Journal of Clinical and Translational Science最新文献

Introduction: In Michigan, the COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted Black and Latinx communities. These communities experienced higher rates of exposure, hospitalizations, and deaths compared to Whites. We examine the impact of the pandemic and reasons for the higher burden on communities of color from the perspectives of Black and Latinx community members across four Michigan counties and discuss recommendations to better prepare for future public health emergencies.

Methods: Using a community-based participatory research approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 40) with Black and Latinx individuals across the four counties. Interviews focused on knowledge related to the pandemic, the impact of the pandemic on their lives, sources of information, attitudes toward vaccination and participation in vaccine trials, and perspectives on the pandemic's higher impact on communities of color.

Results: Participants reported overwhelming effects of the pandemic in terms of worsened physical and mental health, financial difficulties, and lifestyle changes. They also reported some unexpected positive effects. They expressed awareness of the disproportionate burden among Black and Latinx populations and attributed this to a wide range of disparities in Social Determinants of Health. These included racism and systemic inequities, lack of access to information and language support, cultural practices, medical mistrust, and varied individual responses to the pandemic.

Conclusion: Examining perspectives and experiences of those most impacted by the pandemic is essential for preparing for and effectively responding to public health emergencies in the future. Public health messaging and crisis response strategies must acknowledge the concerns and cultural needs of underrepresented populations.

Introduction: Patient and stakeholder involvement enhances the conduct and applicability of comparative effectiveness research (CER). However, examples of engagement practices for CER leveraging real-world data (i.e., data from routine clinical practice) are scarce. Notably, these studies differ from traditional clinical trials in their technical complexity and minimal prospective data collection, posing unique challenges for stakeholder involvement. This paper describes patient and stakeholder engagement in a CER study of type 2 diabetes (T2D) medications using real-world data from a large administrative claims database.

Methods: A Patient and Stakeholder Advisory Group (PSAG) was formed to guide study design, conduct, and dissemination. The PSAG (n = 12) included individuals with T2D, clinicians, health systems leaders, professional society representatives, and a payer representative. Members were surveyed post-study initiation to assess their participation goals and experiences to date.

Results: PSAG members influenced key design and methodological decisions, including cohort selection and adding an aim focused on patient preference elicitation. Survey results indicated high satisfaction with engagement processes and a desire for ongoing involvement. Most PSAG members cited their main goals as impacting the lives of people with T2D and ensuring the research's relevance to clinicians.

Conclusions: Best practices for engaging stakeholders in CER using real-world data are underdeveloped. Our experience suggests that an inclusive, stakeholder-engaged approach enriches the research process and ensures diverse perspectives are integrated into study design and conduct. Ongoing efforts will focus on assessing long-term engagement outcomes and PSAG member satisfaction.

There has been an erosion of trust in medical care and clinical research, and this has raised issues about whether institutions and investigators conducting clinical research are worthy of trust. We review recent literature on research on trust and trustworthiness in the clinical research enterprise and identify opportunities to enhance trustworthiness, which will likely increase participant trust in clinical research. In addition, we review materials reporting the results of national polls related to the public's trust in different occupations. The literature on trustworthiness and trust is complex and suffers from a lack of agreement on definitions of trust and trustworthiness and actions to enhance trustworthiness. Nonetheless, institutions need to take action to address the many elements that contribute to being perceived as trustworthy. As a complementary approach, since nurses have consistently ranked highest on trust by the public for twenty-two straight years, we analyze the features that likely account for the public's uniform high regard for nurses. We propose specific actions to enhance the role of research nurses in the research enterprise, without compromising their primary role as participant advocates, that we have adopted at Rockefeller University to gain the benefits of the public's trust in nurses in building trustworthiness.

A clinical research team's goal is to support the implementation, conduct, and monitoring of research studies and corresponding protocols. There is a need to ensure that study teams have adequate resources and regulatory support to successfully adhere to regulations and good clinical research practices. Our team, the UC Davis Division of Infectious Diseases Research Unit (IDRU), sought to establish a One Signature Initiative program for all studies and protocols supported by the IDRU. The One Signature Initiative designates one point of contact from each ancillary team or department to sign delegation and training logs, who in turn is delegated to train their team. The goals of the One Signature Initiative were, and are still, to reduce task redundancy, lessen regulatory burden on research teams, and minimize audit findings. Since the implementation of the One Signature Initiative in 2023, acceptance has been favorable, and we have expanded its footprint by incorporating it into our standard operating procedures. This article discusses our experiences, and ancillary departments' experiences, with the One Signature Initiative. Our experience is an example of how a One Signature Initiative can be developed that is efficient, effective, and well-accepted by clinical research stakeholders.

Involving participants in the design of clinical trials should improve the overall success of a study. For this to occur, streamlined mechanisms are needed to connect the populations potentially impacted by a given study or health topic with research teams in order to inform trial design in a meaningful and timely manner. To address this need, we developed an innovative mechanism called the "ResearchMatch Expert Advice Tool" that quickly obtains volunteer perspectives from populations with specific health conditions or lived experiences using the national recruitment registry, ResearchMatch. This tool does not ask volunteers to participate in the trial but allows for wider community feedback to be gathered and translated into actionable recommendations used to inform the study's design. We describe early use cases that shaped the current Expert Advice Tool workflow, how results from this tool were incorporated and implemented by studies, and feedback from volunteers and study teams regarding the tool's usefulness. Additionally, we present a set of lessons learned during the development of the Expert Advice Tool that can be used by other recruitment registries seeking to obtain volunteer feedback on study design and operations.

Introduction: The stakeholder analysis approach has historically been top-down rather than collaborative with key partners. However, this approach poses challenges for key partner engagement and community-engaged research, which aims to incorporate key partners throughout the project. This study, conducted by the Community Engagement Network at a Midwest Academic Medical Center, seeks to examine the value of community-engaged research for diverse key partners to increase collaboration, strengthen partnerships, and enhance impact, ultimately driving key partner engagement.

Methods: The study involved semi-structured interviews with 38 key partners from diverse groups, including community members, community organizations, Practice-Based Research Network members, researchers, research administration, university administration, and potential funders. The interview guide, informed by an extensive literature review, assessed perceived value, barriers, and improvement strategies for community-engaged research, supplemented by value proposition statements.

Results: The analysis revealed three main themes: 1) Fostering Community Buy-In: Authentic representation and inclusive partnerships were essential for trust and commitment; 2) Enhancing Communication and Dissemination: Effective communication strategies were vital for maintaining engagement and sharing research outcomes; and 3) Building Capacity and Ensuring Sustainability: Continuous learning and long-term investments were crucial for sustaining community-engaged research efforts.

Discussion: This study underscores the value of incorporating key partners into stakeholder analyses to enhance collaboration, strengthen partnerships, and improve the impact of community-engaged research. The findings offer valuable insight for institutional transformation and implementation of effective stakeholder analyses and engagement tools, ultimately enhancing the effectiveness of research strategies and initiatives.

This study investigates practicing clinician and staff perspectives on potential protocol modifications for the "Nasal Irrigation, Oral Antibiotics, and Subgroup Targeting for Effective Management of Acute Sinusitis" (NOSES) study, a pragmatic randomized controlled trial aiming at improving acute rhinosinusitis management. Focus groups with clinicians and staff at the pretrial stage recommended expanding participant age inclusion criteria, incorporating patients with COVID-19, and shortening the supportive care phase. Participants also discussed patient engagement and recruitment strategies. These practical insights contribute to optimizing the NOSES trial design and underscore the value of qualitative inquiries and healthcare stakeholder engagement in informing clinical trial design.

Academic health sciences libraries ("libraries") offer services that span the entire research lifecycle, positioning them as natural partners in advancing clinical and translational science. Many libraries enjoy active and productive collaborations with Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program hubs and other translational initiatives like the IDeA Clinical & Translational Research Network. This article explores areas of potential partnership between libraries and Translational Science Hubs (TSH), highlighting areas where libraries can support the CTSA Program's five functional areas outlined in the Notice of Funding Opportunity. It serves as a primer for TSH and libraries to explore potential collaborations, demonstrating how libraries can connect researchers to services and resources that support the information needs of TSH.

Introduction: Black and Latino individuals are underrepresented in COVID-19 treatment and vaccine clinical trials, calling for an examination of factors that may predict willingness to participate in trials.

Methods: We administered the Common Survey 2.0 developed by the Community Engagement Alliance (CEAL) Against COVID-19 Disparities to 600 Black and Latino adults in Baltimore City, Prince George's County, Maryland, Montgomery County, Maryland, and Washington, DC, between October and December 2021. We examined the relationship between awareness of clinical trials, social determinants of health challenges, trust in COVID-19 clinical trial information sources, and willingness to participate in COVID-19 treatment and vaccine trials using multinomial regression analysis.

Results: Approximately half of Black and Latino respondents were unwilling to participate in COVID-19 treatment or vaccine clinical trials. Results showed that increased trust in COVID-19 clinical trial information sources and trial awareness were associated with greater willingness to participate in COVID-19 treatment and vaccine trials among Black and Latino individuals. For Latino respondents, having recently experienced more challenges related to social determinants of health was associated with a decreased likelihood of willingness to participate in COVID-19 vaccine trials.

Conclusions: The willingness of Black and Latino adults to participate in COVID-19 treatment and vaccine clinical trials is influenced by trial awareness and trust in trial information sources. Ensuring the inclusion of these communities in clinical trials will require approaches that build greater awareness and trust.

Introduction: The 2018 Common Rule revision intended to improve informed consent by recommending a concise key information (KI) section, yet provided little guidance about how to describe KI. We developed innovative, visual KI templates with attention to health literacy and visual design principles. We explored end users' attitudes, beliefs, and institutional policies that could affect implementing visual KI pages.

Materials and methods: From October 2023 to April 2024, we conducted semi-structured interviews with principal investigators, research staff, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) personnel, including those in oversight/management, and community partners. Forty participants from three academic institutions (in the Midwest, Southeast, and Mountain West) viewed example KI pages and completed interviews. We coded written transcripts inductively and deductively based on the capability, opportunity, and motivation to change behavior (COM-B) framework. Data were analyzed using content analysis and organized thematically.

Results: Participants responded positively to the visual KI examples. They discussed potential benefits, including improving information processing and understanding of study procedures, diversity in research, trust in research, and study workflow. They also described potential challenges to consider before widespread implementation: IRBs' interpretations of federal guidelines, possible impacts on IRB submission processes, the effort/skill required to develop visuals, and difficulty succinctly communicating study risks. There was no consensus about when to use visual KI during consent, and some wondered if they were feasible for all study types.

Discussion: Visual KI offers a promising solution to long-standing informed consent challenges. Future work can explore resources and training to address challenges and promote widespread use.