Community advisory boards (CABs) are a promising approach for strengthening patient and partner voices in community health center (CHC) evidence-based decision-making. This paper aims to describe how CHCs used CABs during the COVID-19 pandemic to improve the reach of testing among populations experiencing health disparities and identify transferable lessons for future implementation.

This mixed methods study integrates brief quantitative surveys of community engagement (N = 20) and one-on-one qualitative interviews (N = 13) of staff and community partners engaged in CHC CABs with a cost analysis and qualitative feedback from CHC staff participating in an online learning community (N = 17).

Community partners and staff engaged in the CHC CABs reported high ratings of engagement, with all mean ratings of community engagement principles above a 4 (“very good” or “often”) out of 5. Qualitative findings provided a more in-depth understanding of experiences serving on the CHC CAB and highlighted how engagement principles such as trust and mutual respect were reflected in CAB practices. We developed a CHC CAB toolkit with strategies for governance and prioritization, cost estimates to ensure sustainment, guidance on integrating quality improvement expertise, testimonies from community members on the benefits of joining, and template agendas and facilitator training to ensure meeting success.

In alignment with the Translational Science Benefits Model, this study expands research impact through comprehensive mixed methods measurement of community engagement and by transforming findings into an action-orientated guide for CHCs to implement CABs to guide evidence-based decision-making for community and public health impact.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the formation, operation, and evaluation of a Community Engagement Advisory Board (CEAB) that serves as a resource of the University of Illinois at Chicago’s (UIC) Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences (CCTS).

Current CEAB roles and functions, operating procedures for research consultations and program evaluation strategies were described. Investigators receiving a consultation from 2009 to 2017 (n=91, response rate 78%) were surveyed via an online survey immediately after the consultation and at 12-month follow-up.

Overall, CEAB members were viewed as having sufficient information (92%) and expertise (79%) to provide consultation. Satisfaction levels with the specific consultation received and the overall consultation service were high. The majority of investigators indicated that they would come back to the CEAB for a future consultation, if needed, and would recommend a consultation to others (93% and 96%, respectively). At 12-months, 87% of respondents indicated they had implemented at least some of the recommendations received and 93% said that the consultation influenced their subsequent research.

Data from recent annual evaluations highlight the benefits of CEAB for consulting investigators. Our model can be used to inform the development of future CEAB boards.