Underrepresentation of Black Americans in genomics research limits understanding of how genomic variation and environmental exposures contribute to health disparities. The authors identified scientific mistrust as a key barrier to participation and noted a gap in practical models that translate guidance on community-engaged research into operational approaches for genomics researchers who lack formal training in community partnership methods. To address this gap, the team developed an educational intervention designed to help prospective academic and community partners mutually orient and assess the practicability of a collaboration.
The intervention was conceived as a bidirectional teaching environment in which potential community and academic partners could discuss areas of expertise, partnership expectations, and needs. The workshop comprised nine interactive modules covering topics such as scientific mistrust, research safeguards, community-engaged research principles, genomics, and designing research aligned with community-defined goals. The team also incorporated humor experimentally as a strategy to improve engagement and trust during the workshop.
Participants (n=10) were recruited through established community channels and invited to attend a four-hour workshop delivered in partnership with a community organization. All enrolled individuals attended and completed the full workshop and associated study activities. The source does not report additional demographic details of participants in the provided text.
The study used a mixed-methods, single-arm feasibility design. Feasibility metrics included recruitment success and retention (attendance and completion). Qualitative data were collected via participant responses to eight workshop prompts and analyzed using inductive rapid thematic analysis to capture participants’ perspectives and expectations for partnership. Preliminary quantitative data were collected from pre- and post-workshop Likert-scale surveys intended to assess associations between the intervention and four domains, one of which was scientific trust. Because of the small sample size and missing survey items, quantitative results were treated as descriptive and limited in inferential value.
Rapid thematic analysis of participant responses identified expectations for partnerships that aligned with community-based participatory research principles, including mutual respect, shared goals, and attention to community-defined priorities. Participants responded to prompts across modules; engagement and the richness of responses were greater in early modules and tended to wane in later content. The qualitative findings supported the concept that a structured, bidirectional orientation can surface alignment and practical considerations for starting community–academic genomics partnerships.
All enrolled participants completed surveys, but the dataset contained missing responses that limited completeness. The authors identified survey instrument design shortcomings, particularly within the trust measurement domain, and concluded that the instrument requires modification before larger-scale evaluation. Because of the low sample size and incomplete survey data, the quantitative data were analyzed for descriptive purposes only and no definitive statistical associations were reported in the source text.
The intervention met predefined feasibility criteria for recruitment and attendance (100% recruitment and show rate). Implementation observations and participant feedback highlighted three primary areas for refinement: workshop duration, module prioritization, and survey instrument design. Specifically, engagement tended to decline in later modules, suggesting a need to shorten the overall session or reorder and prioritize high-yield modules. The authors also plan to revise the survey, with particular attention to improving measurement of trust.
The study received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Chicago (IRB25-0476). The authors report that all participant consent procedures and institutional approvals were followed. All study data are available from the authors upon reasonable request. Declared funders listed in the source include Research!America, Susan G. Komen, the Cancer Health Equity Training Program, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (TL1TR002388).
The authors conclude that the educational intervention is feasible to deliver as a bidirectional workshop in partnership with a community organization. The study identified actionable implementation changes—shortening or restructuring the workshop and revising survey instruments—to strengthen future evaluation. A community advisory board is actively co-developing and refining modules, and the team plans to evaluate a pilot version of the intervention with a larger sample. The source did not report effect sizes, statistical outcomes, or detailed participant demographics; those details were not provided in the article text.