Article type
Abstract
Background: Collaborative science is increasingly important to ensure that multiple voices and viewpoints are integrated into research. High-quality racial health equity research exquisitely incorporates diverse perspectives. We used a collaborative team science approach in projects addressing centering racial health equity in evidence syntheses.
Objectives: To describe our multidisciplinary team and collaborative approaches to practical and pragmatic integration of racial health equity into evidence syntheses.
Methods: Our Robert Wood Johnson Foundation–funded project explored steps to establish consensus about centering racial health equity via a series of listening exercises and systematic reviews. Reviews addressed definitions of racial health equity; logic models and frameworks for integrating racial health equity; interventions used to mitigate health inequities; and methods and guidance for engaging stakeholders or interest holders in syntheses. We established a multidisciplinary, multi-institution team, including synthesis specialists, qualitative and equity researchers, epidemiologists, clinicians, communications specialists, and patients/end users. Team institutions included the Cochrane US Network, the Campbell Collaboration, Georgia College, Marymount University, RTI International, and Texas Christian University.
Results: We used collaborative processes to conduct the work, including weekly virtual team meetings to build familiarity and share ideas and codeveloping timelines, workflow, and methods such as a global search strategy for reviews and semistructured interview guide for qualitative components of the work. We embedded equity principles across the project, sharing information transparently across the team and valuing ideas and contributions from all members. We set goals reflecting our overall commitment to racial health equity while pursuing specific interests within our broader focus. We used a collaborative review of deliverables, inviting input from all team members. We also sought to collaborate with investigators engaged in related work to promote further discussion of racial health equity in syntheses and synergies across projects. Using these processes, we conducted listening exercises with 29 synthesis experts and participants, 4 systematic reviews, and 12 presentations.
Discussion: A collaborative process with open and transparent dialogue is the key to developing a successful research team. We relied on the expertise of each individual/team to bring value to our overall mission.
Objectives: To describe our multidisciplinary team and collaborative approaches to practical and pragmatic integration of racial health equity into evidence syntheses.
Methods: Our Robert Wood Johnson Foundation–funded project explored steps to establish consensus about centering racial health equity via a series of listening exercises and systematic reviews. Reviews addressed definitions of racial health equity; logic models and frameworks for integrating racial health equity; interventions used to mitigate health inequities; and methods and guidance for engaging stakeholders or interest holders in syntheses. We established a multidisciplinary, multi-institution team, including synthesis specialists, qualitative and equity researchers, epidemiologists, clinicians, communications specialists, and patients/end users. Team institutions included the Cochrane US Network, the Campbell Collaboration, Georgia College, Marymount University, RTI International, and Texas Christian University.
Results: We used collaborative processes to conduct the work, including weekly virtual team meetings to build familiarity and share ideas and codeveloping timelines, workflow, and methods such as a global search strategy for reviews and semistructured interview guide for qualitative components of the work. We embedded equity principles across the project, sharing information transparently across the team and valuing ideas and contributions from all members. We set goals reflecting our overall commitment to racial health equity while pursuing specific interests within our broader focus. We used a collaborative review of deliverables, inviting input from all team members. We also sought to collaborate with investigators engaged in related work to promote further discussion of racial health equity in syntheses and synergies across projects. Using these processes, we conducted listening exercises with 29 synthesis experts and participants, 4 systematic reviews, and 12 presentations.
Discussion: A collaborative process with open and transparent dialogue is the key to developing a successful research team. We relied on the expertise of each individual/team to bring value to our overall mission.