Abstract
Enhanced protection for research participants is often stated as a goal and potential benefit of engaging community partners in research. However, many community-engaged research teams report challenges in completing human research protection (HRP) training. Some human research protection programs (HRPPs) require community researchers to complete the same training that university faculty and staff members are required to do, while others allow alternatives that are more accessible and appropriately suited to community researchers' background and roles. To learn more about general HRPP requirements for training and alternatives for community researchers, we surveyed 163 research institutions funded by the National Institutes of Health's Clinical and Translational Science Award program. Out of 55 respondents, 34 HRPPs (61.8%) allow community researchers to complete different HRP training from that required for faculty/staff. Reasons for allowing or denying alternative training vary, and some institutions that currently do not allow alternatives report that they are reconsidering their policy. The fact that some institutions do not allow alternatives and are not considering changing their policies, even when requested by the principal investigators of studies, may pose significant barriers to community-engaged research. Effort is needed to increase awareness about alternatives as well as their acceptability in meeting training requirements of federal funding agencies.