AI-enabled Communication to Advance Research Engagement (AI-CARE) (AI-CARE)

Experimental: Standard AI prompt - Aim 3

Participants receive plain-language research summaries generated using a standardized AI prompt without researcher prompt engineering or community co-design.

Conductual: Experimental: Standard AI prompt

Participants review plain-language research summaries generated using a standardized AI prompt without researcher prompt engineering or community co-design.

Experimental: Researcher prompt engineering - Aim 3

Participants receive summaries generated after researchers complete AI prompt-engineering training and develop optimized prompts.

Conductual: Experimental: Researcher prompt engineering

Participants review AI-generated summaries generated after researchers complete AI prompt-engineering training and develop optimized prompts.

Experimental: Community co-created AI summaries - Aim 3

Participants receive summaries developed through an iterative community-researcher co-creation process following AI training and structured co-design sessions.

Conductual: Community co-created AI summaries

Participants review AI-generated summaries refined through iterative collaboration between researchers and community members using community-engaged co-design principles.

Experimental: Co-creation cohort - Aim 2

Participants will be divided into three groups, each assigned 1-2 research summaries, and will engage in structured co-creation sessions. The goals of will be to: 1) define readability and appropriateness, 2) review AI-generated drafts produced by the summary engine, and 3) provide feedback to refine prompts and outputs. Several iteration cycles will be conducted as needed, with documentation of any changes and the rationale for making decisions. In this way the team will develop a modular AI "summary engine" that transforms research products (e.g., manuscripts) into draft community-facing materials using co-created prompts and templates. Co-creation will be conducted during one or two facilitated sessions. Each session will include structured review of drafts, guided discussion, and documented decisions regarding readability, transparency, visuals or graphics, etc. Iteration cycles will continue until pre-specified stopping criteria are met.

Conductual: AI literacy training and co-design

The co-designed summaries which result from this process will become one of the three intervention conditions evaluated in Aim 3.

Confidence in medical research and researchers - Aim 3

This is the primary outcome measure for both Aim 2 and Aim 3. This outcome measure will be assessed using subscale 1 of the PoRT scale. PoRT is a validated, self-report measure that assesses confidence in medical research and researchers. Subscale 1 contains 9 items, with response options for each item ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); thus the subscale ranges from 9 to 45. Higher scores indicate higher confidence.

Confidence in medical research and researchers - Aim 2

This is the primary outcome measure for both Aim 2 and Aim 3. This outcome measure will be assessed using subscale 1 of the PoRT scale. PoRT is a validated, self-report measure that assesses confidence in medical research and researchers. Subscale 1 contains 9 items, with response options for each item ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); thus the subscale ranges from 9 to 45. Higher scores indicate higher confidence.

Perceived appropriateness of research summary - Aim 2

Perceived appropriateness of research summary will be assessed using an 8-item scale adapted from the literature which measures community and personal relevance, fit and respect, language and representation, and confidence and resonance (each of the four constructs is measured using two items). Responses for the eight items range from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree; possible scale score thus ranges from 8 to 40. Higher scores indicate higher perceived appropriateness.

Institutional confidence - Aim 2

This is a validated measure of confidence in health care institutions, assessed using the MMI scale which contains 7 items. Responses range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); thus, the range of scale scores is 7 to 35. Lower scores indicate higher confidence.

Research comprehension - Aim 2

Research study specific comprehension which will consist of 25 true-false statements (5 items for each of the 5 research studies chosen by researchers and community participants that will be used for creation of plain-language summaries). Correct answers = 1, and incorrect answers = 0. The range will be 0 to 25, with higher scores indicating better comprehension.

Perceived appropriateness of research summary - Aim 3

Perceived appropriateness of research summary will be assessed using an 8-item scale adapted from the literature which measures community and personal relevance, fit and respect, language and representation, and confidence and resonance (each of the four constructs is measured using two items). Responses for the eight items range from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree; possible scale score thus ranges from 8 to 40. Higher scores indicate higher perceived appropriateness.

Institutional confidence - Aim 3

This is a validated measure of confidence in health care institutions, assessed using the MMI scale which contains 7 items. Responses range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); thus, the range of scale scores is 7 to 35. Lower scores indicate higher confidence.

Research comprehension - Aim 3

Research study specific comprehension which will consist of 25 true-false statements (5 items for each of the 5 research studies chosen by researchers and community participants that will be used for creation of plain-language summaries). Correct answers = 1, and incorrect answers = 0. The range will be 0 to 25, with higher scores indicating better comprehension.