What is Community Psychology

A Unique Field of Study

The Significance of Research in Advancing the Principles and Practices

Research in community psychology is vital for advancing the field’s core principles and translating them into effective practices and interventions. By investigating the factors that contribute to community well-being, researchers can identify strategies to mitigate social problems, enhance public health, and foster environments that support mental health. Research in this field often adopts participatory approaches, involving community members in the research process to ensure that studies are culturally sensitive and directly applicable to the communities involved. This collaborative approach not only enriches the research but also empowers communities, making them active agents in their transformation. Through rigorous investigation, community psychology research uncovers the intricate dynamics of social change, informing policies and programs that promote equity and access to resources for all community members.

The Variety of Research Topics within Community Psychology

The research topics within community psychology are as varied as the communities the field aims to serve. Topics range from the evaluation of community-based mental health services to the study of environmental influences on psychological well-being. Research in social justice and advocacy explores mechanisms to combat oppression and inequality, while studies in cultural competence seek to enhance the sensitivity and effectiveness of psychological interventions across diverse populations. Other critical areas of inquiry include the development and assessment of prevention and intervention strategies to address issues such as substance abuse, domestic violence, and homelessness. By focusing on these diverse topics, community psychology research directly impacts real-world issues, offering evidence-based solutions to enhance community health and resilience.

Recent Advancements in Community Psychology Research

Recent advancements in community psychology research reflect the field’s dynamic nature and its responsiveness to current social challenges. Innovations in participatory and action research methodologies have strengthened the engagement of community members in addressing local issues, ensuring that interventions are culturally relevant and sustainable. Technological advancements have also facilitated the collection and analysis of large-scale community data, allowing for more nuanced understandings of community dynamics and needs. Furthermore, interdisciplinary collaborations have expanded the scope of community psychology, integrating insights from environmental science, urban planning, and digital technology to address complex issues such as climate change, urbanization, and the digital divide. These advancements underscore the field’s commitment to innovation and its potential to effect meaningful social change.

Ethical Considerations in Conducting Research

Conducting community psychology research involves navigating a complex landscape of ethical considerations. Central to these is the need to respect the autonomy, dignity, and cultural values of community members. Ethical research practices require transparency, informed consent, and sensitivity to power imbalances between researchers and participants. Protecting the confidentiality and privacy of participants is paramount, especially in small or stigmatized communities where anonymity can be challenging to maintain. Moreover, ethical considerations extend beyond the research process to include the implications and applications of research findings, ensuring that the knowledge generated contributes positively to the communities involved and does not exacerbate existing inequalities or injustices.

Future Directions and Emerging Themes

Looking ahead, community psychology research is poised to address a range of emerging themes and challenges. One critical area is the examination of global migration patterns and their psychological impact on both newcomers and host communities, requiring innovative approaches to foster integration, resilience, and mutual understanding. Another important direction is the exploration of digital communities and the role of social media in shaping identity, belonging, and mental health. As environmental concerns become increasingly pressing, research on the psychological aspects of climate change, environmental justice, and sustainable living will also gain prominence. These future directions highlight the field’s adaptability and its potential to contribute valuable insights into some of the most pressing issues facing society today.

The Role of Research in Shaping Effective Community Interventions and Policies

Research in community psychology plays a crucial role in shaping interventions and policies that promote the well-being of communities worldwide. By grounding practices in empirical evidence and prioritizing the voices and needs of community members, the field ensures that interventions are both effective and culturally relevant. Research findings not only inform the development of programs and services but also influence public policy, advocating for systemic changes that address the root causes of social issues. As community psychology continues to evolve, research will remain integral to its mission, guiding efforts to build more equitable, resilient, and healthy communities. Through continued inquiry and innovation, community psychology research has the power to transform societies, making it an essential pillar in the pursuit of social justice and collective well-being.

iResearchNet’s Writing Services

At iResearchNet, we understand the unique challenges and complexities that come with conducting research in community psychology. Our tailored writing services are specifically designed to support students navigating this multidisciplinary field, offering expert assistance in crafting research papers that delve into the societal, cultural, and psychological facets of communities. Whether you’re exploring the impact of social justice initiatives, evaluating community-based mental health programs, or investigating the dynamics of community resilience, our team is equipped to provide comprehensive support. Our mission is to empower your academic journey, ensuring that your research not only meets but exceeds academic standards.

• Expert Writers with Degrees in Community Psychology and Related Fields : Our team is comprised of professionals who bring a deep understanding of community psychology, enriched by their academic backgrounds and research experience.
• Custom Written Works That Align with Specific Research and Academic Requirements : Each paper is crafted to match your individual research focus and academic criteria, ensuring a personalized approach to your topic.
• In-Depth Research Incorporating the Most Recent Community Psychology Studies and Theories : Leveraging the latest research, studies, and theories in community psychology, we ensure that your paper is informed by current insights and knowledge.
• Adherence to Academic Formatting Guidelines (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard) : Our writers are proficient in all major academic formatting styles, guaranteeing that your paper meets the rigorous standards required by your institution.
• Commitment to Delivering Superior Quality Scholarly Work : Quality is at the forefront of our services. We’re dedicated to producing work that reflects thorough research, critical analysis, and scholarly rigor.
• Personalized Solutions for Each Unique Research Topic : Recognizing the diversity of research topics within community psychology, we offer solutions tailored to the specific nuances and requirements of your chosen area of study.
• Affordable Pricing Structured with Student Budgets in Mind : We provide competitively priced services designed to be accessible to students, ensuring you receive high-quality assistance without financial strain.
• Ability to Meet Urgent Deadlines Without Compromising on Quality : Our efficient process and dedicated team enable us to handle urgent deadlines, delivering your research paper on time without sacrificing quality.
• Assurance of Timely Delivery for All Projects : We understand the importance of deadlines and pledge to deliver your project within the agreed timeframe, helping you stay on track with your academic schedule.
• 24/7 Support for Any Inquiries, Updates, or Assistance Needed : Our support team is available around the clock to answer your questions, provide updates on your order, and offer any assistance you may require throughout the process.
• Strict Privacy Policy to Protect All Personal and Project Information : We prioritize your privacy and confidentiality, employing stringent measures to safeguard your personal and project details.
• Easy-to-Use Platform for Tracking the Progress of Orders : Our user-friendly platform allows you to easily monitor the progress of your order, offering transparency and peace of mind.
• Money-Back Guarantee for Projects That Do Not Meet Client Satisfaction : Your satisfaction is our priority. If the final product does not meet your expectations, we offer a money-back guarantee, underscoring our commitment to quality and service.

At iResearchNet, we are deeply committed to supporting the academic pursuits of students within the field of community psychology. Our high-quality, custom writing services are designed to provide you with the resources and support needed to navigate the complexities of your research topics confidently. By choosing iResearchNet, you are securing a partner dedicated to empowering your academic and professional growth in community psychology. Let us help you make a meaningful impact with your research, contributing to the advancement of communities and the field at large.

Empower Your Research with iResearchNet!

Embark on a journey of meaningful exploration and impactful research in the field of community psychology with the dedicated support of iResearchNet behind you. Our expert writing services are specifically designed to cater to your unique needs in community psychology research, providing you with the tools and resources to dive deep into the issues that matter most to communities worldwide. Whether you’re tackling complex social justice issues, evaluating the efficacy of community interventions, or exploring the dynamics of community resilience, iResearchNet is here to ensure your research not only meets but exceeds academic expectations.

Take the first step towards enriching your academic journey in community psychology by choosing iResearchNet for your research paper needs. Our streamlined ordering process makes it simple and stress-free to get started, ensuring you can focus on what truly matters—your research. Alongside, you’ll benefit from our comprehensive support system, designed to guide you through each stage of your project, from initial concept to final submission.

Don’t miss the opportunity to elevate your research and make a lasting impact in the field of community psychology. With iResearchNet, you’re not just completing an assignment; you’re contributing valuable knowledge to a discipline that has the power to transform communities for the better. Begin today, and empower your academic and professional journey with the unparalleled support of iResearchNet.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Exploring Community Health Nursing Research Topics: A Comprehensive Guide for Nursing Students

Community health nursing is a dynamic and vital field within the nursing profession, focused on providing holistic care to populations within a defined community. This specialized branch of nursing goes beyond individual patient care, extending its reach to families, groups, and entire communities. This article will delve into community health nursing, explore its significance, and provide valuable resources for nursing students to engage in research, evidence-based practice (EBP) projects, capstone projects, research paper topics, research questions, and essay ideas.

What You'll Learn

Understanding Community Health Nursing: A Holistic Approach

Community health nursing emphasizes preventive care , health promotion, and disease prevention within a specific community. This holistic approach involves understanding the community’s unique needs, cultures, and challenges to provide targeted interventions that improve health outcomes. As nursing students, you will find this field to be a gateway to understanding the broader healthcare landscape and the interconnectedness of various factors that influence health.

PICOT Questions on Community Health Nursing

• P: Adult population in psychiatric care ; I: Implementation of daily RS questionnaire; C: Units without the daily survey; O: Reduction in utilization of restraint and seclusion; T: 6 months. Can the implementation of a daily RS (Restraint and Seclusion) questionnaire for adults in psychiatric care lead to a significant decrease in the utilization of restraint and seclusion within a period of 6 months?
• P: Pediatric population in school settings; I: Introduction of daily exercise regimen; C: Schools without daily exercise; O: Improvement in BMI and overall fitness; T: 1 academic year. Does introducing a daily exercise regimen in school settings for pediatric populations result in a noticeable improvement in BMI and overall fitness over the course of 1 academic year?
• P: Elderly population in assisted living facilities; I: Implementation of fall prevention program; C: Facilities without fall prevention program; O: Reduction in fall-related injuries; T: 1 year. Is there a significant reduction in fall-related injuries among the elderly residing in assisted living facilities after the implementation of a comprehensive fall prevention program within 1 year?
• P: Low-income pregnant women; I: Provision of prenatal education classes; C: Those without access to prenatal education; O: Increase in prenatal knowledge and healthier pregnancy outcomes; T: Throughout gestation. Can providing prenatal education classes to low-income pregnant women lead to increased prenatal knowledge and improved pregnancy outcomes when compared to those without access to such education?
• P: Diabetic population within the community; I: Establishment of a mobile diabetic clinic; C: No mobile clinic available; O: Enhanced diabetic management and reduced hospitalizations; T: 2 years. Does the establishment of a mobile diabetic clinic within the community lead to better diabetic management and a decrease in hospitalizations over a span of 2 years?
• P: Adolescent population in schools; I: Implementation of comprehensive sexual education; C: Schools with standard sexual education; O: Reduction in teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs); T: 3 years. Over a period of 3 years, does the implementation of comprehensive sexual education in schools result in a significant decrease in the rates of teen pregnancies and STIs among adolescents compared to schools with standard sexual education?
• P: Homeless population; I: Launch of mobile healthcare unit; C: No access to regular healthcare; O: Improvement in overall health status and decrease in emergency room visits; T: 1 year. Can the introduction of a mobile healthcare unit for the homeless population improve their overall health status and a noticeable reduction in emergency room visits within a year?
• P: Rural elderly population; I: Initiation of telehealth services ; C: Lack of telehealth services; O: Enhanced access to healthcare and better management of chronic conditions; T: 18 months. Does the introduction of telehealth services for the rural elderly population lead to increased access to healthcare services and improved management of chronic conditions over the course of 18 months?
• P: New mothers; I: Implementation of postpartum support groups; C: No postpartum support groups available; O: Reduction in postpartum depression rates and improved maternal well-being; T: 1 year. Can the implementation of postpartum support groups for new mothers lead to a significant reduction in postpartum depression rates and an overall improvement in maternal well-being within a year?
• P: LGBTQ+ youth; I: Creating safe spaces in schools; C: Absence of designated safe spaces; O: Decreased mental health challenges and higher academic achievement; T: Ongoing. Does creating safe spaces within schools for LGBTQ+ youth lead to a noticeable decrease in mental health challenges and a rise in academic achievement over an ongoing period?

Evidence-Based Practice Projects Ideas

• Evaluating the effectiveness of community-wide vaccination drives in reducing vaccine-preventable diseases.
• Assessing the impact of a smoke-free policy in public spaces on community members’ respiratory health.
• Investigating the outcomes of a nutrition education program in improving dietary habits among low-income families.
• Analyzing the effectiveness of a community-based mental health awareness campaign in reducing stigma and increasing help-seeking behavior.
• Exploring the outcomes of a diabetes management intervention using mobile health apps in urban communities.
• Studying the effects of a community gardening initiative on physical activity levels and nutrition awareness.
• Investigating the utilization and impact of telemedicine services in remote rural areas.
• Assessing the benefits of a community fitness program on cardiovascular health and overall well-being.
• Evaluating the effectiveness of a school-based anti-bullying campaign on students’ mental health.
• Analyzing the outcomes of a community-driven initiative to increase access to clean drinking water in underserved areas.

Nursing Capstone Project Ideas

• Developing a comprehensive disaster preparedness plan for a local community.
• Designing and implementing a culturally sensitive prenatal care program for immigrant populations.
• Creating a curriculum for training community health workers in identifying and addressing social determinants of health.
• Establishing a support network for caregivers of elderly individuals living at home.
• Designing a mental health first aid training program for community leaders and volunteers.
• Implementing a community-based program to promote physical activity among children with obesity.
• Creating a resource guide for LGBTQ+ youth to access healthcare services without discrimination.
• Developing a community-wide initiative to combat opioid misuse and overdose.
• Establishing a telehealth platform for remote health consultations in underserved regions.
• Designing a comprehensive sexual education curriculum for high schools to address varying cultural norms.

Nursing Research Paper Topics

• The impact of community health nursing interventions on reducing health disparities .
• Exploring the role of community health nurses in disaster response and recovery.
• Analyzing the effectiveness of school-based health clinics in improving student health outcomes.
• Investigating the barriers and facilitators of healthcare access in underserved rural communities.
• The role of community health nursing in promoting healthy aging and elderly care.
• Addressing mental health stigma through community-based interventions led by nurses.
• Analyzing the outcomes of community health education programs on reducing tobacco use .
• Exploring the relationship between community engagement and positive maternal-child health outcomes.
• The effectiveness of telehealth services in bridging healthcare gaps in remote areas.
• Investigating the impact of community health nursing in preventing and managing chronic diseases.

Community Health Nursing Research Questions

• How does the presence of community health nurses influence health outcomes in underserved urban neighborhoods?
• What are the key components of successful school-based vaccination programs , and how do they impact disease prevention?
• How do cultural competence and sensitivity affect the effectiveness of community health nursing interventions?
• What are the main challenges community health nurses face in addressing social determinants of health ?
• How does community engagement contribute to the sustainability of community health initiatives led by nurses?
• What strategies effectively promote mental health awareness and reduce stigma within communities?
• How do telehealth services improve access to healthcare for individuals in geographically isolated regions?
• What role do community health nurses play in detecting and managing chronic diseases ?
• How do community health interventions impact healthcare utilization patterns and costs?
• What are the outcomes of community health nursing programs focused on improving maternal and child health?

Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

• The Role of Community Health Nursing in Promoting Population Health.
• Addressing Health Disparities: The Impact of Community Health Nursing.
• Community-Based Approaches to Preventing Teenage Pregnancy .
• Telehealth: Bridging Healthcare Gaps in Underserved Communities.
• Cultural Competence in Community Health Nursing: Challenges and Strategies.
• Disaster Preparedness and Response: The Critical Role of Community Health Nurses.
• The Influence of Social Determinants of Health on Community Health Nursing Interventions.
• Community Health Education: Strategies for Promoting Healthy Lifestyles.
• Exploring the Connection Between Mental Health and Community Well-being.
• Innovations in Community Health Nursing: Harnessing Technology for Better Outcomes.

As nursing students, you are poised to become the next generation of community health nurses, armed with the knowledge and skills to impact the health and well-being of diverse populations positively. Community health nursing offers numerous opportunities for research, practice, and advocacy. By delving into PICOT questions, evidence-based practice projects, capstone projects, research paper topics, and research questions, you can deepen your understanding of this vital field and contribute to its growth. Don’t hesitate to seek our writing services if you need assistance with your community health nursing assignments or essays. We understand the demands of nursing education and are here to support you in your academic journey. Your dedication to improving community health is commendable, and together, we can pave the way for healthier, more vibrant communities.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Community Health Nursing

• Is community health nursing the same as nursing? Community health nursing is a specialized branch of nursing that focuses on providing holistic care to populations within specific communities. While nursing is a broader field encompassing various specialties, community health nursing is distinct in its emphasis on preventive care and health promotion within communities.
• What are the qualifications of a community health nursing? To practice community health nursing, one typically needs a registered nurse (RN) license. Many community health nurses also hold a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) degree, and advanced practice may require additional education such as a Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) with a specialization in community health.
• Do community health nurses work in hospitals? While community health nurses primarily work in community settings like public health departments, schools, and clinics, they can also collaborate with hospitals to provide education, preventive care, and continuity of care to patients transitioning from hospital to home.
• Can a community health nurse become a doctor? Community health nurses can certainly pursue further education and career advancement, but the path to becoming a doctor is different. Becoming a doctor requires completing medical school and earning a medical degree (MD) or a doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO) degree, whereas community health nursing involves nursing education and training.

Start by filling this short order form order.studyinghq.com

And then follow the progressive flow. 

Having an issue, chat with us here

Cathy, CS. 

New Concept ? Let a subject expert write your paper for You​

Post navigation

Previous post.

📕 Studying HQ

Typically replies within minutes

Hey! 👋 Need help with an assignment?

🟢 Online | Privacy policy

WhatsApp us

• Open access
• Published: 29 July 2024

A retrospective descriptive review of community-engaged research projects addressing rural health priorities

• Bushra Farah Nasir 1 , 2 ,
• Bruce Chater 1 ,
• Matthew McGrail 3 &
• Srinivas Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan 2  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  805 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

322 Accesses

Metrics details

Most rural populations experience significant health disadvantage. Community-engaged research can facilitate research activities towards addressing health issues of priority to local communities. Connecting scholars with community based frontline practices that are addressing local health and medical needs helps establish a robust pipeline for research that can inform gaps in health provision. Rural Health Projects (RHPs) are conducted as part of the Doctor of Medicine program at the University of Queensland. This study aims to describe the geographic coverage of RHPs, the health topic areas covered and the different types of RHP research activities conducted. It also provides meaningful insight of the health priorities for local rural communities in Queensland, Australia.

This study conducted a retrospective review of RHPs conducted between 2011 and 2021 in rural and remote Australian communities. Descriptive analyses were used to describe RHP locations by their geographical classification and disease/research categorisation using the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems – 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes and the Human Research Classification System (HRCS) categories.

There were a total of 2806 eligible RHPs conducted between 2011 and 2021, predominantly in Queensland ( n  = 2728, 97·2%). These were mostly conducted in small rural towns (under 5,000 population, n  = 1044, 37·2%) or other rural towns up to 15,000 population ( n  = 842, 30·0%). Projects mostly addressed individual care needs ( n  = 1233, 43·9%) according to HRCS categories, or were related to factors influencing health status and contact with health services ( n  = 1012, 36·1%) according to ICD-10 classification.

Conclusions

Conducting community focused RHPs demonstrates a valuable method to address community-specific rural health priorities by engaging medical students in research projects while simultaneously enhancing their research skills.

Peer Review reports

People living in rural regions experience a greater burden of health disparities and disadvantages across most health and wellbeing domains [ 1 , 2 ]. Despite clear inequities existing between rural and urban populations, there have been limited research-based strategies focused on addressing community-level health and medical priorities [ 3 ]. To achieve a better understanding of health issues impacting rural communities, innovative research to identify the health issues directly impacting people living in rural areas can result in community-focused strategies to address these challenges.

In Australia, immense inequities in research funding targeting rural health strongly diminish the capacity for rural health research supported by an integrated academic infrastructure [ 4 ]. A large portion of the research being conducted in rural communities depends upon busy clinician researchers, who work within the local health and medical workforce [ 5 ]. Improving sustainability of rural focused researchers and clinician academics thus requires a focused approach to providing critical skills development and community-centred research opportunities that are integrated within the medical curriculum. Rural and remote research involves high levels of community engagement, rural-based immersion opportunities and positive learning experiences that result in ‘socially accountable’ research activities [ 5 ]. A tailored, community-engaged approach also significantly impacts future rural practice intent [ 6 , 7 ], which is a critical government agenda that aims to sustain a rural workforce that is committed to work in underserved rural communities. For anyone intending to practice in a rural or remote location, the importance of developing research and analytical skills is more significant, given the complex nature of rural environments [ 6 ].

Preparing medical students for a rural career in evidence-based medicine requires sufficient research training and experiences to develop both their ability to appraise clinical evidence and their analytical skills required in medical practice [ 8 ]. A recent review of Australian medical students confirmed that the inclusion of scholarly activities to support the development of basic research skills and critical evaluation is not universally embedded within medical degree programs [ 9 , 10 ]. Similarly, a study exploring attitudes and participation in research activities by medical students in Australia found that only 45% of the 704 survey respondents had participated in a research project [ 11 ]. To instil scholarly research skills development, the University of Queensland (UQ) in Australia incorporates various units that are aimed to develop research skills as part of their medical training. In year three of the four-year MD program, all domestic students undertake a Rural and Remote Medicine (RRM) placement under the Mayne Academy of Rural and Remote Medicine clinical unit. Alongside clinical teaching and training, a Rural Health Project (RHP) forms part of the RRM placement during which students complete a small research project with an emphasis on identifying and addressing local community priorities.

The RHPs are developed through a local iterative process that balances the needs of the rural communities, the advice of the locally based supervisors, and student skills and interests, using the community-engaged research conceptual framework principles [ 12 ]. RHPs are conducted within rural hospitals, general/family practice, or a combination of both, as well as some projects being undertaken within the community but outside of a clinical setting. An example is that of a former mining engineer doing medicine arranged an underground gold mine rescue scenario that was filmed as part of the RHP. The video was used for training purposes, providing an output beneficial to the local community. As a result, students hone their research skills and involve themselves in multidisciplinary practice and participatory research in the context and culture of a rural community.

The RHP is integrated with the flow of phase one pre-clinical programs and fits in with other RRM assessments and practical experiences. They are designed to be carried out within a Quality Improvement framework that aims to develop an understanding of rural health service delivery, while learning to work collaboratively in gaining an understanding of health status and issues of priority for local rural communities in which the students are placed. The RHP pedagogical approach is underpinned by a sociocultural theory [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. Students work under interactive guidance and supervision regarding the cognitive and experiential aspects of their activities, with intensive immersion in the tasks being carried out, relying on self-motivation, initiative and problem-solving. During the RHPs, students learn how to critically analyse a clinical topic, engage with community members and clinicians, and collaborate as required. Students are also responsible for planning and conduct of the project and producing practical resources or an end-product that is then presented in a written academic report. The key elements of the RHPs are to harness the opportunity of placement at a rural site by identifying a health service need or locally relevant knowledge gap to be addressed in consultation and engagement with the community.

More than 270 RHPs are conducted every year within UQ as part of the RRM unit spread over 50 smaller rural and remote communities. The overarching goal for each student’s RHP is to develop a long-term, solution-orientated plan of benefit to the local community.

This study aimed to describe the geographic coverage of RHPs, the health topic areas covered and the different types of RHP research activities conducted. It also provides meaningful insight of the health priorities for local rural communities in Queensland, Australia.

This study is a retrospective analysis of all RHPs conducted by medical students as part of their RRM unit, during Year 3 of their medical training at UQ. Specific data available for each RHP were the project title, the year it was conducted, and the location, each of which was collected as part of standard administrative procedures by the RHP coordinators. No identifying information about the students were collected, thus no other linkage was possible such as to student characteristics. Each RHP is conducted by one medical student.

Location information was coded by the researchers (BN, SKC, MM) using the Modified Monash Model [ 16 ] categories. Using descriptive information from the RHP title, researchers also coded the RHPs using the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems – 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes and the Human Research Classification System (HRCS) categories. The primary researchers involved in data setup (SKC and BN) conducted the categorisation and coding of the data, followed by a researcher (MM) reviewing and confirming accurate categorisation and coding. A descriptive analysis of the RHPs was conducted to explore ICD-10 codes and HRCS categories according to rural, remote, and regional locations using the Modified Monash Model (MMM) [ 16 ] Classification system.

A total of 2974 projects were reviewed in this study. After coding and removing projects with missing key information, and projects that were conducted outside of Australia, a total of 2806 RHPs remained.

The distribution of RHPs within each state based on regional location is described in Table  1 . A majority of RHPs were conducted in Queensland ( n  = 2728, 97·2%). Due to the small number of RHPs within Victoria, New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, these states were combined into a single category (other). According to the MMM categories, most RHPs were conducted in small rural towns (MMM-5, n  = 1044, 37·2%), or medium rural towns (MMM-4, n  = 842, 30·0%). Additionally, nearly 17% of RHPs were conducted in Australia’s remote areas (MMM-6 and MMM-7, n  = 468). A small number of projects ( n  = 195, 7·0%) were conducted in areas not targeted under the RRM program (MMM-1 and MMM-2). These RHP locations were used by students mainly because of administration related factors, including students not being able to travel to a suitable location during COVID-19 related restrictions.

The frequency of the RHPs according to HRCS categories, and the ICD-10 codes are illustrated in Tables  2 and 3 respectively. Analysis was limited to each HRCS category or ICD-10 code having at least 20 RHPs. The most frequent MMM category within each HRCS category and ICD-10 code illustrate the regional distribution within each research topic area. According to the HRCS categories, RHPs most frequently addressed Individual care needs ( n  = 1233, 43·9%) and were conducted in MMM-5 locations ( n  = 487, 37·1%). Similarly, according to the ICD-10 codes, RHPs most frequently explored Factors influencing health status and contact with health services ( n  = 1012, 36·1%) and were conducted in MMM-5 locations ( n  = 347, 34·2%).

Examples of RHPs conducted in HRCS Research Activity codes and ICD-10 codes (Table  4 ) highlight some of the key health research topics that the RHPs have addressed.

This study demonstrates the approach of immersive rural health research projects, conducted as part of medical curriculum in Australia. They describe how research activities conducted within rural communities can help address rural health priorities specific to each community, while also providing a practical approach for medical students to become involved in community-engaged research projects. The review also highlights the diverse nature of RHP topics that are community-identified issues relevant to the local communities. Communities undertake a collaborative process with the supervisor and student, to identify areas of focus that meets their needs. The resulting research activities conducted as part of the RHPs provide practical resources for immediate translation or direct evidence to support future interventions targeting improved rural health outcomes. A similar but smaller scale research initiative in Australia highlights that as part of a graduate medical program conducted during a 12-month GP placement in a rural, regional, or remote community in New South Wales, an increased understanding of local health issues in regional, rural and remote communities, and increased engagement with and acceptance of medical students in these communities was seen [ 17 ].

Unsurprisingly given that they are part of the UQ curriculum, most RHPs were conducted within Queensland. These were most commonly situated within small and medium sized rural towns and/or inner-regional locations, focused on Individual care needs. The HRCS category addressing Individual care needs explores several aspects of patients and service user care needs including quality of life, management of symptoms, disease management, prevention, and health service needs [ 18 ]. These issues correlate with multiple reports that continue to highlight the ongoing issue of access to primary health care services and higher levels of disease that impacts health outcomes within rural locations [ 19 , 20 , 21 ]. Similarly, according to the ICD-10 codes, RHPs most commonly explored factors influencing health status and contact with health services. Additionally, factors influencing primary health care access and the service needs of rural and remote communities is an ongoing concern [ 20 ]. The category of mental, behavioural, and neurodevelopment disorders was the second highest coded research project, highlighting its importance to these communities. A 2019 report by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners corresponds with this finding, as it reported psychological issues as the most commonly managed health issue by General Practitioners (65%) [ 20 ].

Literature acknowledges challenges surrounding research activity during medical education. Time constraints ( n  = 460; 65·3%) and uncertainty surrounding how to find research opportunities ( n  = 449; 63·8%) are common barriers to research [ 11 ]. Other studies also highlight the lack of time (77·4%), and lack of formal research activity within the curriculum (76%), as well as lack of mentorship (70·1%) [ 22 ]. Solutions include protected research time, financial and other academic support that would help facilitate and improve participation in research projects [ 23 ]. By providing an integrated research project that is assessed and embedded within the medical curriculum of the MD degree, this study highlights how these challenges can potentially be mitigated. The importance of providing medical students the opportunity to learn and conduct research during their medical education is essential to prepare future rural clinician researchers [ 10 ].

A significant strength of this study is the diversity and volume of rural health projects conducted. Additionally, a greater understanding of the health priorities were identified for rural communities. The strength of this study also highlights the number of successfully completed RHPs, whereby students gained valuable advantage to understand the process of gathering and synthesising data and developing important outcomes or resources relevant to their rural placement communities. There are however several limitations to this study. Although the ICD-10 and HRCS coding systems can categorise medical health related research activity, they are limited in their design to adequately classify rural health research projects relating to geographical factors. This limitation may restrict the generalisability of findings from this study. Another limitation is that this study relied on administrative data, which did not include other valuable information such as student characteristics or placement contexts within each of the locations. Additionally, the outcomes of each RHP were also not available. The categorisation process was also based on the understanding of the researchers, however, to overcome this bias, a systematic approach to categorisation was used, whereby all researchers checked and verified consensus on the categorisation of each RHP.

The integration of research projects focused on both understanding rural health disadvantages and suitable interventions as part of a medical students training and learning experience is an innovative method to address rural health challenges, while encouraging medical students to enhance their research skills. Students address topics of local priority through their RHPs, increase their involvement with the rural communities and other health professionals and develop an increased understanding of local health issues in rural and remote communities. Furthermore, advancing opportunities to undertake integrated rural health research activities within a medical student’s degree can progress a student’s scholarship, encouraging future academic endeavours. Such community-engaged, locally based rural health projects also allow us to better understand the unique factors associated with health and health care within rural communities, as well as the underlying factors explaining rural versus urban differences. These research focused activities ultimately not only benefit the local communities in which such projects are conducted, but also provide an educational model that achieves academic outcomes benefitting the medical student.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Richman L, Pearson J, Beasley C et al. Addressing health inequalities in diverse, rural communities: an unmet need. SSM Popul Health 2019.

Mainous AGKF. A comparison of health status between rural and urban adults. J Community Health. 1995;20:423–31.

Article   Google Scholar  

Rural Health Standing Committee. National Strategic Framework for Rural and Remote Health. Department of Health; 2020.

Roberts R. Building rural health research and scholarship - NHMRC Open access revisions and impact on rural health outcomes. Aust J Rural Health. 2021;29:316–8. 2021/07/05.

O’Sullivan BG, Cairns A, Gurney TM. Understanding the field of rural health academic research: a national qualitative, interview-based study. Rural Remote Health. 2020;20:6116. https://doi.org/10.22605/RRH6116 . 2020/09/04.

Kelly WB, MacDermott S, Spelten E. A seat at the table: Regional, rural and remote health research and impact. Aust J Rural Health. 2021;29:1002–7. 2021/10/19.

Lyle D, Greenhill J. Two decades of building capacity in rural health education, training and research in Australia: University Departments of Rural Health and Rural Clinical Schools. Aust J Rural Health. 2018;26:314–22. 2018/10/12.

Aslam F, Shakir M, Qayyum MA. Why medical students are crucial to the future of research in South Asia. PLoS Med. 2005;2:e322. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020322 . 2005/11/18.

Mills JMZ, Januszewski AS, Robinson BG, et al. Attractions and barriers to Australian physician-researcher careers. Intern Med J. 2019;49:171–81. 2018/08/29.

Eley DS, Hu W, Talley NJ. Educating future clinician academics: the role of medical schools. Med J Aust. 2022;217:16–9. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51596 . 2022/06/03.

Muhandiramge J, Vu T, Wallace MJ, et al. The experiences, attitudes and understanding of research amongst medical students at an Australian medical school. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21:267. 2021/05/12.

Jaderholm C, Currier J, Brown K et al. The Community Research Liaison Model: Facilitating community-engaged research. J Clin Transl Sci 2023; 7: e78. 2023/05/01. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2023.31 .

Bleakley A. Broadening conceptions of learning in medical education: the message from teamworking. Med Educ. 2006;40:150–7. 2006/02/03.

Badyal D, Singh T. Learning theories: the basics to learn in Medical Education. Int J App Basic Med Res 2017; 7.

Ford T, Joneja M, Bona A. Sociocultural Theory. Education Theory Made Practical .

Department of Health. Modified Monash Model, https://www.health.gov.au/health-topics/rural-health-workforce/classifications/mmm (2021).

Uebel J, Iqbal M, Hall J. A retrospective review of primary care research projects completed by medical students at University of New South Wales Medicine. Aust J Gen Pract 2020; 49.

UK Clinical Research Collaboration. Health Research classification system. UK: Medical Research Council; 2018.

Google Scholar  

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Rural & remote health. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2019.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Primary health care. Canberra: Austrailan Institute of Health and Welfare; 2020.

Britt H, Miller GC, Henderson J, et al. General practice activity in Australia 2015–16. Sydney: Sydney University; 2015.

Kharraz R, Hamadah R, AlFawaz D, et al. Perceived barriers towards participation in undergraduate research activities among medical students at Alfaisal University-College of Medicine: a Saudi Arabian perspective. Med Teach. 2016;38(Suppl 1):S12–18. 2016/03/18.

Hart J, Hakim J, Kaur R, et al. Research supervisors’ views of barriers and enablers for research projects undertaken by medical students; a mixed methods evaluation of a post-graduate medical degree research project program. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22:370. 2022/05/14.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Dr John Ridler (Academic Coordinator , Mayne Academy of Rural and Remote Medicine) and Dr Lynette Hodgson (Academic Coordinator Rural Health Projects , Mayne Academy of Rural and Remote Medicine) for their continued involvement and contributions to this study.

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mayne Academy of Rural and Remote Medicine, Rural and Remote Medicine Clinical Unit, Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Theodore 4719, QLD, Australia

Bushra Farah Nasir & Bruce Chater

Toowoomba Regional Clinical Unit, Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland Toowoomba, 6 Range Street, Mount Lofty, Toowoomba, QLD, 4350, Australia

Bushra Farah Nasir & Srinivas Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan

Rockhampton Regional Clinical Unit Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Rockhampton 4700, QLD, Australia

Matthew McGrail

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

BN was responsible for conception, analysis, drafting and revising the manuscript. BC was responsible for conception, critical review of the manuscript, and revising the manuscript. MM was responsible for critical review of the manuscript and revising the manuscript. SKC was responsible for conception, critical review of the manuscript, and revising the manuscript. All authors have approved the submitted manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bushra Farah Nasir .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee approved this research study (2022/HE000394). Data were available for RHPs conducted between 2011 and 2021. The study used retrospective administrative data; no participants were involved in this study directly and therefore a waiver of consent was granted.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Nasir, B.F., Chater, B., McGrail, M. et al. A retrospective descriptive review of community-engaged research projects addressing rural health priorities. BMC Med Educ 24 , 805 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05791-7

Download citation

Received : 04 September 2023

Accepted : 16 July 2024

Published : 29 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05791-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Rural health
• Rural medicine
• Medical education
• Community engagement

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• General enquiries: [email protected]

UC Center for Public Engagement with Science

Working to expand and enrich the interface between science and the public to benefit all stakeholders

Key Considerations for Community-Engaged Research

Scientific research involving members of the general public takes on many forms: citizen science, community science, and participatory research, just to name a few. While these types of projects all differ in their aims, scope, and impact, they share a commitment to building ways for the public to play an important role in the research process. 

Science with the public

There are benefits for those on both sides of the relationship. Researchers get access to data that would be impossible to collect on their own, while participants get a first-hand opportunity to see science in action, often right in their own neighborhoods. 

Nature lovers of all ages, for example, can track seasonal changes using  Nature’s Notebook , a program that captures data from participants across the country. Research teams use the data to inform practices such as improving invasive plant management techniques and building better predictive models of tree leaf emergence. People can engage in participatory science virtually as well: the  Chimp&See project , developed by the Pan African Programme, invites participants to watch video footage of wild chimpanzees and help document chimpanzee behavior. Reported findings are then used to inform research on the behavioral and cultural diversity of chimpanzees. Hubs for participatory research initiatives like these, such as  scistarter.org  and  zooniverse.org , feature hundreds more projects, covering a diverse array of research topics. 

Science for good

Participatory research can have important social and political impacts as well. Some community-based projects focus on public health and policy issues raised by community members themselves. Spurred into action by concerns about air pollution caused by nearby petroleum tanks, residents in South Portland, Maine, initiated their own  air monitoring program .  Latinos Unidos por la Salud , a community-based participatory research project co-designed by University of Cincinnati researchers and a community research team comprised of local Latina residents, investigated barriers to healthcare for Latino immigrants. In this type of participatory research, projects are usually developed by a team of researchers and community members, with each group contributing to the overall design of and vision for the project. 

The advantages of undertaking scientific work with community partners have led to a tremendous increase in its popularity. As more projects and partnerships are formed, it will be beneficial to investigate how adhering to best practices and other considerations ensures that participants are treated fairly and project goals are achieved.  

Working with community partners

Research under development by PEWS members identifies several key considerations for cultivating participatory research relationships and for doing research with community partners. Whether the aim is to produce scientific articles, build a course around community-engaged learning, or start up a grassroots community-based project, keeping these considerations in mind can aid in the successful design and implementation of participatory research projects. 

The first thing to note is that there is no single formula for developing a participatory research project, and the same goes for developing a community partnership. Context matters, and will depend on the goals of the project and the type of relationship that develops. 

It’s also important to have the relevant background knowledge in place before initiating a project. This often translates to taking the time to know what matters to the potential community partner so that their needs and goals can be at the forefront as the project develops. And for community-based projects, it’s essential that the interests of participants are built in every step of the way. Some considerations might be: How will they benefit from being involved in the project? How can they be compensated for their contribution? What resources do they have or lack access to? Attending to these questions can aid in balancing the power dynamic between researchers and community partners. 

Building on existing relationships

Making use of existing resources can streamline the design process. To start, it is helpful to explore what projects, groups, and relationships already exist locally. Building on existing resources can also aid in ensuring that the project has an impact beyond its duration, and that relationships formed can outlive the project to benefit the broader communities involved. 

When a project comes to its conclusion, partnerships might naturally dissolve. But this can negatively impact community participants, for whom the practical outcomes of the project might matter for their daily lives. Here, following up is key. Whether it’s working together to report findings to policy makers, coordinating new partnerships and connections, or even just hosting a get-together to celebrate everyone’s hard work, building in space for all involved to reflect on what the project has accomplished and how it has impacted the community is central in cultivating successful partnerships.

Published by Amanda Corris

Postdoctoral associate with the Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Minnesota. University of Cincinnati alumna. View all posts by Amanda Corris

Discover more from UC Center for Public Engagement with Science

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

• Library Home
• Research Guides

Community Development

Library research guide, developing a topic, narrow your topic, too broad or narrow.

• Search Strategies
• Professional Organizations
• Government Resources
• Finding & Using Images
• Copyright Basics

It can be difficult to choose the right topic for your research in community development . Here are some questions to ask yourself:

• What are you interested in?
• What do you know about the topic?
• Is there a specific time period you want to cover?
• Is there a geographic region or country on which you want to focus?
• Is there a particular aspect of the topic that interests you?

Produced by K-State Libraries   Video Transcript

If you have learned what to do when your topic is too broad, consider another scenario:

Though having a topic that is too broad is a common problem, you also need to make sure your topic is not too narrow. If your topic is so limited by geographical area, details, or is very current, you may not be able to find any information about it when researching. 

Below is a table that shows examples of topics that are too broad, too narrow and just right.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Keywords >>
• Last Updated: Aug 8, 2024 3:31 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.k-state.edu/commdev

K-State Libraries

1117 Mid-Campus Drive North, Manhattan, KS 66506

785-532-3014 | [email protected]

• Statements and Disclosures
• Accessibility
• © Kansas State University

Free & Trending Dissertation Topics.

• We have shared online many free sample topics as listed on our website.
• Most of the listed dissertation topics are sample ideas and for reference purposes.
• Where you need the latest, unique & original dissertation topics; reach out and we shall develop three to six sample topics from which you can select the best.
• Our research support team is well conversant with the dissertation paper writing needs & so capable to offer you comprehensive support even with the entire project. 

Our service Advantage

01. - Develop a Relevant Research Topic.

You need to have a great research idea that addresses a relevant research gap. We are more than willing to support you, let us know.

02. - Defend & have your Topic Approved.

If possible, review or have your topic approved by your supervisor or senior research advisor so that you do not start and later stall midway.

03. - You can now Start your Research Process.

When your topic has finally been approved & is researchable, you can now start the research process : We can help you Step by Step.

 What to Consider When Writing & Developing a Dissertation Topic!

Our Service Process

Community Development Research Topics & Dissertation Titles

Topic suggestions for research in community development.

With our unique capability to suggest relevant and timely topics, we act as a compass, guiding individuals and organizations to areas of utmost significance. By offering a roadmap of pertinent themes and dialogues, we not only foster informed conversations but also catalyze meaningful transformations within communities. Whether one is a beginner keen on understanding the basics or a seasoned expert looking to explore deeper facets, our topic suggestions offer clarity, direction, and inspiration, ensuring community development initiatives are both impactful and well-informed. Our help serves as a pivotal resource for those venturing into the sphere of community development research topics.

✔  Effects of Cultural practices and Knowledge systems on community development:  The study will examine how cultural practices within a community affect community development. In addition, the researcher will examine the impact of knowledge systems within a community on development.  The research will also recommend the best ways to employ cultural practices and knowledge systems in promoting community development. 

✔  Gender responsibilities in community development :  In many societal settings, different genders are assigned different roles. These roles are also assigned based on age and the strength of individuals within the community. This research will assess the role of shared gender responsibilities toward community development.

✔  Effects of technology on indigenous community development .:  Indigenous communities engage in traditional methods of doing things. This study will focus on changes that indigenous communities go through with the introduction of technology, how they adapt to such changes, and their influence on community development. 

✔  Impact of religion and socio-economic differences on community development: A Case study:  There are many religious practices all over the world and with the freedom of worship; people within a community choose the religion that suits them. Some communities have different religious beliefs as well as socioeconomic statuses. This study will assess the impact that those differences have on the growth of a community.

✔  Understanding the differences between urban and rural community development:  Urban and rural community settings do not have equal opportunities in terms of resources, technology, and knowledge. This study will compare the two community settings and how the differences in the two communities present an opportunity for them to grow together. Request  help with a dissertation topic in MA community development from our firm and you will get credible services.

✔  The interrelations between community development and availability of health services:  This study will use multiple case studies to gather data from two communities. The study will examine the differences in community development based on the availability of healthcare services. It will, therefore, be determined whether better health services lead to better community development and vice versa.

To come up with a great topic means that you need to first have some idea or area of interest that you prefer and even where you may need expert help to fine-tune that; this way you will be able to  write and defend a research proposal on community development  and even where you may need us to assist, it will be easier for you.

The Gravity of an Impactful Research Title about Community

In the realm of research, the title is the first point of contact for potential readers. An impactful research title not only piques interest but also succinctly encapsulates the essence of your study on community. It's a window into the study's objectives, offering a snapshot of its scope, methodology, and anticipated outcomes. Understanding how to develop a defendable title is a very crucial step in the research process.

The emphasis is on the critical role that a well-crafted research title plays in attracting attention, generating interest, and conveying the significance of community-focused research. A compelling title should not only be catchy but also reflect the depth and importance of the study, drawing the audience into the research topic. Before identifying a great title, it is significant to identify research gaps in the context of community and this involves a systematic approach. Researchers can begin by conducting a comprehensive literature review to understand the existing body of work. This process helps in identifying what has already been studied, published, and established within the field. By analyzing the existing literature on community, researchers can pinpoint areas where there is a lack of sufficient information, conflicting findings, or unanswered questions and so come up with appealing titles for further research about community.

To settle for the most suitable title for a community-focused research project, one should consider other key factors. For instance, the title should be clear and concise, providing a glimpse into the central theme of the study. It should effectively communicate the research's purpose, scope, and potential contributions. Additionally, a compelling title often incorporates keywords that resonate with the target audience and reflect the core concepts of the research. Moreover, a suitable research title for a community-oriented study should be relevant and timely. It should address current issues or gaps in knowledge within the community context, demonstrating the research's potential to make a meaningful impact. The inclusion of terms that evoke a sense of community, collaboration, and social relevance can enhance the title's resonance.

Furthermore, researchers should strive for creativity and originality in their titles. A unique and memorable title can set a research project apart and generate interest. However, it is crucial to balance creativity with clarity to avoid confusion or misinterpretation.

Ideally, the gravity of an impactful research title about community lies in its ability to attract attention, convey the research's essence, and contribute to its overall impact. By considering factors such as clarity, relevance, and creativity, researchers can identify a title that not only captures the essence of their work but also resonates with the broader community and academic audience.

Navigating Community Research Topics: A Comprehensive Guide

1. unraveling research topics related to community problems.

Every community, irrespective of its size or location, grapples with challenges. Addressing these community problems through focused research can lead to actionable insights. Delving into this realm can encompass:

• Socio-economic Dynamics: Analyze how rising unemployment rates might fracture community ties or how economic disparities influence communal cohesion.
• Healthcare Access: Investigate the ripple effects of inadequate healthcare facilities on community well-being, emphasizing physical and mental health outcomes.
• Urbanization Concerns: Examine the impacts of gentrification, assessing its implications for original community members and exploring potential solutions for harmonious urban development.

2. Spotlight on Community Based Research Topics

Community-based research signifies a collaborative approach, integrating community members into the heart of the research process. This approach ensures the results resonate with the community's authentic experiences. Potential topics include:

• Community Agriculture Initiatives: Delve into how community gardens or urban farming projects impact local engagement, nutrition, and environmental consciousness.
• Educational Outreach: Assess the effectiveness and long-term impacts of community-driven educational initiatives, focusing on both children and adult learners.
• Conservation Collaborations: Explore how local communities perceive, participate in, and benefit from conservation projects, ensuring sustainable ecological futures.

3. Diverse Avenues of Community Related Research Topics

Beyond immediate community issues, there's a broader universe of community research encompassing various forms of communal gatherings:

• Digital Communities: Investigate how online communities, from social media groups to professional networks, shape individual identities, foster connections, and occasionally exacerbate societal divides.
• Professional Cohorts: Dive into niche professional communities, like healthcare or arts, to comprehend their internal dynamics, challenges, and contributions to the larger societal fabric.
• Cultural Cohesion: Study the role of community arts, music, and literature programs in promoting intercultural understanding, preserving traditions, and fostering a sense of shared identity.

Community research topics are as diverse as communities themselves. While the challenges each community faces are unique, the common thread is the pursuit of understanding and improvement. As we immerse ourselves in detailed research, we are not only gaining knowledge but also paving the path for actionable insights and tangible change. Embracing these topics with depth and dedication can lead to a more informed and cohesive societal fabric.

Topics for a Dissertation on Community - Based Problems

Different subject areas.

• B.Ed . |  B.A . 
• B.Com  |  BSc  
• BSN  |  DBa  
• DNP  |  Doctoral
• Ed.D  |  M.Ed  |  RN  
• Masters  |  MBA  
• MBus  |  MCom
• MEntr  |  Msc  
• MSN  |  PhD  
• Post graduate  
• Undergraduate

Client Testimonials

Thanks a lot for the research topic writing Services!

Read More...

Quality & Reliable Services

• Recent Topic Ideas
• Dissertation Project Ideas
• Case Study Topics 
• Topic Writing Tips
• Secrets to a Great Topic 
• Literature Review Topics
• Urgent Research Ideas Help
• Topic Brief Assistance
• Relevant Research Ideas
• Thesis Title Defence
• Topic Reviewing Aid
• Significance in a Title
• Base Paper Help

Topic Ideas by Paper Type

• Dissertation Topics
• Thesis Topics
• Proposal Topics
• Research Paper Topics
• Capstone Project Topics

Remarkable Help

There are some services that we recommend for related services, they are reliable but subject to your review.

• Literature Review Help
• Methodology Writing Aid
• Research Proposals Help
• Research Writing Service
• Best Thesis Writing  Help

Latest Research Areas on Community Development

Best-Programs-Community-Development-Courses-Online.pdf   |   Universities-that-offer-Masters-in-Community-Development.pdf   |   Why-Studying-Community-Development-is-Such-important.pdf

More Free Sample Research Topics On Community Development

• A study on the interrelations between community development and availability of health services.
• The Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility in Organizational Performance and Success.
• The Benefits of Local Government Administration on Community Development.
• Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Sustainable Management Activities towards Customer Satisfaction.
• An Investigation into the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Sustainability of Organizations.
• The Impact of Labor Training and development on the Performance of an Organization
• An Investigation into the Contribution of Public Infrastructure towards Community Development.
• An Investigation into the Role of Non- governmental Organizations in Community Development.
• The Benefits of Organizational Involvement in Transformative Community Development.
• An Investigation into the Factors Influencing Women Empowerment and Community Development.
• The Benefits of Using Technology for Economic Advancement and its Impact on the Development of the Community.

Try our services...

How to Conduct a Great Research Project on Comm. Development

As a scholar, you are likely to view the community development course as the appreciation of a balanced community that has people with a similar vision. Development in itself is the process of improving the strengths of a particular community. In general, development means that the people of a community are responsible to see that change takes place. In the modern world, people have rested all the responsibility for the development of a community on their leaders. As a scholar, you have a task to evaluate a vital area within community development. Here are some hints on writing a great MA community development dissertation project : community development as a course that is crucial to return the communal responsibility, discussing the state in the current world where people in communities are living in fear, shame, and silence, ways in which virtues such as sharing, kindness, honesty, and others can be restored in a community, the evaluation of community development on history, traditions, and social structures, discussing the process of ownership, control, decision-making, and participation in a community, and the evaluating why people give power to their leaders.It is imperative to avoid a dissatisfactory topic if you want to write a master's dissertation that your instructor will award a high grade. Take a significant step towards your academic excellence by working on a suitable dissertation topic. You need to give an account of how collective action can be taken to address the problems affecting the community; however, this can only happen if you have a very relevant topic. 

RESEARCH TOPIC HELP.

[email protected]

 +1(813)489-6985  | Chat with Us

Reliable & Legit

100% original help.

We do not Plagiarize

We help Edit Plagiarism

Terms & Conditions

Copyright © 2024 Research Topic Help. All Rights Reserved

Let us know how we can help...

From Natural Hazards to Global Health and Sustainability, and Finding a Community

Beginnings and a career-changing paper.

Haojie Wang 's academic journey began with a Bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering from China University of Geosciences, followed by a PhD in Civil Engineering from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Initially, Haojie was on the path to becoming a traditional engineering geologist. However, during the second year of his PhD, a pivotal moment occurred. His advisor, Professor Limin Zhang, introduced him to a conference paper exploring unsupervised machine learning in landslide feature classification. It was a novel approach at that time, as machine learning had yet to be widely applied to understanding landslides.

"After I read that paper, I thought about the many cool scientific topics we could tackle," Haojie recalls. This moment marked the beginning of his journey into machine learning and its application to landslide research.

Upon completing his Ph.D., Haojie realized that he had developed a second identity: a data scientist with a strong foundation in geotechnics. Reflecting on the rapid evolution of the field, Haojie notes, "Years ago, no one talked about using machine learning and similar tools in this context. Traditional methods like conducting experiments and using numerical models to simulate physical processes were the norm. But today, data science is transforming the landscape of geotechnical research. The field is growing so quickly that if you don’t keep up, you risk falling behind."

Transitioning from Geotechnics to Sustainability and Global Health

Haojie’s doctoral research, Machine Learning-Powered Natural Terrain Landslide Identification and Susceptibility Assessment , focused on integrating machine learning with satellite imagery and geospatial big data to identify and forecast landslides. Multiple publications that arose from his doctoral research are recognized as highly cited papers by Clarivate. His thesis work not only advanced the field of landslide research but also allowed him to integrate his knowledge of data science and remote sensing. As he delved deeper into this field, Haojie recognized that his skillset could be applied to address more global sustainability challenges.

"New research areas mean new challenges and the opportunity to embrace new possibilities," says Haojie. "And new possibilities inspire me to stay passionate about research."

His curiosity led him to another exciting research project, this time under the guidance of Pascal Geldsetzer, Assistant Professor of Medicine. Professor Geldsetzer was seeking a data scientist with expertise in remote sensing to monitor global health indicators from space. The challenge was irresistible to Haojie.

"Finding new ways to monitor global health is truly exciting, and the project is highly interdisciplinary,” says Haojie. “I am also keen to understand the role of climate change and natural hazards in shaping today’s global health landscape," Haojie explains. With guidance from esteemed mentors such as Professors Pascal Geldsetzer, David Lobell, Marshall Burke, Stefano Ermon, Eran Bendavid, Carlos Guestrin, and Gary Darmstadt, Haojie found his intellectual homes at the Stanford School of Medicine and Stanford Data Science.

The Vision Behind Haojie Wang’s Postdoctoral Research Project

Haojie’s postdoctoral research focuses on the development of new earth observation approaches for global population health monitoring. Traditional household surveys rely on door-to-door data collection, which can only cover a small fraction of the country and is conducted at best every few years. It is time-consuming, expensive, and often logistically challenging in many parts of the world. Policymakers often have no choice but to make decisions based on extrapolated health indicators from old household surveys.

Haojie is pioneering a new approach to overcome these limitations. He is leveraging machine learning, satellite imagery—which provides continuous coverage for all countries—and publicly available geotagged big data to predict health indicators. If successful, this method could offer worldwide up-to-date health indicators more quickly than ever before, enabling governments and decision-makers to track population health, allocate medical resources more effectively, and inform healthcare policy. The project is currently in its early stages, with the development of a preliminary model underway.

The Role of Data Science in Global Health Research

Haojie’s postdoctoral work is grounded in data science, focusing on population health through a remote sensing lens. His project involves fusing and analyzing data sourced from various satellite imagery, such as Landsat, alongside other geospatial data and health records. Predictive analytics play a critical role in this research, offering new insights into health trends on a global scale.

Finding a Community at Stanford Data Science

Haojie was introduced to the Stanford Data Science Fellow Program by Professor Pascal Geldsetzer, who believed Haojie would be an ideal fit. The interdisciplinary nature of the research conducted at Stanford Data Science appealed to Haojie, who had struggled to find a community that aligned with his diverse research interests at conventional universities.

"What’s unique about Stanford Data Science is its commitment to interdisciplinary research," Haojie says. "As an interdisciplinary scientist, I often felt isolated in traditional academic environments. But here, I found a community of fellows and scholars—a huge family! It’s incredibly gratifying to know that other data scientists are also pursuing interdisciplinary research. I’m not alone on this path."

Advice for Aspiring Data Scientists

Haojie was one of the technical mentors of the Data Science for Social Good (DSSG) program in 2023, where he mentored three undergraduate DSSG fellows on the project Maternal and Child Health - A Satellite’s Perspective throughout the summer. “It was a really enjoyable and inspiring summer working with aspiring researchers. DSSG sets a solid platform to connect with young minds—I was continually impressed by their enthusiasm and how they brought fresh perspectives to our project,” Haojie gushes.

Haojie encourages aspiring data scientists to find new ways to approach problems and to view the world through a data-driven lens. "Be Brave to explore new areas. Data science allows us to tackle problems we never imagined we could address. That’s the unique charm of the field," he admits.

Ambitions, Dreams, and Hobbies

This fall, Haojie plans to apply for faculty positions in global sustainability. His goal is to continue his work at the intersection of population health, climate change, and natural hazards, using his skill set to address pressing questions and make a meaningful impact. Outside of his research, Haojie enjoys cooking, traveling, and immersing himself in nature. As an engineering geologist at heart, he finds peace and inspiration in the natural world and loves going on road trips and camping, where he can combine his passion for nature with his love of good food.

Selected Awards

• 2024 Best Paper Award, Engineering Geology, Elsevier
• Data Science Fellowship, Stanford Data Science
• Postdoctoral Fellowship, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
• National Scholarship, Chinese Ministry of Education

Useful Links

• Google Scholar

More News Topics

Welcome to the new SDS Postdoc Fellows 2025!

• In the News

Welcome to the 2025-2026 Cohort of Data Science Scholars

• Stanford Data Science Scholars Program

Summer Programs Recap: Aspiring Researchers Tackle Ambitious Projects with Social Impact

• Data Science for Social Good

Smart cities: Digital solutions for a more livable future

Until recently, city leaders thought of smart technologies primarily as tools for becoming more efficient behind the scenes. Now technology is being injected more directly into the lives of residents. Smartphones have become the keys to the city, putting instant information about transit, traffic, health services, safety alerts, and community news into millions of hands.

After a decade of trial and error, municipal leaders are realizing that smart-city strategies start with people, not technology. “ Smartness ” is not just about installing digital interfaces in traditional infrastructure or streamlining city operations. It is also about using technology and data purposefully to make better decisions and deliver a better quality of life .

Quality of life has many dimensions, from the air residents breathe to how safe they feel walking the streets. The latest report from the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), Smart cities: Digital solutions for a more livable future (PDF–6MB), analyzes how dozens of digital applications address these kinds of practical and very human concerns. It finds that cities can use smart technologies to improve some key quality-of-life indicators by 10 to 30 percent—numbers that translate into lives saved, fewer crime incidents, shorter commutes, a reduced health burden, and carbon emissions averted.

What makes a city smart?

Smart-city technologies have substantial unrealized potential to improve the urban quality of life, a look at current deployment in 50 cities around the world shows that even the most advanced still have a long way to go, smart cities change the economics of infrastructure and create room for partnerships and private-sector participation.

Smart cities put data and digital technology to work to make better decisions and improve the quality of life. More comprehensive, real-time data gives agencies the ability to watch events as they unfold, understand how demand patterns are changing, and respond with faster and lower-cost solutions.

Three layers work together to make a smart city hum (Exhibit 1). First is the technology base, which includes a critical mass of smartphones and sensors connected by high-speed communication networks. The second layer consists of specific applications. Translating raw data into alerts, insight, and action requires the right tools, and this is where technology providers and app developers come in. The third layer is usage by cities, companies, and the public. Many applications succeed only if they are widely adopted and manage to change behavior. They encourage people to use transit during off-hours, to change routes, to use less energy and water and to do so at different times of day, and to reduce strains on the healthcare system through preventive self-care.

MGI assessed how smart-city applications could affect various quality-of-life dimensions: safety, time and convenience, health, environmental quality, social connectedness and civic participation, jobs, and the cost of living (see interactive). The wide range of outcomes reflects the fact that applications perform differently from city to city, depending on factors such as legacy infrastructure systems and on baseline starting points.

Applications can help cities fight crime and improve other aspects of public safety

Deploying a range of applications to their maximum effect could potentially reduce fatalities (from homicide, road traffic, and fires) by 8 to 10 percent. In a high-crime city with a population of five million, this could mean saving up to 300 lives each year. Incidents of assault, robbery, burglary, and auto theft could be lowered by 30 to 40 percent. On top of these metrics are the incalculable benefits of giving residents freedom of movement and peace of mind.

Technology is not a quick fix for crime, but agencies can use data to deploy scarce resources and personnel more effectively. Real-time crime mapping, for instance, utilizes statistical analysis to highlight patterns, while predictive policing goes a step further, anticipating crime to head off incidents before they occur. When incidents do occur, applications such as gunshot detection, smart surveillance, and home security systems can accelerate law-enforcement response. But data-driven policing has to be deployed in a way that protects civil liberties and avoids criminalizing specific neighborhoods or demographic groups.

Seconds count when lives are at stake, making speed critical for first responders in getting to the scene of emergencies. Smart systems can optimize call centers and field operations, while traffic-signal preemption gives emergency vehicles a clear driving path. These types of applications could cut emergency response times by 20 to 35 percent. A city with an already low response time of eight minutes could shave off almost two minutes. A city starting with an average response time of 50 minutes might be able to trim that by more than 17 minutes.

Smart-city technologies can make daily commutes faster and less frustrating

Tens of millions of people in cities worldwide begin and end every workday fuming in traffic or piling into overcrowded buses and trains. Improving the daily commute is critical to quality of life.

By 2025, cities that deploy smart-mobility applications have the potential to cut commuting times by 15 to 20 percent on average, with some people enjoying even larger reductions. The potential associated with each application is highly variable, depending on each city’s density, existing transit infrastructure, and commuting patterns. In a dense city with extensive transit, smart technologies could save the average commuter almost 15 minutes a day. In a developing city with more grueling commutes, the improvement might be 20 to 30 minutes every day.

In general, cities with extensive, well-used transit systems benefit from applications that streamline the experience for riders. Using digital signage or mobile apps to deliver real-time information about delays enables riders to adjust their routes on the fly. Installing IoT sensors on existing physical infrastructure can help crews fix problems before they turn into breakdowns and delays.

Applications that ease road congestion are more effective in cities where driving is prevalent or where buses are the primary mode of transit. Intelligent syncing of traffic signals has the potential to reduce average commutes by more than 5 percent in developing cities where most people travel by bus. Real-time navigation alerts drivers to delays and helps them choose the fastest route. Smart-parking apps point them directly to available spots, eliminating time spent fruitlessly circling city blocks.

Cities can be catalysts for better health

The sheer density of cities makes them critical although currently underutilized platforms for addressing health. Recognizing that the role of technology in healthcare is broad and evolving by the day, we analyze only digital applications that offer cities room to play a role. We quantify their potential impact on disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), the primary metric used by the World Health Organization to convey the global disease burden, reflecting not only years of life lost to early death but also productive and healthy life lost to disability or incapacity. If cities deploy the applications included in our analyses to their fullest effect, we see the potential to reduce DALYs by 8 to 15 percent.

Applications that help prevent, treat, and monitor chronic conditions , such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease, could make the biggest difference in the developed world. Remote-patient-monitoring systems have the potential to reduce the health burden in high-income cities by more than 4 percent. These systems use digital devices to take vital readings, then transmit them securely to doctors in another location for assessment. This data can alert both patient and doctor when early intervention is needed, heading off complications and hospitalizations.

Cities can use data and analytics to identify demographic groups with elevated risk profiles and target interventions more precisely. So-called mHealth interventions can send out lifesaving messages about vaccinations, sanitation, safe sex, and adherence to antiretroviral therapy regimens. In low-income cities with high infant-mortality rates, data-based interventions focused on maternal and child health alone could reduce DALYs by more than 5 percent. Another 5 percent reduction is possible if developing cities use infectious-disease surveillance systems to stay a step ahead of fast-moving epidemics. Telemedicine, which provides clinical consultations by videoconference, can also be lifesaving in low-income cities with doctor shortages.

Smart cities can deliver a cleaner and more sustainable environment

As urbanization, industrialization, and consumption grow, environmental pressures multiply. Applications such as building-automation systems, dynamic electricity pricing, and some mobility applications could combine to cut emissions by 10 to 15 percent.

Water -consumption tracking, which pairs advanced metering with digital feedback messages, can nudge people toward conservation and reduce consumption by 15 percent in cities where residential water usage is high. In many parts of the developing world, the biggest source of water waste is leakage from pipes. Deploying sensors and analytics can cut those losses by up to 25 percent. Applications such as pay-as-you-throw digital tracking can reduce the volume of solid waste per capita by 10 to 20 percent. Overall, cities can save 25 to 80 liters of water per person each day and reduce unrecycled solid waste by 30 to 130 kilograms per person annually.

Air-quality sensors do not automatically address the causes of pollution, but they can identify the sources and provide the basis for further action. Beijing reduced deadly airborne pollutants by roughly 20 percent in less than a year by closely tracking the sources of pollution and regulating traffic and construction accordingly. Sharing real-time air-quality information with the public via smartphone apps enables individuals to take protective measures. This can reduce negative health effects by 3 to 15 percent, depending on current pollution levels.

Smart cities can create a new type of digital urban commons and enhance social connectedness

Community is hard to quantify, but MGI surveyed urban residents to determine if digital channels for communicating with local officials as well as digital platforms that facilitate real-world interactions (such as Meetup and Nextdoor) can have an impact. Our analysis suggests that using these types of applications could nearly double the share of residents who feel connected to the local community, and nearly triple the share who feel connected to local government.

Establishing channels for two-way communication between the public and local agencies could make city governments more responsive. Many city agencies maintain an active presence on social networks, and others have developed their own interactive citizen apps. In addition to disseminating information, these channels create vehicles for residents to report concerns, collect data, or weigh in on planning issues. Paris has implemented a participatory budget, inviting anyone to post project ideas and then holding online votes to decide which ones merit funding.

Would you like to learn more about the McKinsey Global Institute ?

Becoming a smart city is not a strategy for job creation, but smart solutions can make local labor markets more efficient and slightly lower the cost of living.

Many local officials want to know if becoming a smart city will lead to an infusion of high-paying tech jobs or accelerate a wave of automation. Our analysis finds a slightly positive net impact on formal employment. Smart technologies will directly eliminate some jobs (such as administrative and field jobs in city government) while creating others (such as maintenance, driving roles, and temporary installation jobs). E-career centers can have a modest positive impact by creating more efficient mechanisms for hiring and drawing more unemployed and inactive people into the workforce. Data-driven formal education and online retraining programs can enhance a city’s pool of skills. Digitizing government functions such as business licensing, permitting, and tax filing can free local enterprises from red tape, contributing to a more entrepreneurial business climate.

Many of the world’s most dynamic and desirable cities have serious housing shortages , driving up rents and home prices. Expanding the supply of housing can bring down those costs. In many places, bureaucracy bogs down land acquisition, environmental studies, design approvals, and permitting. Digitizing these processes can remove risks and delays, encouraging more construction. In addition, most cities have a surprising amount of land sitting idle that could be suitable for infill housing. Creating open-source cadastral databases can help to identify land parcels for development.

Smart applications produce savings in other areas, such as encouraging more efficient usage of utilities and the healthcare system. Products such as home-security systems, personal-alert devices, and lifestyle wearables involve consumer purchases, but they offer value that many are willing to pay for. Mobility applications offer new value as well, although e-hailing may encourage people to take more rides than they once did. However, e-hailing and other sharing applications make it possible for some people to forgo private vehicle ownership. MGI estimates that the average person could save as much as 3 percent on current annual expenditures.

MGI took a snapshot of deployment in 50 cities around the world, not to crown the world’s smartest city but to show the full sweep of activity under way around the globe. This includes assessment of each city’s technology base, its current application rollout, and public adoption.

Download and print a smart-city snapshot showing deployment progress.

Our view of each city’s technology base looked at the extent of sensors and devices , the quality of communication networks, and the presence of open data portals. Among the most advanced are Amsterdam, New York, Seoul, Singapore, and Stockholm—but even these front-runners are only about two-thirds of the way toward what constitutes a fully comprehensive technology base today. In general, cities across China, East Asia, Europe, and North America have relatively strong tech bases, as do select cities in the Middle East. But those in Africa, India, and Latin America lag behind, particularly in installing the sensor layer, the most capital-intensive element.

We gauged each city’s progress in implementation using a checklist of current smart applications. Mobility has been a top priority for most cities, but those places with the highest number of applications implemented overall—London, Los Angeles, New York, Seoul, Shenzhen, and Singapore—have branched out into multiple domains. Some cities have not yet implemented the applications with the greatest potential to address some of their priority issues.

MGI conducted online surveys in all of the cities analyzed to gauge how residents feel about the technologies already at work in their environment. We found that Asian cities are the strongest performers in awareness, usage, and satisfaction, while European cities lag. Positive adoption and awareness appear correlated with having a young population that not only accepts a more digital way of doing things but also expects it.

Smart-city technologies help cities get more out of their assets, whether they have extensive legacy systems or are building from scratch. There is no getting around the need to invest in physical assets and maintenance, but smart technologies can add new capabilities as core components are upgraded.

Infrastructure investment once locked cities into capital-intensive and extremely long-term plans. Now, using the right combination of traditional construction and smart solutions, they can respond more dynamically to how demand is changing. If population growth surges in a far-flung neighborhood, adding a new subway or bus line with the accompanying fleet expansion may take years. By contrast, a privately operated on-demand minibus service could be up and running much faster.

City government does not have to be the sole funder and operator of every type of service and infrastructure system. While implementing most of the applications that we examined would fall to the public sector, the majority of the initial investment could come from private actors (Exhibit 2). Public financing may be reserved for only those public goods that must be provided by the government. Furthermore, more than half of the initial investment that needs to be made by the public sector would generate a positive financial return, which opens the door to partnerships .

Adding more actors to the mix is a positive, since it increases adoption and applies more creativity to the available data. When private-sector innovations spring up organically, the role of government may involve regulating, convening key actors, offering subsidies, or changing purchasing decisions. Rather than taking a master-planning approach, some cities position themselves as ecosystems, creating consortia and even physical collaboration spaces.

Some cities are starting their transformations with inherent advantages such as wealth, density, and existing high-tech industries. But even places that lack these ingredients can set themselves apart with vision, good management, a willingness to break with conventional ways of doing things, and a relentless commitment to meeting the needs of residents. There are many blank canvases for the private sector, not for profits, and technologists to fill—and above all, individuals should be empowered to shape the future of the cities they call home.

Stay current on your favorite topics

Lola Woetzel is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Shanghai office and a director of the McKinsey Global Institute; Jaana Remes is a partner in the San Francisco office; Brodie Boland is an associate partner the Washington, DC, office, where John Means is a partner; Katrina Lv is a partner in the Shenzhen office; Suveer Sinha is a partner in the Mumbai office; Gernot Strube is a senior partner in the Munich office; Jonathan Law is a partner in the New York office; Andrés Cadena is a partner in the Bogotá office; and Valerie von der Tann is a consultant in the Berlin office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Urban world: Meeting the demographic challenge in cities

Bridging infrastructure gaps: Has the world made progress?

Urban commercial transport and the future of mobility

• Frontiers in Built Environment
• Sustainable Design and Construction
• Research Topics

Urban Energy for Energy Transition in the Built Environment

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

Cities account for approximately 75% of global primary energy consumption and contribute to 50-60% of global greenhouse gas emissions. In pursuit of climate neutrality, urban areas are exploring novel strategies for carbon reduction and energy saving. The energy transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy is even more complex in cities, where multiple demand profiles, constraints, and interests must be taken into account. Given the heterogeneity of demand profiles and the variable supply of renewable energy sources, there is an increasing need for dynamic load balancing and energy management schemes from both the supply and demand sides. Particular attention should also be devoted to interactions between occupants, buildings, and distributed energy resources (electric and/or thermal), which can increase local energy flexibility. Such options can be implemented in community configurations, as positive energy districts (PEDs), which integrate the energy consumption of different users and improve the use and sharing of renewable energy. Achieving a positive energy balance without compromising users’ comfort and grid functionality presents a significant challenge, necessitating a substantial research effort. Therefore, energy development strategies must consider a range of factors, including technical, economic, governance, and social dimensions. Interventions should not only target newly constructed areas but also address the existing building environment. This Research Topic aims to spotlight the contribution of the latest research on innovative technology, control, and user integration toward a positive energy balance at the building and urban level to investigate energy transition in urban clusters. The following sub-topics will be explored, though not exclusively limited to: - building design and architecture for energy efficiency; - integration of renewable energy sources in the built environment; - positive energy districts; - urban planning towards energy efficiency; - challenges in electrification; - smart multi-energy systems; - energy management schemes; - renewable energy communities and business models.

Keywords : Urban Energy

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, submission deadlines.

Participating Journals

Manuscripts can be submitted to this Research Topic via the following journals:

total views

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

Investigating the behaviors of core and periphery students in an asynchronous online discussion community using network analysis and topic modeling

• Published: 17 September 2024

Cite this article

• Wanli Xing 1 ,
• Taehyun Kim 1 ,
• Wangda Zhu 1 &
• Yukyeong Song 1  

Although researchers recognize the importance of discussing support for math learning within online learning communities, there is a lack of relevant network classifying methods and analyses at the group level to understand the behavioral differences between groups with varying levels of activity, including their mathematical literacies. In this research, we investigated different groups within a large asynchronous online discussion community for middle school students, focusing on their interaction patterns and the quality of their mathematical engagement. First, we employed an extended Surprise detection algorithm that evaluates interaction quality to classify users into core, periphery, and extra-periphery groups. Following this classification, we performed social network analysis to understand the interaction patterns among these groups. For discourse analysis, we used topic modeling methods to analyze the socio-semantic network structure of the discussions. To assess differences in math literacy and discussion success rates among the groups, we applied the Mann-Whitney U test. Findings indicate that each group is more responsive to its members, with the core group demonstrating a balanced response pattern. X-periphery students primarily engage in casual chats and open queries, indicating a more focused participation aimed at immediate learning needs. Notably, the X-periphery group exhibits the highest math literacy and discussion success rates, suggesting that lower activity levels do not hinder communication efficiency. These findings highlight the importance of considering group dynamics and roles in designing online math learning activities to foster effective communication and support, offering practical insights for sustaining online learning communities through tailored discussion activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from Math Nation, but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study and so are not publicly available. The data are, however, available from the authors upon reasonable request and with the permission of Math Nation.

Afify, M. K. (2019). The influence of group size in the asynchronous online discussions on the development of critical thinking skills, and on improving students’ performance in online discussion forum. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online) , 14 (5), 132.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Agudo-Peregrina, Á. F., Iglesias-Pradas, S., Conde-González, M. Á., & Hernández-García, Á. (2014). Can we predict success from log data in VLEs? Classification of interactions for learning analytics and their relation with performance in VLE-supported F2F and online learning. Computers in Human Behavior , 31 , 542–550.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aldecoa, R., & Marín, I. (2013). Surprise maximization reveals the community structure of complex networks. Scientific Reports , 3 (1), 1060.

Allen, L. K., Eagleson, R., & de Ribaupierre, S. (2016). Evaluation of an online three-dimensional interactive resource for undergraduate neuroanatomy education. Anatomical Sciences Education , 9 (5), 431–439.

Almatrafi, O., Johri, A., & Rangwala, H. (2018). Needle in a haystack: Identifying learner posts that require urgent response in MOOC discussion forums. Computers & Education , 118 , 1–9.

Anderson, T., & Kanuka, H. (1997). On-line forums: New platforms for professional development and group collaboration. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 3 (3).

Asghar, M. Z., Arif, S., Barbera, E., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Kocayoruk, E. (2021). Support through social media and online class participation to enhance psychological resilience. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18 (22), 11962.

Auvinen, T., Hakulinen, L., & Malmi, L. (2015). Increasing students’ awareness of their behavior in online learning environments with visualizations and achievement badges. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies , 8 (3), 261–273.

Barana, A., Marchisio, M., & Sacchet, M. (2021). Interactive feedback for learning mathematics in a digital learning environment. Education Sciences , 11 (6), 279.

Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media (Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 361–362).

Beaudoin, M. F. (2002). Learning or lurking? Tracking the invisible online student. The Internet and Higher Education , 5 (2), 147–155.

Bell, C. V., & Pape, S. J. (2012). Scaffolding students’ opportunities to learn mathematics through social interactions. Mathematics Education Research Journal , 24 , 423–445.

Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 3 , 993–1022.

Google Scholar  

Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (2000). Models of core/periphery structures. Social Networks , 21 (4), 375–395.

Boyd-Graber, J., Hu, Y., & Mimno, D. (2014). Applications of topic models. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval , 11 (2–3), 143–296.

Chen, X., Zou, D., Cheng, G., & Xie, H. (2020). Detecting latent topics and trends in educational technologies over four decades using structural topic modeling: A retrospective of all volumes of computers & Education. Computers & Education , 151 , 103855.

Corry, M., & Carlson-Bancroft, A. (2014). Transforming and turning around low-performing schools: The role of Online Learning. Journal of Educators Online , 11 (2).

Darabi, A., Arrastia, M. C., Nelson, D. W., Cornille, T., & Liang, X. (2011). Cognitive presence in asynchronous online learning: A comparison of four discussion strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 27 (3), 216–227.

Da Silva, L. F. C., Barbosa, M. W., & Gomes, R. R. (2019). Measuring participation in distance education online discussion forums using social network analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 70 (2), 140–150.

de Jeude, J. V. L., Caldarelli, G., & Squartini, T. (2019). Detecting core-periphery structures by surprise. Europhysics Letters , 125 (6), 68001.

Dennen, V. P. (2008). Pedagogical lurking: Student engagement in non-posting discussion behavior. Computers in Human Behavior , 24 (4), 1624–1633.

De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2007). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education , 46 (1), 6–28.

Findell, B., Swafford, J., & Kilpatrick, J. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics . National Academies.

Fortunato, S. (2010). Community detection in graphs. Physics Reports , 486 (3–5), 75–174.

Gamble, J., Chintakunta, H., Wilkerson, A., & Krim, H. (2016). Node dominance: Revealing community and core-periphery structure in social networks. IEEE Transactions on Signal and Information Processing over Networks , 2 (2), 186–199.

Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology , 36 (1), 5–18.

Goggins, S., & Xing, W. (2016). Building models explaining student participation behavior in asynchronous online discussion. Computers & Education, 94 , 241–251.

Golbeck, J. (2013). Network structure and measures. Analyzing the Social web , 5 , 25–44.

Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Building social networks via computer networks: Creating and sustaining distributed learning communities. Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace , 159 , 190.

Hevey, D. (2018). Network analysis: A brief overview and tutorial. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine , 6 (1), 301–328.

Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2013). Audio-based versus text-based asynchronous online discussion: Two case studies. Instructional Science , 41 , 365–380.

Hong, S., Park, T., & Choi, J. (2020). Analyzing Research Trends in University Student Experience based on topic modeling. Sustainability , 12 (9), 3570.

Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly , 31 (4), 51–55.

Introne, J., Semaan, B., & Goggins, S. (2016). A sociotechnical mechanism for online support provision. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3559–3571).

Jablonka, E. (2003). Mathematical literacy . Second international handbook of mathematics education, 75–102.

Jan, S. K., & Vlachopoulos, P. (2019). Social network analysis: A framework for identifying communities in higher education online learning. Technology Knowledge and Learning , 24 (4), 621–639.

Johnson, S. L., Safadi, H., & Faraj, S. (2015). The emergence of online community leadership. Information Systems Research , 26 (1), 165–187.

Klein, C., Clutton, P., & Polito, V. (2018). Topic modeling reveals distinct interests within an online conspiracy forum. Frontiers in Psychology , 9 , 318119.

Liang, H., Qi, C., Huang, R., Zuo, H., & He, J. (2024). Mathematics teachers’ interaction patterns and role changes in online research-practice partnerships: A social network analysis. Computers & Education , 218 , 105077.

Li, C., Xing, W., & Leite, W. (2021). Using fair AI with debiased network embeddings to support help seeking in an online math learning platform. In International conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 245–250). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Li, C., Xing, W., & Leite, W. (2022). Building socially responsible conversational agents using big data to support online learning: A case with Algebra Nation. British Journal of Educational Technology , 53 (4), 776–803.

Liu, C. H., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal , 6 (3), 386–399.

Luo, X., Gao, L., Li, J., Lin, Y., Zhao, J., & Li, Q. (2020). A critical literature review of dyadic web-based interventions to support cancer patients and their caregivers, and directions for future research. Psycho‐Oncology , 29 (1), 38–48.

Machaba, F. M. (2017). Pedagogical demands in mathematics and mathematical literacy: A case of mathematics and mathematical literacy teachers and facilitators. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education , 14 (1), 95–108.

Maurino, P. S. M. (2007). Looking for critical thinking in online threaded discussions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems , 35 (3), 241–260.

Nguyen, V. A., Boyd-Graber, J., Resnik, P., Cai, D. A., Midberry, J. E., & Wang, Y. (2014). Modeling topic control to detect influence in conversations using nonparametric topic models. Machine Learning , 95 , 381–421.

Niss, M. (2014). Mathematical competencies and PISA. In Assessing mathematical literacy: The PISA experience (pp. 35–55). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy . OECD Publishing.

Ouyang, F., & Chang, Y. H. (2019). The relationships between social participatory roles and cognitive engagement levels in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology , 50 (3), 1396–1414.

Ozyurt, O., & Ayaz, A. (2022). Twenty-five years of education and information technologies: Insights from a topic modeling based bibliometric analysis. Education and Information Technologies , 27 (8), 11025–11054.

Poquet, O., Dawson, S., & Dowell, N. (2017). How effective is your facilitation? Group-level analytics of MOOC forums. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (pp. 208–217).

Ramesh, A., Goldwasser, D., Huang, B., DauméIII, H., & Getoor, L. (2014). Learning Latent Engagement Patterns of Students in Online Courses. Proceedings of the 28th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 1271–1278.

Richards, J. (1991). Mathematical discussions. Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 13–51). Springer Netherlands.

Ringler, I., Schubert, C., Deem, J., Flores, J., Friestad-Tate, J., & Lockwood, R. (2015). Improving the asynchronous online learning environment using discussion boards .

Rombach, M. P., Porter, M. A., Fowler, J. H., & Mucha, P. J. (2014). Core-periphery structure in networks. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics , 74 (1), 167–190.

Ryu, S., & Lombardi, D. (2015). Coding classroom interactions for collective and individual engagement. Educational Psychologist , 50 (1), 70–83.

Saqr, M., Fors, U., Tedre, M., & Nouri, J. (2018). How social network analysis can be used to monitor online collaborative learning and guide an informed intervention. PloS One , 13(3), e0194777.

Saqr, M., López-Pernas, S., & Murphy, K. (2024). How group structure, members’ interactions and teacher facilitation explain the emergence of roles in collaborative learning. Learning and Individual Differences , 112 , 102463.

Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2005). The impact of role assignment on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups: A multilevel analysis. Small Group Research , 36 (6), 704–745.

Sfard, A. (2001). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 46 (1), 13–57.

Shapiro, H. B., Lee, C. H., Roth, N. E. W., Li, K., Çetinkaya-Rundel, M., & Canelas, D. A. (2017). Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: An examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Computers & Education , 110 , 35–50.

Sharma, P., Akgun, M., & Li, Q. (2023). Understanding student interaction and cognitive engagement in online discussions using social network and discourse analyses. Educational Technology Research and Development , 1–24.

Singh, A., Kim, H., & Mazzotta, P. (2016). Core-periphery assessment of collaboration for knowledge building and translation in continuing medical education. QWERTY-Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology Culture and Education , 11 (2), 48–78.

Song, J., Bong, M., Lee, K., & Kim, S. I. (2015). Longitudinal investigation into the role of perceived social support in adolescents’ academic motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107 (3), 821.

St-Onge, J., Renaud-Desjardins, L., Mongeau, P., & Saint-Charles, J. (2022). Socio-semantic networks as mutualistic networks. Scientific Reports , 12 (1), 1889.

Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education. Communication & Information , 2 (1), 23–49.

Tang, Y. K., Mao, X. L., Huang, H., Shi, X., & Wen, G. (2018). Conceptualization topic modeling. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 77 , 3455–3471.

Tang, Y. N., Xiang, J., Gao, Y. Y., Wang, Z. Z., Li, H. J., Chen, S., & Chen, Y. J. (2019). An effective algorithm for optimizing surprise in network community detection. Ieee Access: Practical Innovations, Open Solutions , 7 , 148814–148827.

Umar, I. N., & Durairaj, K. P. (2015). Students’ Patterns and Level of Social Interaction in an Online Forum. In Taylor’s 7th Teaching and Learning Conference 2014 Proceedings: Holistic Education: Enacting Change (pp. 509–518). Springer Singapore.

Vercellone-Smith, P., Jablokow, K., & Friedel, C. (2012). Characterizing communication networks in a web-based classroom: Cognitive styles and linguistic behavior of self-organizing groups in online discussions. Computers & Education , 59 (2), 222–235.

Wang, L. (2010). How social network position relates to knowledge bulding in online learning communities. Frontiers of Education in China , 5 (1), 4–25.

Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2013). Keeping Pace with K-12 Online & Blended Learning: An Annual Review of Policy and Practice (Vol. 10). Year Anniversary Issue. Evergreen Education Group.

Wu, D., & Hiltz, S. R. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks , 8 (2), 139–152.

Wu, X., He, Z., Li, M., Han, Z., & Huang, C. (2022). Identifying learners’ interaction patterns in an online learning community. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19 (4), 2245.

Xing, W., & Gao, F. (2018). Exploring the relationship between online discourse and commitment in Twitter professional learning communities. Computers & Education, 126 , 388–398.

Xing, W., Goggins, S., & Introne, J. (2018). Quantifying the effect of informational support on membership retention in online communities through large-scale data analytics. Computers in Human Behavior , 86 , 227–234.

Xing, W., Tang, H., & Pei, B. (2019). Beyond positive and negative emotions: Looking into the role of achievement emotions in discussion forums of MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education, 43 , 100690.

Yun, E. (2020). Review of trends in physics education research using topic modeling. Journal of Baltic Science Education , 19 (3), 388–400.

Zhao, G., Liu, Y., Zhang, W., & Wang, Y. (2018). TFIDF based feature words extraction and topic modeling for short text. In Proceedings of the 2018 2nd international conference on management engineering, software engineering and service sciences (pp. 188–191).

Download references

This work is supported by the Learning Engineering Virtual Institute under the grant number G-23-2137070. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper, however, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agency.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Florida, 1221 SW 5th Ave, Gainesville, FL, 32601, USA

Wanli Xing, Hai Li, Taehyun Kim, Wangda Zhu & Yukyeong Song

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wanli Xing .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

This article has no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Xing, W., Li, H., Kim, T. et al. Investigating the behaviors of core and periphery students in an asynchronous online discussion community using network analysis and topic modeling. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13038-7

Download citation

Received : 03 July 2024

Accepted : 02 September 2024

Published : 17 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13038-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Asynchronous online math discussion
• Community roles
• Mathematical literacy
• Social network analysis
• Topic modeling
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• How Americans Get Local Political News
• 3. Community attachment and local political news

Table of Contents

• Americans' sources for local political news
• Americans’ satisfaction with their local political news
• Is it easy enough to find information needed to make voting decisions?
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

While most Americans are interested in news about both local laws and local elections, those who feel more attached to their community are especially likely to be interested in news about both topics.

Roughly two-thirds of U.S. adults (65%) say they are at least somewhat attached to their local community, including 17% who feel very attached. An additional 34% say they are not very or not at all attached to their community.

About nine-in-ten Americans who feel very attached to their community (91%) are at least somewhat interested in news about local laws and policies. Slightly fewer of those who are somewhat attached to their community (86%) say the same.

A smaller share of those who are not very or not at all attached to their community (68%) say they are interested in local laws and policies.

There is a similar pattern for interest in news about local political elections.

Advanced statistical analysis shows that the link between community attachment and interest in local political news holds true independent of voter registration status and frequency of local political news consumption.

Americans who feel more attached to their local community also tend to be more satisfied with the quality of their local political news.

Among U.S. adults who get news about local government and politics, four-in-ten of those who are highly attached to their community say they are extremely or very satisfied with the local political news they get, while 13% are not too or not at all satisfied.

Conversely, among those with little or no sense of community attachment, only 16% are highly satisfied with their local political news, while 33% express dissatisfaction.

Similarly, those who are more attached to their community are more likely to say it is easy to find the information they need to make voting decisions in local elections.

Roughly six-in-ten Americans who are very attached to their community (61%) say it is at least somewhat easy to find this information, compared with 34% of those who are not too or not at all attached to their community.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Political & Civic Engagement
• Politics & Media
• State & Local Government

Americans’ Changing Relationship With Local News

How black americans engage with local news, how americans get news on tiktok, x, facebook and instagram, total number of u.s. statehouse reporters rises, but fewer are on the beat full time, in some states, students account for a large and growing share of statehouse reporters, most popular, report materials.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center

5 Prioritization Methods in UX Roadmapping

November 14, 2021 2021-11-14

• Email article
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Twitter

Prioritizing work into a roadmap can be daunting for UX practitioners. Prioritization methods base these important decisions on objective, relevant criteria instead of subjective opinions.

This article outlines 5 methods for prioritizing work into a UX roadmap :

• Impact–effort matrix 
• Feasibility, desirability, and viability scorecard
• RICE method
• MoSCoW analysis 

These prioritization methods can be used to prioritize a variety of “items,” ranging from research questions, user segments, and features to ideas, and tasks. This article focuses on using these methods within the context of roadmapping—prioritizing problems that need to be solved into a strategic timeline. 

In This Article:

1. impact–effort matrix, 2. feasibility, desirability, and viability scorecard , 3. rice method, 4. moscow analysis, 5. kano model, 1.a. overview.

An impact–effort matrix is a 2D-visual that plots relative user value against implementation complexity. Variations of this matrix are used across various product-development approaches, including Six Sigma, design thinking, and Agile.

The resulting matrix captures the relative effort necessary to implement candidate features and their impact on the users. It can be subdivided into four quadrants: 

• Quick wins include low-effort, high-impact items that are worth pursuing. 
• Big bets include high-effort, high-value items; they should be carefully planned and prototyped, and, if executed, are likely to be differentiators against competitors. 
• Money pit includes low-impact, high-effort items that are not worth the business investment; there are better places to spend time and resources. 
• Fill-ins comprise low-effort, low-impact items that may be easy to implement but may not be worth the effort as their value is minimal. 

A comparative matrix is a malleable tool. While we discuss impact–effort matrices in this article, you can easily replace each axis with other criteria or use multiple matrices to assess more than two criteria. When setting up multiple matrices, set up your axes so that the Quick Wins (or whatever the equivalent best-outcome quadrant is) is positioned in the same spot (for example, always in the bottom left position), in order to easily compare several matrices and identify the items that consistently fall in best-outcome quadrant. 

1.B. Criteria

This prioritization method uses two primary criteria to rank features that are considered for implementation: the impact that the feature will have on the end user and the effort required to implement that feature. 

• Impact is the value the item will bring to the end user. The level of impact an item will have on end users depends on the users’ need, their alternatives, and the severity of the pain point the item solves.
• Effort is the amount of labor and resources required to solve the problem. The more technically complex the item, the higher effort it will require.

1.C. Process

Items are gathered on a whiteboard and their relative scores on the impact and effort dimensions are established through voting. Team members are given colored dots (one color per dimension) to vote for those items that they consider to rate highly on one or both dimensions.  

A general rule of thumb is that the number of votes per person is half the number of items being prioritized. It’s also possible that certain team members vote on a single dimension, according to their expertise — for example, UX professionals may rank impact, while developers may rank implementation effort.

After team members have silently voted on items, the items can be placed collaboratively on an effort–impact matrix (the x-axis represents effort, while the y-axis represents impact) according to the number of impact and effort votes received. 

Once everything is placed onto the chart, discuss the results and compare items, prioritizing those in the quick-wins and big-bets quadrants. Feel free to use the artifact as a platform for negotiation — throughout discussion with the team, it’s okay to collaboratively move items. However, at the end, there should be agreement on the final placement and the artifact should be documented and saved so it can easily be referenced in the future. 

1.D. Best for Quick, Collaborative Prioritization

An impact–effort matrix is best suited for quick, collaborative prioritizations. The method has a few advantages:

• The output is a shared visual that aligns mental models and builds common ground . 
• It is democratic — each person can express their own opinion through a vote.
• It can be done relatively quickly due to its simplicity. 

2.A. Overview

This method was developed by IDEO in the early 2000s. It ranks items based on a sum of individual scores across three criteria: feasibility, desirability, and viability. 

2.B. Criteria  

This prioritization method uses three criteria to rank items (i.e., features to be implemented):

• Feasibility : the degree to which the item can be technically built. Does the skillset and expertise exist to create this solution?
• Desirability : how much users want the item. What unique value proposition does it provide? Is the solution fundamentally needed, or are users otherwise able to accomplish their goals? 
• Viability : if the item is functionally attainable for the business.  Does pursuing the item benefit the business? What are the costs to the business and is the solution sustainable over time? 

2.C. Process

Create a table, with one row for each possible item, and columns for the 3 criteria — feasibility, desirability, and viability. Then, determine a numeric scoring scale for each criterion. In the example above, we used a numeric scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being a low score. 

Next, give each item a score across each criterion. Scoring should be as informed as possible — aim to include team members who have complementary expertise. Once each item is scored across each criterion, calculate its total score and force a rank. Sort the table from highest to lowest total score, then discuss the results with your team. 

2.D. Best for Customized Criteria 

This scorecard format is highly customizable. You can add columns to reflect criteria specific to your organization’s context and goals. You can also replace the criteria with others relevant to you. For example, the NUF Test , created by Dave Gray, uses the same scorecard format, but with New , Useful , Feasible as the criteria set. 

Another common modification is assigning weights to the different criteria — with those that are very important weighing more heavily in the final score. 

3.A. Overview

RICE is a prioritization framework developed by Intercom . It takes into account four factors: reach, impact, confidence, and effort to prioritize which features to implement.

3.B. Criteria  

This RICE method is based on scoring each item on 4 different dimensions:

• Reach : the number of users the item affects within a given time period 
• Impact : the value added to users 
• Confidence : how confident you are in your estimates of the other criteria (for example, highly confident if multiple data sources support your evaluation) 
• Effort : the amount of work necessary to implement the item 

3.C. Process

Using the RICE method is straightforward. Separate scores are assigned for each criterion, then an overall score is calculated. 

• A reach score is often estimated by looking at the number of users per time period (e.g., week, year);  ideally, this number is pulled from digital analytics or frequency metrics . 
• The impact score should reflect how much the item will increase delight or alleviate friction; it is hard to precisely calculate, and, thus, it’s usually assigned a score (for example, through voting, like in the previous methods) often on a scale from .25 (low) to 3 (high).  
• The confidence score is a percentage that represents how much you and your team trust the reach and impact scores.  100% represents high confidence, while 25% represents wild guesses. 
• The effort score is calculated as “person-months” — the amount of time it will take all team members to complete the item. For example, an item is 6 person-months if it would require 3 months of work from a designer and 1 month from 3 separate developers.  

Once you have each of the 4 criterion scores, use the formula to calculate the final score for each item: multiply the reach, impact, and confidence scores and divide the result by the effort score. Then compare, discuss, and reevaluate all the items’ scores with your team.  

3.D. Best for Technical-Oriented Teams

The RICE method works well for organizations that are more technical in nature (for example, when stakeholders are comfortable with equations or spreadsheets). The RICE method also works well when there are many items that need to be prioritized. Consider including peers with diverse domains of expertise in the RICE process and assign them the task of calculating the score for the criterion that relates to their expertise. 

4.A. Overview

MoSCoW analysis is a method for clustering items into four primary groups: Must Have , Should Have , Could Have , and Will Not Have . It was created by Dai Clegg and is used in many Agile frameworks. 

4.B. Criteria

This prioritization approach groups items into four buckets: 

• Must have : items that are vital to the product or project. Think of these as required for anything else to happen. If these items aren’t delivered, there is no point in delivering the solution at all. Without them the product won’t work, a law will be broken, or the project becomes useless. 
• Should have: items that are important to the project or context, but not absolutely mandatory. These items support core functionality (that will be painful to leave out), but the project or product will still work without them. 
• Could haves : items that are not essential, but wanted and nice to have. They have a small impact if left out. 
• Will not have: items that are not needed. They don’t present enough value and can be deprioritized or dropped. 

4.C. Process

MoSCoW analysis can be applied to an entire project (start to finish) or to a project increment (a sprint or specific time horizon). 

Begin by identifying the scope you are prioritizing items for. If your goal is to create a UX roadmap, you’ll usually have to prioritize for the first three time horizons: now (work occurring in the next 2 months), next (work occurring in the next 6 months), and future (work occurring in the next year). 

Compile the items being prioritized and give each team member 3 weighted voting dots, (one dot with a 1 on it, the next with a 2 on it, and so forth). Ask team members to assign their dots to the items they believe most important, with 3 being weighed most heavily.

Add up each item’s score based on the ranked votes (3 = 3 points and so forth). Identify the items with the highest scores and make sure that everybody in the group agrees on their importance. 

As each item is discussed and agreed upon as a Must Have , move it to a new dedicated space. Repeat this process for lower-priority items and assign them to the Should Have, Could Have , and Will Not Have groups based on their scores.

Once you have assigned each item to one of the four groups, establish the resources and bandwidth required for each group, starting with the Must Haves . Keep track of the total bandwidth and resources at your disposal, distributing and allocating your total amount across Must Haves (which should get the most resources), Should Haves (with the second most resources), and finally Could Haves (with few resources).  

There is not a clear threshold for how many items should be in each group. To determine this number, return to the goal of the prioritization activity. For example, if you are prioritizing items in a backlog, there is only time for so many tasks to be achieved in one sprint. In this scenario, all Must Haves should be easily achieved within one sprint; this constraint will limit how many items cannot be placed within this group.  

4.D. Best for Teams with Clear Time Boxes

MoSCoW is a good prioritization method for teams looking for a simplified approach (given the relatively vague prioritization criteria set) and with a clear time box identified for the work. Without a clearly scoped timeline for completing the work,  teams run the risk of overloading the Must Haves (of course, everything will feel like a Must Have if the timeline is the next two years!). 

5.A. Overview

The Kano model was published by Dr. Noriaki Kano in 1984 and is a primary prioritization method in the Six Sigma framework. Items are grouped into four categories according to user satisfaction and functionality and plotted on a 2D graph. 

5.B. Criteria 

This prioritization method uses two primary criterions to rank items: functionality and satisfaction. 

• None (-2) : the solution cannot be implemented
• Some (-1) : the solution can be partly implemented
• Basic (0) : the solution’s primary functions can be implemented, but nothing more 
• Good (1) : the solution can be implemented to an acceptable degree
• Best (2) : the solution can be implemented to its full potential 
• Frustrated (-2) : the solution causes additional hardship for the user
• Dissatisfied (-1) : the solution does not meet users’ expectations
• Neutral (0)  
• Satisfied (1) : the solution meets users’ expectations
• Delighted (2) : the solution exceeds users’ expectations

5.C. Process

Each item is first assigned a satisfaction score and a functionality score. The satisfaction score should be based on user data — for example, on existing user research or on a top-task user survey asking users to rate the importance of each feature; the functionality score can be rooted in the collective expertise of the team.  

These scores are then used to plot items onto a 2D-graph, with the x-axis corresponding to functionality and the y-axis to satisfaction. Each axis goes from -2 to 2. 

Based on their placement on their scores, items fall into one of four categories: 

• The Attractive category (often called Excitement ) are items that are likely to bring a considerable increase in user delight. A characteristic of this category is the disproportionate increase in satisfaction to functionality. Your users may not even notice their absence (because they weren’t expectations in the first place), but with good-enough implementation, user excitement can grow exponentially. The items in the Attractive are those with a satisfaction score of 0 or better. These items appear above the blue Attractive line in the Kano illustration above.
• The Performance category contains items that are utilitarian. Unlike other categories, this group grows proportionately. The more you invest in items within this category, the more customer satisfaction they are likely to prompt. The items in the Performance category have equal satisfaction and performance scores and fall on the green line in the Kano illustration above.  
• The Indifferent category contains items that users feel neutral towards — satisfaction does not significantly increase or decrease with their functionality and is always 0. Regardless of the amount of investment put into these items, users won’t care. These items are all placed on the dark blue Indifference line (which overlaps with the x-axis). 
• The Must-be category are basic items that are expected by users. Users assume these capabilities exist. They are unlikely to make customers more satisfied, but without them, customers will be disproportionately dissatisfied. Items fall into the Must-be category when their satisfaction score is 0 or worse. These are the items in the purple area of the Kano diagram, below the purple Must Be line.

Once items are assigned to groups, make sure that everybody in the team agrees with the assignment. Items with scores of (0,0), (-2,0) and (+2,0) may initially belong to two groups. In these cases, discuss the item and ask yourself if user value will grow proportionately with your team’s investment. If the answer is yes, group the item with Performance . In cases this is false, group the item with Indifferent . 

Move items as needed, then prioritize items into your roadmap. Items in the Performance category should have the highest priority, followed by Must be , Attractive , then Indifferent . 

5.D. Best for Forcing a User-Centric Prioritization 

The Kano model is a good approach for teams who have a hard time prioritizing based on the user — often due to politics or a traditional development-driven culture. The Kano model introduces user research directly into the prioritization process and mandates discussion around user expectations.  

There are many more prioritization methods, aside from the five mentioned in this article. (It’s also easy to imagine variations on these 5.) One method is not better than another. Consider your project’s context, team culture, and success criteria when choosing a prioritization approach. 

Once you find an approach that works, don’t be afraid to iterate — adjust and adapt it to fit to your needs or appeal to your team. Involve others in this process. The best prioritization methods are ones that everyone on your team, including stakeholders, buy into. 

McBride, S. (2018). RICE: Simple prioritization for product managers. Intercom.  https://www.intercom.com/blog/rice-simple-prioritization-for-product-managers/

What is the Kano Model? ProductPlan.  https://www.productplan.com/glossary/kano-model/

Related Courses

Facilitating ux workshops.

Lead goal-based group activities to make decisions and establish alignment

Discovery: Building the Right Thing

Conduct successful discovery phases to ensure you build the best solution

UX Roadmaps

Set a strategic, practical plan to align, prioritize, and communicate UX work.

Related Topics

• Design Process Design Process

Learn More:

Please accept marketing cookies to view the embedded video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gklsUyD6RPE

UX Design Prioritization Methods

Using a CSD Matrix in Discovery

Anna Kaley · 3 min

The Goldilocks Principle for Prototyping

Megan Brown · 3 min

Problem Space and Solution Space Research

Maria Rosala · 2 min

Related Articles:

Derailed Design Critiques: Tactics for Getting Back on Track

Rachel Krause · 6 min

Facilitating UX Workshops: Study Guide

Kate Kaplan · 5 min

How to Get Stakeholders to Sketch: A Magic Formula

Kate Kaplan · 8 min

Journey Mapping for Remote Teams: A Digital Template

Sarah Gibbons · 4 min

A Guide to Service-Blueprinting Workshops

Alita Joyce · 8 min

The Diverge-and-Converge Technique for UX Workshops

Therese Fessenden · 6 min