Fostering Alignment and the Catalytic Potential of Community-Engaged Research With US Military Veterans and Advocates

Abstract

This paper explores the concept of “community-engaged research” (CEnR) within the context of Veteran health care delivery and reintegration programs. A multi-sector expert panel (msExP) was formed to evaluate and make recommendations on Veteran community reintegration research and programs. The panel consisted of Veterans, care partners, clinical providers, researchers, community stakeholders, and subject matter experts. The paper examines the composition and lifecycle of the panel, highlighting the characteristics and experiences of the participants. Shifts in the panel’s purpose and engagement levels occurred in response to unanticipated disruptions, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic. The transformation of the panel emphasizes the importance of aligning individual and group needs and deepening intrapersonal relationships Findings based on observations, surveys, and interviews with panel members contribute to the field of community-engaged research by demonstrating the utility of catalytic validity that balances group and individual development. As part of a broader study on Veteran reintegration, the panel and its development over time allowed for various perspectives on Veteran experiences and reintegration within the community that shaped the overall project. Despite the challenges of developing and maintaining a panel alongside a research study, feedback from the panel members on their participation provides insight into the potential for future working alliances in community-engaged health research.

Keywords

Veteran reintegration qualitative field study engagement community-based participatory research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Israel

Schulz

Parker

, et al. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Publ Health 1998; 19: 173–202. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173.

Brys

Whittle

Safdar

. Development of a veteran engagement toolkit for researchers. J Comp Eff Res 2018; 7(6): 595–602. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2017-0101.

Thomas

Allen

. Interagency partnership to deliver veteran-directed home and community-based services: interviews with aging and disability network agency personnel regarding their experience with partner department of veterans Affairs medical centers. J Rehabil Res Dev 2016; 53(5): 611–618. DOI: 10.1682/jrrd.2015.02.0019.

Wendleton

Martin

Stewart

SKR

, et al. Building sustainable models of veteran-engaged health services research. J Humanist Psychol 2019; 63(6): 0022167819845535. DOI: 10.1177/0022167819845535.

Knight

Haibach

Hamilton

, et al. Veteran engagement in health services research: a conceptual model. J Gen Intern Med 2022; 37: 94–98. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-021-07309-z.

Atkins

Kupersmith

Eisen

. The Veterans Affairs experience: comparative effectiveness research in a large health system. Health Aff 2010; 29(10): 1906–1912. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0680.

Luger

Hamilton

True

. Measuring community-engaged research contexts, processes, and outcomes: a mapping review. Milbank Q. 2020; 98(2): 493––553. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12458.

Concannon

Meissner

Grunbaum

, et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27(8): 985–991. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-012-2037-1.

True

Facundo

Urbina

, et al. “If you don’t name the dragon, you can’t begin to slay it:” participatory action research to increase awareness around military-related traumatic brain injury. Article. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship 2021; 13: 25.

10.

True

Davidson

Facundo

, et al. “Institutions don’t hug people:” A roadmap for building trust, connectedness, and purpose through photovoice collaboration. J Humanist Psychol 2021; 61(3): 365–404. DOI: 10.1177/0022167819853344.

11.

Harrison

Brooks

. Active patient engagement: long overdue in rehabilitation research. Physiother Can. Fall 2015; 67(4): 305–310. DOI: 10.3138/ptc.67.4.GEE.

12.

Anderson

Williams

Karmali

, et al. Client and family engagement in rehabilitation research: a framework for health care organizations. Disabil Rehabil 2018; 40(7): 859–863. DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1276973.

13.

Franco

Hooyer

Ruffalo

, et al. Veterans health and well-being—collaborative research approaches: toward veteran community engagement. J Humanist Psychol 2021; 61(3): 287–312. DOI: 10.1177/0022167820919268.

14.

Monteith

Wendleton

Bahraini

, et al. Together with veterans: VA national strategy alignment and lessons learned from community-based suicide prevention for rural veterans. Suicide Life-Threatening Behav. 2020; 50(3): 588–600. DOI: 10.1111/sltb.12613.

15.

Zamora

Abraham

Koenig

, et al. Using an adapted case study approach to understand rural veteran experiences in patient engagement and patient-centered care research. Qualitative Research in Medicine and Healthcare 2020; 10(2): 4–29. DOI: 10.4081/qrmh.2020.8977.

16.

Melillo

Downs

Dillahunt-Aspillaga

, et al. Action ethnography of community reintegration for veterans and military service members with traumatic brain injury: protocol for a mixed methods study. JMIR Res Protoc 2019; 8(11): e14170. DOI: 10.2196/14170.

17.

Arnstein

. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plan 1969; 35(4): 216–224.

18.

Davis

Andrew

. From rationalism to critical pragmatism: revisiting Arnstein’s ladder of public participation in co-creation and consultation. In: 8th State of Australian Cities National Conference, Wellington, 28–30 November 2017.

19.

Marie Brown

Nev Jones

. Service user participation within the mental health system: deepening engagement. Psychiatr Serv 2021; 72(8): 963–965. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.202000494.

20.

Newton

Burgess

. Exploring types of educational action research: implications for research validity. Int J Qual Methods 2008; 7(4): 18–30. DOI: 10.1177/160940690800700402.

21.

Rattray

Flanagan

Salyers

, et al. The association between reintegration, perceptions of health and flourishing during transition from military to civilian life among veterans with invisible injuries. J. Veterans Stud, 2023; 9: 224–234.

22.

Rattray

Miech

True

, et al. Modeling contingency in veteran community reintegration: a mixed methods approach. J Mix Methods Res 2022; 17(1): 15586898211059616. DOI: 10.1177/15586898211059616.

23.

Rattray

True

Natividad

, et al. The long and winding road to postsecondary education for US veterans with invisible injuries. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2019; 42(3): 284–295. DOI: 10.1037/prj0000375.

24.

Borkan

. Immersion/crystallization. In: Crabtree

Miller

(eds). Doing Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1999, pp. 179–194.

25.

Wallerstein

Duran

Oetzel

, et al. Community-based participatory research for health: advancing social and health equity. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2017.

26.

Belle-Isle

Benoit

Pauly

. Addressing health inequities through social inclusion: the role of community organizations. Action Res 2014; 12(2): 177–193.

27.

Sloan

Oliver

. Building trust in multi-stakeholder partnerships: critical emotional incidents and practices of engagement. Organ Stud 2013; 34(12): 1835–1868. DOI: 10.1177/0170840613495018.

28.

Lather

. Issues of validity in openly ideological research: between a rock and a soft place. Interchange 1986; 17: 63–84.

29.

Rodríguez

Sanjek

. Mutuality: anthropology’s changing terms of engagement. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015.

30.

Rattray

. A user-centered model for community-based web-GIS. Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA) Journal 2006; 18(2): 25–34.

31.

Rattray

. Counter-mapping as situated knowledge: integrating lay expertise in participatory geographic research. In: Participatory visual and digital research in action. Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2016, pp. 131–146.

32.

Rattray

Raskin

Cimino

. Participatory research on universal design and accessible space at the university of Arizona. Disabil Stud Q 2008; 28(4): 2008. https://www.dsq-sds.org/article/view/159/159

33.

Meissner

Cottler

Eder

, et al. Engagement science: the core of dissemination, implementation, and translational research science. J Clin Transl Sci 2020; 4(3): 216–218. DOI: 10.1017/cts.2020.8.

34.

Mayan

Daum

. Worth the risk? Muddled relationships in community-based participatory research. Qual Health Res 2016; 26(1): 69–76. DOI: 10.1177/1049732315618660.

35.

Dickson-Swift

James

Kippen

, et al.

Doing sensitive research: what challenges do qualitative researchers face?

Qual Res 2007; 7(3): 327–353.

36.

Chavez

Blevins

Brown

, et al. The future of veteran community engagement: perspectives on engaging veterans and other stakeholders in research agenda setting. J Veterans Stud, 2022; 8(2):21–35. DOI: 10.21061/jvs.v8i2.360.

37.

Besterman-Dahan

Hahm

Chavez

, et al. Enhancing veteran community reintegration research (ENCORE): protocol for a mixed methods and stakeholder engagement project. JMIR Res Protoc 2023; 12: e42029. DOI: 10.2196/42029.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.65 MB