Stanford Vax Crew, one of the largest medical-student-led vaccination programs in the United States, serves as a case study of a successful community–university partnership that adapted its existing operations to enable COVID-19 vaccine distribution. It offers a model for agile, community-centered vaccination campaigns that harness diverse stakeholder strengths to promote vaccine access and uptake in underserved communities. This case study aims to outline the history and structure of the community–university partnership model developed through Stanford Vax Crew, describe key observations of factors that contributed to the scalability of the model, and provide experience-based recommendations for future community–university collaborations.
DrahotaA, MezaRD, BrikhoB, et al.Community-academic partnerships: a systematic review of the state of the literature and recommendations for future research. Milbank Q. 2016; 94(1):163-214.
3.
NoelL, PhillipsF, Tossas-MilliganK, et al.Community-academic partnerships: approaches to engagement. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2019; 39:88-95.
4.
FieldsJ, GutierrezJR, MarquezC, et al.Community-academic partnerships to address Covid-19 inequities: lessons from the San Francisco Bay Area. NEJM Catal. June 23, 2021.
5.
KaurM, GoldingB, MainiA, KumarS. Community–academic partnerships addressing local health inequalities during COVID-19: a qualitative evaluation. Lancet. 2021; 398:S48.
RizalRE, MedirattaRP, XieJ, et al.Galvanizing medical students in the administration of influenza vaccines: the Stanford Flu Crew. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2015; 6:471-477.
Karaca-MandicP, GeorgiouA, SenS. Assessment of COVID-19 hospitalizations by race/ethnicity in 12 states. JAMA Intern Med. 2021; 181(1):131-134.
13.
Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. COVID-19 dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University. Last updated March 10, 2023. Accessed September27, 2023. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
PetersRG, CovelloVT, McCallumDB. The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: an empirical study. Risk Anal. 1997; 17(1):43-54.
17.
CovelloVT, PetersRG, WojteckiJG, HydeRC. Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: responding to the communication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting. J Urban Health. 2001; 78(2):382-391.
18.
YuanH, LongQ, HuangG, HuangL, LuoS. Different roles of interpersonal trust and institutional trust in COVID-19 pandemic control. Soc Sci Med. 2022; 293:114677.
19.
QuinnSC, KumarS, FreimuthVS, KidwellK, MusaD. Public willingness to take a vaccine or drug under Emergency Use Authorization during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Biosecur Bioterror. 2009; 7(3):275-290.
20.
SpothRL, GreenbergMT. Toward a comprehensive strategy for effective practitioner–scientist partnerships and larger-scale community health and well-being. Am J Community Psychol. 2005; 35(3-4):107-126.
21.
MartinJ, SamelsJE, eds. The New American College Town: Designing Effective Campus and Community Partnerships. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2019.
22.
SpothR, MolgaardV. Project Family: a partnership integrating research with the practice of promoting family and youth competencies. In: ChibucosTR, LernerRM, eds. Serving Children and Families Through Community-University Partnerships: Success Stories. International Series in Outreach Scholarship. New York: Springer US; 1999:127-137.
23.
MurtaghC, AsbedG, PtaszekE, et al.The Immokalee community health coalition: operationalizing trust. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2022; 33(4S):243-254.
