ADVANCEMENT OF THE SCIENCE
to avoiding sample mix-ups when participants gathered multiple samples. These identifiers were recorded and eventually replaced by a more standardized identification. Often these supplies were provided by mail, but a sizable amount were distributed by local community members at in-person events, also. Participants were able to return their col- lected samples at drop-o sites managed by community partners or via pre-paid postage. Members of the central research team regu- larly gathered samples from all drop-o sites, which was the preferred method for sample return given the considerable expense of return postage for environmental samples collected in a geographically remote region. Results Reporting Once samples were analyzed by the contract laboratory and returned to the research team, individual interpretations were created by the senior research members. Next, results reports were created using open-sourced process automation and report templates created by the team (Maller, 2020). Reports included analytical results from inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and inductively coupled plasma optical emis- sion spectroscopy (ICP-OES), primary and secondary drinking water standards from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA, 2024a, 2024b), and individual inter- pretations for how sample results compare with U.S. EPA standards. Additional process automations were then used to mass email participants their individual reports with a general information sheet on environmental exposure to metals and an exposure sheet for any metal above regulatory standards. If a participant did not have access to the internet or email, results were printed and mailed. Discussion In comparison with other study designs in ecological CEnR, our research would be described as a project of environmen- tal monitoring with moderate complexity (Supplemental Figure 1, www.neha.org/jeh- supplementals; Pocock et al., 2017) and dem- onstrates the invaluable benefit of community engagement across the CEnR spectrum. By engaging with localized knowledge of social networks and communication norms, we learned that older adults compose a large por- tion of our target population and might be
FIGURE 1
Participant Onboarding Process
QR Code/Short URL
Qualtrics Form
Project Management Tools
Onboarding Interview
Phone/Voicemail
In-Person Events/ Physical Sign-Up
Manual Entry
more likely to engage over the phone or at in- person events. We modified our engagement methods to provide these alternatives and noticed a resulting higher participation. Thus, in a geographically isolated region with low population density, we were able to drastically improve the representation of water quality through increased participant sampling.
frameworks (Isler & Corbie-Smith, 2012). Before participants were engaged, SLVEC helped bring researchers’ attention to the opportunity to apply health research to the prominent issue of water resource access in the San Luis Valley. SLVEC provided insight into data sources that informed our research aims and the logistical approach, as well as identified mutually beneficial goals and out- comes. While this involvement was the limit of its engagement early on, SLVEC became increasingly involved in engaging commu- nity members as the project progressed. When the central research team recognized that community engagement methods would need to adapt, SLVEC became more formally involved as a community investigator. In response, the central research team commit- ted to building operational capacity for SLVEC and creating shared governance. Funding was allocated for the hiring of recruitment sta, and the management of this sta allowed for shared governance in recruitment and engage- ment activities. This combined involvement led to broader reach to potential participants and communications (with participants and the public) more tailored to community inter- ests and expectations. Communicating With Participants and Reporting Results While the engagement with this community was more surface-level than other reported ecological community research, maintain- ing rapport with participants was an essen-
Scaling Community-Engaged Research Collaboration
The premise of CEnR is based on bidirec- tional collaborative eorts between research- ers and a community (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011). These types of collaborations should be deliber- ate and intentional—bringing consideration for mutual benefit through the localization of research to the community setting; trust- ing, long-term relationships; a commitment to the community of focus and value in col- laboration; and realistic assessment of risks, benefits, and outcomes (Isler & Corbie- Smith, 2012). CEnR has been a component of our study design since inception; however, our project grew exponentially in scope and would not have been successful without the existing relationships of the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council (SLVEC). SLVEC is an advocacy organization actively involved in promoting environ- mental policy for the ecological benefit of the Upper Rio Grande Basin. As a partner, SLVEC has participated in the practical application of CEnR identified by academic
16
Volume 87 • Number 2
Powered by FlippingBook