The Institute of Translational Health Sciences (Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program hub) developed a program coined Community Voices to invite communities to submit project ideas and be matched with academic researchers. We describe formative research to understand community and academic researcher perspectives on how the program could facilitate collaborations addressing community priorities.

We conducted four focus groups with 31 community-based organization (CBO) representatives and 11 semi-structured interviews with academic researchers in the Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho regions. Questions included the appeal of Community Voices to engage community and academic partners, potential program usefulness, and Community Voices’ potential role in building community–academic partnerships. We used an inductive, constant comparison approach to code transcripts and thematic analysis to generate themes.

Most CBO representatives were female (87.1%) and Hispanic/Latino (61.3%). Most academic researchers had a PhD (63.6%) and worked at a university (81.8%). The themes were: (1) community–academic partnerships built on trust will offer mutual benefit, (2) community-initiated project ideas should prioritize community needs, (3) matchmaking will accelerate connections but should not replace time to foster partnership, (4) Community Voices should go beyond matchmaking and provide ongoing support/training, and (5) fostering effective communication is key to partnership success.

Community Voices is a novel, bidirectional community engagement program model that advances current practices of prioritizing researchers’ project ideas. This community-driven program may shift the future direction of community engagement practices where prioritizing community’s ideas becomes the norm of community–academic partnerships in clinical and translational science.

Community engagement (CE) is critical for research on the adoption and use of assistive technology (AT) in many populations living in resource-limited environments. Few studies have described the process that was used for engaging communities in AT research, particularly within low-income communities of older Hispanic with disabilities where limited access, culture, and mistrust must be navigated. We aimed to identify effective practices to enhance CE of low-income Hispanic communities in AT research.

The community stakeholders included community-based organizations, the community healthcare clinic, the local AT project, and residents of the Caño Martín Peña Community in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The CE procedures and activities during the Planning the Study Phase comprised working group meetings with stakeholders to cocreate the funding proposal for the study and address the reviewers’ critiques. During the Conducting the Study Phase, we convened a Community Advisory Board to assist in the implementation of the study. During the Disseminating the Study Results Phase, we developed and implemented plans to disseminate the research results.

We identified seven distinct practices to enhance CE in AT research with Hispanic communities: (1) early and continuous input; (2) building trusting and warm relationships through personal connections; (3) establishing and maintaining presence in the community; (4) power sharing; (5) shared language; (6) ongoing mentorship and support to community members; and (7) adapting to the changing needs of the community.

Greater attention to CE practices may improve the effectiveness and sustainability of AT research with low-income communities.