Journal of Clinical and Translational Science最新文献

Introduction: Integrating community expertise into scientific teams and research endeavors can holistically address complex health challenges and grand societal problems. An in-depth understanding of the integration of team science and community engagement principles is needed. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify how and where team science and community engagement approaches are being used simultaneously in research.

Methods: We followed Levac's enhancement of Arksey and O'Malley's Scoping Review Framework and systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, ERIC, and Embase for team science and community engagement terms through January 2024.

Results: Sixty-seven articles were reviewed. Publications describing integrated team science and community-engaged research have increased exponentially since 2004. Over half were conducted outside of the U.S., utilized qualitative methods, included community-researcher co-development of research question and study design, and described team partnership goals, roles, and management. Fewer studies evaluated partnership, built community capacity, described financial compensation to communities, or described team dynamics facilitation.

Conclusion: As researchers continue to integrate community engagement and team science, common criteria and strategies for integrating the approaches are needed. We provide 19 recommendations for research teams, research institutions, journals, and funding bodies in service of advancing the science and practice of this integration.

The dissemination and implementation (D&I) of evidence at the community level is critical to improve health and advance health equity. Social networks are considered essential to D&I efforts, but there lacks clarity regarding how best to study and leverage networks. We examined networks in community-level D&I frameworks to characterize the range of network actors, activities, and change approaches. We conducted a narrative review of 66 frameworks. Among frameworks that explicitly addressed networks - that is, elaborated on network characteristics, structure, and/or activities - we extracted and synthesized network concepts using descriptive statistics and narrative summaries. A total of 24 (36%) frameworks explicitly addressed networks. Commonly included actors were implementers, adopters/decision-makers, innovation developers, implementation support professionals, and innovation recipients. Network activities included the exchange of resources, knowledge, trust, and norms. Most network-explicit frameworks characterized ties within and across organizations and considered element(s) of network structure - for example, size, centrality, and density. The most common network change strategy was identifying individuals to champion D&I efforts. We discuss opportunities to expand network inquiry in D&I science, including understanding networks as implementation determinants, leveraging network change approaches as implementation strategies, and exploring network change as an implementation outcome.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/cts.2024.514.].

Translational research needs to show value through impact on measures that matter to the public, including health and societal benefits. To this end, the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) identified four categories of impact: Clinical, Community, Economic, and Policy. However, TSBM offers limited guidance on how these areas of impact relate to equity. Central to the structure of our Center for American Indian and Alaska Native Diabetes Translation Research are seven regional, independent Satellite Centers dedicated to community-engaged research. Drawing on our collective experience, we provide empirical evidence about how TSBM applies to equity-focused research that centers community partnerships and recognizes Indigenous knowledge. For this special issue - "Advancing Understanding and Use of Impact Measures in Implementation Science" - our objective is to describe and critically evaluate gaps in the fit of TSBM as an evaluation approach with sensitivity to health equity issues. Accordingly, we suggest refinements to the original TSBM Logic model to add: 1) community representation as an indicator of providing community partners "a seat at the table" across the research life cycle to generate solutions (innovations) that influence equity and to prioritize what to evaluate, and 2) assessments of the representativeness of the measured outcomes and benefits.

Background: Zinc and copper are trace elements that have important roles in the function of the immune system. We aimed to compare serum zinc and copper levels in neonates with and without neonatal sepsis.

Methods: This case-control study examined 54 newborns with sepsis and 54 matched healthy controls admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit of Children's Hospital, Bandar Abbas, Iran. Neonates with the diagnosis of sepsis were regarded as cases and those admitted for other reasons were regarded as controls. Maternal and neonatal serum zinc and copper were measured on admission. Copper, zinc, and copper/zinc ratio differences between case and control groups were analyzed.

Results: Neonatal zinc levels were significantly lower in the sepsis group versus controls (88.65 ± 40.64 vs 143.48 ± 69.57μg/dL, p < 0.001). Sepsis group mothers had lower zinc (66.04 vs 83.37μg/dL, p = 0.008) and copper (124.09 vs 157.74μg/dL, p < 0.001). Neonatal copper levels were slightly lower in the sepsis group. Copper/zinc ratio was significantly higher in the sepsis group (p < 0.001). In the sepsis group, the interval to the resolution of sepsis symptoms was significantly shorter in neonates with excess compared to sufficient copper levels (P = 0.023).

Conclusions: Serum copper and zinc levels have an important role in the immune system's response to the infection. Neonatal serum copper at levels higher than normal can lead to significantly shorter hospital stay. Also, higher Cu/Zn ratios can be found in neonatal sepsis, suggesting the potential utility of this index in the diagnosis of sepsis.

Introduction: Major risk factors for urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC) in people are smoking and occupational exposures. However, up to 30% of human UCC risk is still unexplained. Pet dogs develop UCC that models the clinical behavior of muscle-invasive human UCC. Dogs may therefore provide a useful model for non-tobacco, nonoccupational UCC risk. We previously found that nonsmoking human subjects and their pet dogs share exposures to the urothelial carcinogens acrolein and arsenic. We hypothesized that these urinary exposures would reach genotoxic concentrations in some individuals.

Methods: We exposed immortal and primary human and canine urothelial cells in vitro to acrolein and inorganic arsenic and used the γ-H2AX and comet assays to measure DNA damage.

Results: For acrolein, we found a genotoxic threshold of 1.1-4.4 μM in human cells and a threshold of 20.0-55.6 μM in canine cells. These findings are consistent with potentially genotoxic urinary acrolein exposures in 51% of healthy human subjects and 17% of pet dogs previously surveyed. For inorganic arsenic, we found a genotoxic threshold of ≥10 μM in canine and human cell lines. No healthy human or canine subject reached these urinary inorganic arsenic exposures when assayed at a single time point.

Conclusions: Non-tobacco, nonoccupational acrolein exposures could increase the risk of early urothelial DNA damage in both people and pet dogs. Ongoing studies will assess these chemical exposures in the setting of UCC in both human and canine patients.

This case study presents an analysis of community-driven partnerships, focusing on the nonprofit Baltimore CONNECT (BC) network and its collaborative efforts with a Community-Engaged Research (CEnR) team of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (ICTR). BC has built a network of over 30 community-based organizations to provide health and social services in Baltimore City. The study emphasizes the role of CEnR in supporting community-led decision-making, specifically in the planning and implementation of community health resource fairs. These fairs address social determinants of health by offering a variety of services, including health education, screenings, vaccinations, and resource distribution. The paper details the methods, resource mobilization, and collaborative framing processes in the execution of these fairs in a community-academic collaboration with the ICTR. Results from a 2.5-year period show the positive impact of the fairs on individuals, families, and the community at large in East Baltimore. The findings underscore the importance of community-led collaborations in addressing health disparities and improving overall community well-being. It concludes by reflecting on the sustained engagement, trust-building, and shared learning that emerges from such partnerships, suggesting a model for future community-academic health initiatives.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/cts.2024.240.].