Background: Concerns over the need to improve translational aspects of genetics research studies and engaging community members in the research process have been noted in the literature and raised by patient advocates. In addition to the work done by patient advocacy groups, organizations such as the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute advocate for a change in the culture of research from being researcher-driven to becoming more patient-driven. Objective: Our project, Autism Genetics and Outcomes (AutGO), consists of two phases. The goal for phase I was to initiate a general discussion around the main topic (i.e., linking genetics and outcomes research). We used the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute engagement approach to: (aim 1) develop a partnership with a wide range of stakeholders to assess their perspective on developing projects that use both genetics and outcomes research data/principles; (aim 2) identify barriers, facilitators, and needs to promote engagement in patient-centered genetics research; and (aim 3) distill and describe actions that may facilitate utilization of patient/parent perspectives in designing genetics research studies. Methods: In phase I, we formed a community advisory board composed of 33 participants, including outcomes and genetics researchers, clinicians, healthcare providers, patients/family members, and community/industry representatives, and convened six sessions over the 12-month period. We structured the sessions as a combination of online PowerPoint presentations, surveys, and in-person group discussions. During the sessions, we discussed topics pertaining to linking genetics and outcomes research and reviewed relevant materials, including patient stories, research projects, and existing resources. Results: Two sets of surveys, project evaluations (k = 2) and session evaluations (k = 6), were distributed among participants. Feedback was analyzed using content analysis strategies to identify the themes and subthemes. Herein, we describe: the established partnership (aim 1), the identified barriers, facilitators, and needs (aim 2), as well as the lessons learned and suggested recommendations for the research community (aim 3). Following phase I participants’ recommendation, in phase II, we will focus on a specific disease (i.e., autism); this projected plan is briefly outlined to highlight the overarching goal of the project and its potential significance. We also discuss the study limitations, challenges for conducting this type of multidisciplinary work, as well as potential ways to address them. Conclusions: The AutGO project has created a unique collaborative forum to facilitate the much needed dialogue between genetics and outcomes researchers, which may contribute to finding ways to improve the translational aspects of genetics research studies.