Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Purpose:

There is limited research on the use of community advisory boards (CABs) in health research with transgender and nonbinary communities. Transgender communities are navigating challenging histories of health researcher exploitation and research distrust alongside exponential research growth. We explored strategies for forming and managing CABs when conducting transgender community-informed health research.

Methods:

We used purposive and snowball sampling to identify key informants (KIs): research leaders, implementing staff, and community partners engaging in transgender health research. Between October 2018 and December 2020, we conducted 30 semi-structured in-depth interviews. We used coding followed byiterative thematic analysis and memoing to identify themes.

Results:

KIs emphasized the importance of involving CABs early in the research process and communicating transparently about their decision-making power and roles. They urged research teams to anticipate and address both multilevel (e.g., gender affirmation-related and socioeconomic) and historical (e.g., local research harms) barriers to CAB participation, and to intentionally engage groups that are historically underrepresented in research. KIs warned against tokenistic CAB models and called on researchers to show up for transgender communities beyond research goals. Research-related trainings and skills-building opportunities could equip CAB members to contribute meaningfully to research decisions, but KIs find that they are often under-planned and under-budgeted.

Health Equity Implications:

This study contributes to our understanding of how to engage and support CABs working on transgender health research, and how sociostructural factors shape their experiences. We offer a series of recommendations and questions researchers should consider when forming CABs for transgender health research and community-informed research broadly.

Introduction

In recent decades, transgender, nonbinary, and gender diverse communities have developed and published recommendations and methods for meaningful community engagement in research.^1,2 In many ways, this work is a response to biomedical and public health researchers using methods rooted in exploitative frameworks that position transgender communities as mere subjects of research and alienate many from opportunities to engage and lead in research.

Historically, cisgender-centered research methods include erasure and exclusion of transgender people and experiences in data and research instruments; conflation of sex and gender; undervaluation of transgender scientists, leaders, and community members’ expertise; pathologizing and invasive practices; research driven by funder and academic interests rather than community priorities; and limited research dissemination and use of research to support community goals.^3–7 Long-standing use of these methods has led to deep distrust in research among transgender community members.

Even with the growing use of community-informed and -engaged, community-based participatory, and community action research over the past 25 years, there is a great need for research about the complexities of implementing and sustaining community-informed methods and strategies for addressing challenges that arise in practice.^7,8 Community advisory boards (CABs) are a widely used tool for engaging communities in research. CABs provide “a mechanism for community members to have representation in research activities” and are usually set up as collaborative bodies of community and research stakeholders.^9,10

The structure, process, and makeup of CABs varies widely. Members may be asked to take on diverse roles depending on the community-informed research model chosen—from relatively common models in which academic researchers seek “community input, but retain control, ownership, and management” of the research, to community-owned research models.^8,9 Common CAB responsibilities include raising study awareness within the study population, supporting participant recruitment and retention, and guiding research dissemination. CABs can also help researchers build community relationships and address distrust between researchers and historically exploited communities.

Though researchers and organizations from a variety of disciplines have published guidance related to forming and managing CABs effectively,^9,11–13 there is limited research on using CABs in health research with transgender communities—who are navigating unique and challenging histories with researchers alongside exponential growth in research about their communities (including what Lett et al. have called health equity tourism¹⁴). Our qualitative study aimed to explore experiences conducting engaged research with transgender communities to shape the development of a community-informed research project with transgender communities in Baltimore, Maryland, called Communities Leveraging Evidence for Action and Research or CLEAR.

Methods

Sampling and study participants

We used purposive and snowball sampling methods to identify key informants (KIs): research leaders (leaders; e.g., principal investigators), implementing staff (staff; e.g., research coordinators, data collectors, recruiters), and community partners (partners; e.g., CAB members, community consultants). Individuals 18+ years of age with experience working on health research that involved collaboration with transgender communities were eligible to participate. We conducted one round of interviews (n = 18) October 2018–April 2019, predominantly engaging leaders. We conducted 12 additional interviews May–December 2020, prioritizing staff and partners.

Data collection

Authors M.M., a.a., and A.B. conducted semi-structured interviews by Zoom (n = 27) or in person (n = 3). The interview guide covered three key domains: (1) strategies for building trust with transgender communities, (2) methods for engaging transgender communities in research processes, and (3) community capacity building and research dissemination. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interviews lasted 65 min on average (range: 27–108 min). KIs provided verbal informed consent and completed a brief sociodemographic survey. Transgender KIs or KIs who volunteered at transgender community organizations received a $40.00 honorarium (USD). All research protocols and procedures were approved by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Maryland Department of Health Institutional Review Boards.

Analysis

M.M. and a.a. led codebook development and coding with support from project investigators J.L.G. and D.G. M.M. and a.a. developed a priori topical codes based on the interview guide and thematic codes through data review and debriefing. M.M. and a.a. used the preliminary codebook to independently analyze the same three interviews, conducted side-by-side comparisons of these transcripts, and iteratively revised the codebook. M.M. and a.a. then recoded the initial three transcripts with the revised codebook and divided remaining transcripts for coding in ATLAS.ti Web.

Though we did not include questions about CAB experiences in the original interview guide, interviewers asked about different ways that transgender communities had been involved in their research. Responses elicited reflections on CAB experiences, which were further probed. We began asking intentional questions about CAB experiences partway through data collection in response to debriefing conversations about CAB experiences and ongoing project development (e.g., CLEAR CAB recruitment). We created four codes related to CAB experiences: challenges, positive outcomes, strategies for success, and other reflections. M.M. exported and reviewed all quotes coded under these codes, writing summary and analytic memos to consolidate themes and illustrative examples for this article. Twenty-three of 30 KIs discussed CABs during their interviews: 13 leaders, seven staff, and three partners. Participant characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics

Characteristics (n = 23)^a	n (%) or years
Racial and ethnic identity
Black	6 (26.1)
White	13 (56.5)
Hispanic or Hispanic multiracial^b	3 (13.0)
Asian or Asian multiracial^c	2 (8.7)
Identify as part of the transgender community	14 (60.9)
Current gender
Transgender man	6 (26.1)
Transgender woman	1 (4.3)
Male or man	5 (21.7)
Female or woman	5 (21.7)
Cisgender man	1 (4.3)
Cisgender woman	2 (8.7)
Nonbinary	2 (8.7)
Genderqueer	1 (4.3)
Mean age (median; range)	42 years (41; 27–61)
Mean years working with transgender communities (median; range)	14 (12; 4–30)
Role in transgender research
Research leaders	13 (56.5)
Implementing staff	7 (30.4)
Community partners	3 (13.0)
Region at time of interview
U.S. Northeast	9 (39.1)
U.S. Southeast	5 (21.7)
U.S. Midwest	2 (8.7)
U.S. West	5 (21.7)
Canada	2 (8.7)

Sociodemographics are reported for all 23 key informants (KI) unless otherwise specified, that is, missing data.

Two KIs identified as Hispanic and White, and one KI identified as Philippine Mexican.

One KI identified as South Asian mixed race, and the Philippine Mexican KI was counted in this category also.

Reflexivity

Our qualitative study was motivated by the CLEAR research team’s collective awareness of local transgender communities’ distrust of researchers and their calls for collaborative research that is responsive to community needs. During regular analysis meetings (four cisgender individuals from the CLEAR research team, racially diverse, all academic researchers), we engaged in intersectionally reflexive conversations^8,15–17 to debrief emerging themes in relation to study motivations. These conversations involved thinking critically about how we might use KI recommendations and address anticipated challenges by leveraging lessons learned from past research and the lens of our identities and social positions. For example, we reflected on the importance of transparent communication about CAB roles and decision-making power (including limitations on decision-making power), as KIs suggested, but also grappled with how to facilitate these discussions without reinforcing power hierarchies between our research team and CAB members. The research team (approximately half transgender and half cisgender individuals, racially diverse, half practice-based public health practitioners, half academic researchers) and CAB (all transgender individuals, racially diverse, diverse professional backgrounds, including activism, arts, health care, social services, law) participated in these conversations following each round of interviews. Our reflexive process informed interview guide and codebook revisions, supported data interpretation, and encouraged the research team to implement KI recommendations internally.

Results

Participant characteristics

The total sample (n = 23) ranged from 27 to 61 years (mean age = 42 years), reported 4–30 years (mean = 14 years) working with transgender communities, and represented multiple teams, organizations, and institutions. Over half (61%) were transgender or nonbinary. Of the 73 quotations related to CABs that comprise this dataset, 66% were from transgender KIs. Most KIs were White (57%), followed by 26% Black, 13% Hispanic or Hispanic multiracial, and 4% Asian or Asian multiracial. Most KIs were based in the U.S. Northeast (39%), followed by the Southeast (22%) and the West (22%).

CAB models and decision-making power

KIs described a spectrum of roles CABs play in transgender health research, including groups consulted “as needed” (KI6 transgender-staff), groups with discrete, limited advisory tasks, and groups treated as equal decision-makers throughout all research stages, that is, a community-based participatory research model. Some examples of CAB roles included survey development and feedback, feedback on data collection tools and procedures, input on staff hiring and challenging study scenarios, and recruitment advice.

Several KIs offered examples from community-informed CAB models, generally involving sustained CAB engagement. KI26 (transgender-leader) worked on a project involving a “transparent budgeting process,” in which researchers shared spending and salaries with CAB members and collaborated on some spending decisions. KI15 (cisgender-leader) worked alongside a transgender CAB tasked with reviewing and managing approval processes for data use requests.

KIs raised questions about the purpose of CABs, rooted in concerns about research teams’ underlying motivations for forming CABs. They highlighted that CABs can feel like a form of “lip service” (KI22 transgender-staff) to transgender communities, noting the ubiquity of CABs “in name only” (KI12 transgender-leader) in transgender health research. Relatedly, KI18 (transgender-leader) expressed that “most CABs are completely useless” because “[CAB members] don’t have any real sense of decision-making power” and are often used for recruitment help only. Relatedly, KI22 (transgender-staff) highlighted concerns about tokenistic CAB roles (e.g., “Right, so, I think not just having them look at images and say, ‘is this transgender enough for an ad?’ Right? Or, ‘do these gender questions make sense?’”) and called for collaborative models in which CAB members are involved in research decision-making like salaried staff.

KIs highlighted that true collaboration requires that researchers give up some power, which may not be possible under all research models (e.g., given time and budget constraints, academia-related structural and institutional barriers). Irrespectively, they recommended practicing transparency in relation to study decision-making structures, the extent to which transgender people are involved in decision-making, and CAB purpose (e.g., renaming a CAB a recruitment committee if only recruitment support is expected). KI18 (transgender-leader) described a study in which decision-making structures were outlined openly in an online Frequently Asked Questions page.

Timing and CAB engagement

Conversations about CAB decision-making power were often coupled with discussions about challenges related to the timing of CAB engagement. Early engagement was seen as a critical way to value transgender community input in the research process, rather than seeking input after important decisions are made. KI4 (cisgender-leader) noted that it can be particularly challenging to repair community relationships when CABs are engaged late, especially if both late and in a limited role. KI18 (transgender-leader) reflected on the “amorphous long-term” commitment sometimes associated with CABs. Though dependent on the research model, linked to practicing transparency, KI18 recommended engaging CAB members for “targeted short-term asks” instead when relevant.

Though KIs felt strongly about engaging CABs early and co-creating research with community members, they also discussed the challenges of planning and budgeting for the time required to build the trusting relationships needed to establish effective CABs.

KI15 (cisgender-leader) highlighted the disparity between the time investment expected of transgender communities by researchers, including by serving on CABs, versus the time it takes for research outcomes to reach transgender communities: “Research happens, there’s a lot of time investment, or it’s done in bad ways or good ways, or whatever, but like it just never comes back in a way that seems to help the community. So, people are putting in their time, their energy … and they don’t see much coming back.” Echoing earlier points on practicing transparency, some KIs as well as members of our CLEAR CAB stressed that researchers should convey how and when CAB-supported research will be used to implement important changes (e.g., inform policies, programs, and services related to community needs). KIs also suggested sharing study results with CABs throughout the research process and working with CABs to identify strategies for effective community-oriented and wider dissemination (e.g., one-pagers and newsletters, hosting webinars, helping community organizations use study findings to inform grant proposals and policy advocacy that advances transgender community priorities).

Recommendations for forming and managing CABs

Recruitment process considerations

KIs shared strategies related to the process of forming CABs, stressing the importance of anticipating potential barriers to applying and participating. KI26 (transgender-leader) suggested offering informational sessions and support for completing application materials and cautioned against “cherry-picking” CAB members. KI12 (transgender-leader) recommended considering who has not been “invited to the table” to shape transgender health research historically to avoid reproducing structural oppressions transgender people face already (e.g., ending up with an all-White binary transgender CAB). KI26 (transgender-leader) recommended engaging respected community members known to speak their minds as it could help “give the other people permission … to talk” during CAB meetings.

Several KIs noted the importance of understanding local histories, community norms and relationships, and community priorities before forming transgender CABs, including understanding past research harms (KI29 transgender-leader, KI12 transgender-leader) and whether visible community leaders truly represent their communities (KI24 cisgender-leader).

In discussing community-informed methods broadly, KI14 (transgender-staff) noted that investing in transgender community needs and showing up for transgender communities within (e.g., fair compensation for CAB work) and outside of research (e.g., sponsoring community events, using research to support policies and programs) can help to ensure community members feel valued and understand the need for research when considering involvement in research through CABs and beyond. Powerfully, KI29 (transgender-leader) shared an example of a CAB that felt “transactional” initially because “not any effort [was] expended in finding out who I am or what I thought was important.” The research team repaired their relationship with KI29 because they were open to feedback and started “spending real time in the community getting to know community members” (e.g., the research team, including cisgender researchers, started attending community events).

Member skillsets and tokenism

Some KIs discussed considerations related to CAB member skillsets, including a tendency to focus on transgender identity as the central qualifying skill for CABs, alluding to previously mentioned issues of tokenism. KI18 (transgender-leader) stressed that CAB members need to feel prepared and equipped to participate in research discussions meaningfully versus “… just being like, ‘oh, this person is transgender and has ideas,’ right?” KIs recommended that research teams gauge CAB members’ research and other relevant skills, anticipate training needs (e.g., research operations, research methods, academic systems), and build in opportunities for skills-building. KI18 (transgender-leader) also cautioned against engaging CAB members with limited research experience if the research team or institution lacks the infrastructure to truly support them.

Managing internal dynamics

KIs felt it is important to anticipate power differences that could influence engagement in CAB conversations and tasks. KI27 (transgender-leader) noted that CAB members may defer to employees who have a “fairly strong sense of how to navigate the institution” and recommended individual follow-up conversations with CAB members when such issues arise. KIs also felt that some perspectives may be overlooked in community spaces or depending on the identity and sociodemographic makeup of a CAB. In response, KI28 (transgender-partner) suggested intentionally framing questions for particular groups “because then those are the only people that can answer those questions” (e.g., framing questions around transmasculinity to elicit transmasculine perspectives).

KI14 (transgender-staff) offered creative strategies, like setting up a clothing closet and makeup to ensure transgender individuals facing barriers to gender expression or experiencing housing insecurity, for example, “can show up in a way that they are their best selves” and see CAB spaces as inclusive and accessible. KI12 (transgender-leader) and others recommended establishing working group agreements related to anticipating and addressing power differences between CAB members and between CAB members and research team members, working through conflict and challenging conversations supportively, anticipating how traumas could arise during CAB work, respecting and listening to each other, encouraging reflexive reflection (e.g., how race and gender are shaping research experiences), and maintaining accountability to CAB input (e.g., not asking research questions that have already been asked of transgender communities).

Further, several KIs highlighted the importance of really engaging with CAB members on a human level and trying to understand “background things that are influencing how someone shows up at a meeting” (KI27 transgender-leader).

Discussion

This study contributes to our understanding of the best processes for engaging and supporting CABs working on health research about their communities.^9,18–26

KIs stressed the importance of researchers valuing and knowing transgender communities—as human beings, by showing up for and investing in transgender communities beyond research (and whether or not these efforts serve research goals directly), and understanding community needs and local histories. KIs recommended research teams think intentionally about how personal and community circumstances (e.g., gender affirmation-related needs, research distrust experiences, dimensions of identity and social position, class experiences, material hardship, and other axes of privilege and disadvantage), rooted in intersecting structural oppressions, may influence CAB experiences. This includes whether and how transgender people can learn about CABs and other opportunities to shape research, feel equipped to apply and participate meaningfully, and feel like they belong in research spaces.

Ideally, in partnership with transgender scientists and community partners, research teams should learn about potential multilevel and historical barriers to joining and engaging in CABs before embarking on research and identify feasible strategies for addressing them.

“Community advisory board” has come to be used as an umbrella term spanning many roles and decision-making and accountability structures between CAB members and researchers. The community-informed research models research teams adopt are often influenced by funding and study timelines and scope, funding landscapes for particular health issues and populations, academic career pressures, and even researchers’ discomfort giving up control. KIs highlighted the importance of research teams practicing transparent communication with CAB members and their communities about CAB roles and decision-making power, including how and why it may be limited. This requires selecting a community-informed research model and conducting formative work early, ideally before research questions are set, because the model selected could influence the earliest steps of the research process.

As this sequencing is counter to most public health funding structures, researchers can play an important advocacy role in pushing funders to rework their processes to support community-informed research. Researchers must also continue to question research models in which community decision-making power is limited—even if more fundable, less complicated and expensive, and faster—given continued calls for community-led work and deeper collaboration between transgender communities and researchers.^1,6,7

Planning and budgeting for training and capacity-building opportunities for CAB members emerged as an under-addressed component in CAB planning. While funding for this work is limited—another call to funding bodies—researchers have a responsibility to ensure CAB members feel empowered to contribute to research in their CAB roles. As transgender people face widespread barriers to education and employment,²⁷ investing in skills-building and trainings is also an investment in pipelines to work for transgender communities.

It is also important that research teams are transparent about their capacity to support CAB members through trainings and communicate clearly about CAB job expectations and qualifying characteristics, including but not limited to lived experiences that are relevant to a study. Otherwise, researchers run the risk of damaging relationships with transgender communities and using tokenistic methods.

Limitations

A key limitation of our work is greater engagement of leaders compared with staff and partners, who may be better equipped to speak to CAB experiences. Further, around one-third of KIs were racial or ethnic minorities, none identified as Indigenous, and few as Asian or Pacific Islanders. Future work should prioritize racialized perspectives and knowledge, including unique methods for building trust and community relationships. Transfeminine people, particularly racialized transfeminine people, were greatly underrepresented in our sample, thus reproducing underrepresentation of transfeminine people in academic work broadly. Data were collected from 2018 to 2020 and because community-informed transgender health research is growing rapidly, KIs may have new strategies to offer if interviewed now.

Conclusions

Integrating the recommendations summarized in Table 2 and the literature on best processes for forming and managing CABs^9,18,23 in Table 3, we offer a list of questions transgender health researchers should ask themselves prior to the research process and revisit iteratively. These questions may also serve as a guide for transparent communication with CABs and transgender communities. Answering these questions likely requires formative research and community engagement. As researchers working to address the health needs of transgender communities, collaborative work with CABs and other community partners must center values of health equity and justice for transgender communities.²⁸ Building intentional CABs is one method toward achieving these shared goals.

Table 2.

Summary of Recommendations for Forming and Managing Community Advisory Boards for Transgender Health Research

Recommendations by theme	Illustrative quotes
CAB decision-making power
Value CAB input by ensuring that CAB members have meaningful research decision-making power.	“Right, so, I think not just having them look at images and say, ‘is this trans enough for an ad?’ Right? Or ‘do these gender questions make sense?’ Like I think you have to involve people in the same way you might involve your own staff members that you pay a full salary … Yeah, so, I mean they’re literally teammates, and like team members, and so, that’s how we like do a collaborative science” (KI22, transgender-staff).
CAB roles and decision-making transparency
Be transparent about the decision-making structure of a study and CAB roles, including how involved transgender people will be in research decision-making.	“Yeah, to be honest I feel like most CABs are completely useless because they’re not … People don’t have any real sense of decision-making power. Nor do they have any real decision-making power. I think it’s often a model that’s used in a situation where everything is predetermined and the team wants some help with recruitment, basically. I think if that’s the case, just be—I think people would be less frustrated if they were just honest about that. That it’s like a recruitment committee [laughs] and not a CAB … And I think it’s disingenuous sometimes to tell people they have more of a role than they’re going to … I think where they’re really effective is where they actually have—there’s some decision-making authority vested with them, right? … for that to work people [researchers] actually have to be willing to give up some control, which isn’t always possible” (KI18, transgender-leader).
Timing of CAB engagement
Engage CAB members as early in the research process as possible.	“… so, rarely do poor research plans get re-evaluated within the community. I’m thinking of one particular large study that’s brought in a Community Advisory Board and then only ever presented like, ‘these are the questions we’re going to ask people, what do you think of these questions?’ that we’re going to ask regardless of what you tell us, kind of was the undertone. And again, for me that was an example of being brought in late in the game and not really valuing what people’s input was … your likelihood of success goes way down the further along in your research project you are when you start thinking about bringing people in” (KI14, cisgender-staff). “… I’d say it’s never too early. I think depending on the model that’s being thought about, it might make sense for there to be a smaller meeting at first of the people who really—of the lead investigators. But beyond that, before—ideally, it’s before the grant is written, before the specific aims are written, the community is engaged” (KI18, transgender-leader).
Recruitment process considerations
Work to understand local histories (e.g., past research harms), community norms and relationships, and community priorities before forming CABs.	“You know, one of the things that has repeatedly come up is that you’re dealing, again … is someone poorly managing the previous community relationship? And so, you’re having to address what occurred in the past … that they [previous research teams] didn’t make good on, you know, how you came and you left the community without anything where they felt that they had been disservices, or they felt that the focus of a particular project … had not aligned with their priority, which is important … but when you when you get to these community advisory groups, you keep seeing people—just, they’re up in arms that these projects come and they don’t really deal with what the community feels is important” (KI29, transgender-leader). “Sometimes the people who self-appoint themselves as spokespeople of the community actually don’t have good reputations within the community. And it’s really important to suss that out before it’s too late” (KI18, transgender-leader). “So, if we’re [researchers] not hearing from the community like, ‘yo, this has been a problem in the past,’ or, ‘here are the ways our community’s been hurt,’ you kind of need to go get that history because we know the history’s there. You’re just not hearing it. Especially in 2019. Trans communities have just been mined and mined and mined for data …” (KI12, transgender-leader).
Anticipate and address potential multilevel barriers to joining and participating in CABs.	“… well first of all, have an open process for people to apply. So, don’t cherry pick … you have to start, unfortunately, from the very beginning, I think from that moment of being like—we’re having an open thing and we’re going to have some info nights about it, and we’re going to, like, help you do the application” (KI26, transgender-leader).
Use a critical intersectional lens to identify and engage groups and perspectives that are historically underrepresented in transgender health research.	“… But who are the stakeholders that maybe don’t receive all the attention, who maybe haven’t been invited to the table, don’t even know about research? So, I think it’s a mix of kind of thinking intersectionally, and I would say from not only an empowerment perspective, but again, a critical perspective of what are the identities that are missing. Or else you’re going to end up with an all-white trans-binary kind of board. And you’re going to reproduce a lot of the things that trans people are under in the first place” (KI12, transgender-leader).
Prioritize showing up for transgender communities outside of research.	“And incentivization is a really big problem, an issue in the community. They want to be valued for their information, and so, just making sure that there’s opportunities to do that and as well as—people really care about how different organizations are investing in the community, right? … How are things being sponsored, whether it’s a pageant or a scholarship program or if it’s just a barbecue, right? People want to know that there’s investment in the community that’s outside of just the huge effort in data collection. And when they see folks invested, then they are more likely to have some level of trust and understanding the needs of why these programs [research studies] are being launched, and yeah. So, if they have the option to be involved, most will want to if they feel valued, if they feel that they see results in other programming, and in particular to policy, they also want to see effects in policy, right? … How is it going to affect the rest of the community at large without just putting a band-aid onto a certain little issue?” (KI14, transgender-staff).
Member skillsets and tokenism
Gauge CAB members’ research and other relevant skills, anticipate training needs, and build in skills-building opportunities.	“… being trans does not qualify one to be a community co-investigator on a project … everybody is developing their capacity through this process, and that formal capacity building should be built in, so, like, training on research methods, whatever kind of training people would want. But that in order for people to be able to play a meaningful role, they have to be coming to the table with an existing skill set or knowledge that can contribute to the project. Otherwise, they don’t feel empowered because they feel like they don’t have a role to play, and they don’t get taken seriously. So, I think that’s been my learning around thinking about who to engage rather than just being like ‘oh, this person is trans and has ideas,’ right?” (KI18, transgender-leader).^a
Managing internal dynamics
Establish and continually revisit working group agreements related to anticipating and addressing power differences between CAB members, and CAB members and research team members.	“… things like having group agreement, knowing from the beginning of your group [community advisory board] what are the agreements you want to establish and how can that be a working draft of group agreement, so that every time you’re looking for the places where there’s conformity or there’s silence or there’s—because the way research is structured, it’s not structured for trans people on a community advisory board to feel like, ‘Oh, I can call you in about something as a researcher.’ So, you’ve got to set up those agreements from the beginning and then make some agreements for—because there is a lot of trauma, not only in trans communities, but communities. So, no matter what your research project is, you’re working with trauma … But that can be part of your group agreement … this is how a trauma might come up. This is how we might fall into a trap of not listening to each other, respecting each other, asking questions that have—asking research questions that have already been answered in trans community. The most frustrating thing ever” (KI12, transgender-leader).
Use creative strategies to intentionally engage CAB members with diverse perspectives and who may feel disempowered during CAB conversations and tasks.	“… there’s some dynamics between different levels within like power and so, you know, for example, somebody, like an employee versus a community member, and sometimes community members kind of defer to employees who have, you know, fairly strong sense of how to navigate the institution, and so, they will maybe not say as much, and so typically, what I do is follow up, one on one with them to say ‘hey, you know, I noticed you’re a little quiet, was there anything that maybe you wanted to say that you felt hesitant [to] say, or was it just that you didn’t feel that you wanted to contribute anything on this particular topic,’ right?” (KI27, transgender-leader). “Well, I know for sure one thing that we found successful, or at least I have, when I’m in spaces where I am a facilitator or I do kind of run those groups, very intentional about asking for transmasculine viewpoint, very intentional about framing questions about transmasculinity because then those are the only people that can answer those questions, right? And so, it’s kind of like calling on people, you know, I need to hear from my transmasculine folks, so I’m going to ask a transmasculine-specific question that we do get that input. Even if it’s a question that’s not necessarily transmasculine specific it’s framed that way. That way we can get that information without necessarily calling them out” (KI28, transgender-partner).
Prioritize inclusivity and accessibility of CAB spaces, including by considering gender affirmation-related and sociostructural barriers to participating in research work.	“So, I would say be sure in making these spaces as inclusive as possible and accessible because someone who will find themselves on a few CABs will get this information, but maybe their friend who just is a bit—who’s going through a lot of transitional issues, as many of us have, is not willing to set forth in those kind of spaces, but just knowing that they are allowed to and have some space for them is enough. And that makes a big deal, so when it comes to making sure services have a closet or a makeup clinic for folks to feel like they can show up in a way that they are their best selves, right, as opposed to like, ‘Well, I know I have this invitation, but I’m homeless and I don’t have anything. So, I’m probably not going to go,’ right?” (KI14, transgender-staff).
Engage with and get to know CAB members as whole people.	“… because then the easiest go-to is Zoom, or some other you know, virtual platform, and of course you lose the connectivity that’s really key for building trust, and even having those kind of offline conversations that are sometimes very productive to shift things, to shape things, to—and whatnot, and even for people to like, personally get to know each other as human beings, you know? That basic thing” (KI27, transgender-leader).

The following quote references community co-investigators in particular, but it was shared during a conversation about different kinds of community roles in research, including CABs.

CAB, community advisory board.

Table 3.

CAB-related Questions Research Teams Should Ask Themselves Prior to the Research Process and Revisit Iteratively as a Study Progresses

Questions by topic
Community-informed research model
- To what extent is community-informed research part of your research priorities and model? Why or why not? And if not part of your research priorities or model, could it be? - What will this (i.e., your research priorities and model) look like operationally at each stage of the research process?
CAB roles and decision-making power
- What kind of CAB (i.e., role of CAB) are you aiming to form and why? (e.g., single study CAB, CAB for recruitment support or survey development, single long-term CAB that will work across studies, etc.) - How do you want the CAB to contribute to the research study? - How would you summarize the CAB job description? What is expected of CAB members? - Are there particular qualifications CAB members need to have to contribute in their CAB roles? Consider your reasoning for each qualification carefully. - What kind of decision-making power will the CAB have? - What kind of (1) role and (2) decision-making power will the CAB have at every step of the research process? - How will the research team stay accountable to this? - How can CAB members hold research team members accountable as needed (e.g., share constructive feedback)? - How will the research team communicate and justify the study decision-making structure to potential CAB members?
Timing and resources
- At what point in the research process will you have the resources (i.e., time and budget) to build (or further, if already established) relationships with relevant transgender communities and stakeholders? - At what point in the research process will you have the resources (i.e., time and budget) to form a CAB? - How will you allocate resources to responding to potential barriers to joining and participating in the CAB? - How will you allocate resources to supporting CAB skills-building?
Community engagement
- Prior to establishing the CAB, how will you work to understand local histories (e.g., past research harms), community norms and relationships, and community priorities?
Recruitment process
- How will you recruit and form a CAB? - How will you learn about and anticipate barriers transgender people may face to joining and participating in the CAB? - How will you use study resources (i.e., budget for) to address these barriers? - How can you use study resources to intentionally engage groups and perspectives that are historically underrepresented in transgender health research? - How will you communicate CAB job qualifications and expectations to potential CAB members? - How will planned skills-building opportunities factor into this? - How will you communicate about planned skills-building opportunities to potential CAB members? - How will you communicate about CAB roles, decision-making power, and timing of engagement to potential CAB members?
CAB management and maintenance
- How will you compensate CAB members for their contributions and efforts? - How can you determine an equitable level of compensation for CAB members through community input? - How will you ensure that all CAB members feel equipped and empowered to contribute to the research process? - How will you learn about and address barriers people may face to participating in CAB conversations and tasks? - How will you use study resources to support addressing these barriers? - How will you create a CAB environment where everyone feels supported, including supported when conflicts and disagreements arise? - How can CAB members provide feedback and raise issues with the research team? - How will the research team remain accountable to their feedback? - How will you create a sense of community within the CAB, and between the CAB and research team? - How can you work to address power differences between CAB members, and between the CAB and research team?
Research dissemination and accountability to transgender communities
- How will you share study results with the CAB throughout the research process? - How will research be used to support transgender community goals and needs? - How can the CAB play a role in shaping these efforts? - How will the research team ensure accountability to transgender communities’ goals? - How will research products be shared with community members? - How can the CAB play a role in identifying strategies for effective, accessible, community-oriented and wider dissemination?
Showing up for transgender communities
- Thinking beyond your research goals, how do you or will you (i.e., research team members) show up for transgender communities?

CAB, community advisory board.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to all key informants for their stories and reflections, and to the CLEAR CAB and research team for providing support and thoughtful feedback throughout the research process. The authors thank the many transgender and nonbinary community members, leaders, and organizations from Baltimore who helped to build the CLEAR project and continue to advocate for research that is responsive to community needs.

Authors’ Contributions

M.M.: Conceptualization, methodology, software, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing—original draft. A.A.: Conceptualization, methodology, software, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing—review and editing. J.L.G.: Conceptualization, methodology, writing—review and editing. J-M.B.: Writing—review and editing. A.B.: Investigation, data curation. K.B.: Writing—review and editing. A.R.: Writing—review and editing. M.G.: Project administration, writing—review and editing. C.F.: Project administration, supervision, funding acquisition, writing—review and editing. D.G.: Conceptualization, methodology, funding acquisition, supervision, writing—review and editing.

Author Disclosures Statement

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Funding Information

Research reported in this article was supported by the Maryland Department of Health.

Abbreviations Used

References

Adams

, Pearce

, Veale

, et al. Guidance and ethical considerations for undertaking transgender health research and institutional review boards adjudicating this research. Transgend Health, 2017; 2(1):165–175; doi: 10.1089/trgh.2017.0012

Winters

, D’Orsay

, Sirenu

, Con

, International Transgender Health Forum. Transgender Research Informed Consent (TRICON) Disclosure Policy 2022. Available from: https://transpolicyreform.wordpress.com/2022/10/08/transgender-research-informed-consent-tricon-disclosure-policy-2022-update/

Reisner

, Poteat

, Keatley

, et al. Global health burden and needs of transgender populations: A review. Lancet, 2016; 388(10042):412–436; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00684-X

Poteat

, German

, Flynn

. The conflation of gender and sex: Gaps and opportunities in HIV data among transgender women and MSM. Glob Public Health, 2016; 11(7–8):835–848; doi: 10.1080%2F17441692.2015.1134615

Minalga

, Chung

, Davids

, et al. Research on transgender people must benefit transgender people. Lancet, 2022; 399(10325):628; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02806-3

Scheim

, Appenroth

, Beckham

, et al. Transgender HIV research: Nothing about us without us. Lancet HIV, 2019; 6(9):e566–e567; doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(19)30269-3

Restar

, Minalga

, Quilantang

, et al. Mapping community-engaged implementation strategies with transgender scientists, stakeholders, and trans-led community organizations. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep, 2023; 20(3):160–169; doi: 10.1007/s11904-023-00656-y

Travers

, Pyne

, Bauer

, et al. ‘Community control’ in CBPR: Challenges experienced and questions raised from the Trans PULSE project. Action Res, 2013; 11(4):403–422; doi: 10.1177/1476750313507093

Newman

, Andrews

, Magwood

, et al. Peer reviewed: Community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: A synthesis of best processes. Prev Chronic Dis, 2011; 8(3):1–12. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3103575/

10.

Weinstein

, Herrera

, Pla Serrano

, et al. Promoting health equity in HIV prevention and treatment research: A practical guide to establishing, implementing, and sustaining community advisory boards. Ther Adv Infect Dis, 2023; 10:1–14; doi: 10.1177/20499361231151508

11.

Stewart

, Boateng

, Joosten

, et al. Community advisory boards: Experiences and common practices of clinical and translational science award programs. J Clin Transl Sci, 2019; 3(5):218–226; doi: 10.1017/cts.2019.389

12.

Pancras

, Sunguya

, Sirili

, et al. The role of community advisory boards in community-based HIV clinical trials: A qualitative study from Tanzania. BMC Med Ethics, 2022; 23(1):1–10; doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00737-w

13.

Halladay

, Donahue

, Sleath

, et al. Community advisory boards guiding engaged research efforts within a clinical translational sciences award: Key contextual factors explored. Prog Community Health Partnersh, 2017; 11(4):367–377; doi: 10.1353/cpr.2017.0044

14.

Lett

, Adekunle

, McMurray

, et al. Health equity tourism: Ravaging the justice landscape. J Med Syst, 2022; 46(3):17–23; doi: 10.1007/s10916-022-01803-5

15.

Jones

. Putting privilege into practice through “intersectional reflexivity:” Ruminations, interventions, and possibilities. Faculty Res Creative Activity, 2010; 3:122–125. Available from: https://thekeep.eiu.edu/commstudies_fac/3

16.

Rodriguez

, Ridgway

. Intersectional reflexivity: Fieldwork experiences of ethnic minority women researchers. Gender Work & Organization, 2023; 30(4):1273–1295.

17.

Cayir

, Felder

, Nkwonta

, et al. Discovering new connections: Insights from individual and collective reflexivity in a mixed methods study. Int J Qualitative Methods, 2022; 21.

18.

Matthews

, Newman

, Anderson

, et al. Development, implementation, and evaluation of a Community Engagement Advisory Board: Strategies for maximizing success. J Clin Transl Sci, 2018; 2(1):8–13; doi: 10.1017/cts.2018.13

19.

Cramer

, Lazoritz

, Shaffer

, et al. Community advisory board members’ perspectives regarding opportunities and challenges of research collaboration. West J Nurs Res, 2018; 40(7):1032–1048; doi: 10.1177/0193945917697229

20.

Yuan

, Mayer

, Joshweseoma

, et al. Development of guidelines to improve the effectiveness of community advisory boards in health research. Prog Community Health Partnersh, 2020; 14(2):259–269; doi: 10.1353/cpr.2020.0026

21.

Community and Stakeholder Engagement in Health Research: Guidelines Offered by NC TraCS. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill, NC; 2012.

22.

Supporting and Co-Creating Meaningful Community Advisory Boards National Resource Center for Refugees, Immigrants, and Migrants: Minnesota; 2021.

23.

Arnos

, Kroll

, Jaromin

, et al. Tools and Resources for Project Based Community Advisory Boards: Community Voice and Power Sharing Guidebook. Urban Institute: Washington, DC; 2021.

24.

Clark

, Friedman

. Community Advisory Boards: What works and what doesn’t (Lessons from a National Study). Am J Crim Law, 2020; 47:21–25. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3874229

25.

Kubicek KaR

. Resource for Integrating Community Voices into a Research Study: Community Advisory Board Toolkit. Southern California Clinical and Translational Science Institute: Los Angeles, CA; 2016.

26.

Kosinski

. Syringe Services Program Community Advisory Boards: A Framework. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: Baltimore, MD; 2024.

27.

James

, Herman

, Rankin

, et al. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. National Center for Transgender Equality: Washington, DC; 2016.

28.

Thompson

, Wang

, Talan

, et al. First they came for us all: Responding to anti-transgender structural violence with collective, community-engaged, and intersectional health equity research and advocacy. Health Educ Behav, 2024; 51(1):5–9; doi: 10.1177/10901981231201146