Journal of Clinical and Translational Science最新文献

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/cts.2024.169.].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/cts.2024.91.].

Creating a sustainable residency research program is necessary to develop a sustainable research pipeline, as highlighted by the recent Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 2024 Consensus Conference. We sought to describe the implementation of a novel, immersive research program for first-year emergency medicine residents. We describe the curriculum development, rationale, implementation process, and lessons learned from the implementation of a year-long research curriculum for first-year residents. We further evaluated resident perception of confidence in research methodology, interest in research, and the importance of their research experience through a 32-item survey. In two cohorts, 25 first-year residents completed the program. All residents met their scholarly project requirements by the end of their first year. Two conference abstracts and one peer-reviewed publication were accepted for publication, and one is currently under review. Survey responses indicated that there was an increase in residents' perceived confidence in research methodology, but this was limited by the small sample size. In summary, this novel resident research curriculum demonstrated a standardized, reproducible, and sustainable approach to provide residents with an immersive research program.

Introduction: Pragmatic trials aim to speed translation to practice by integrating study procedures in routine care settings. This study evaluated implementation outcomes related to clinician and patient recruitment and participation in a trial of community paramedicine (CP) and presents successes and challenges of maintaining pragmatic study features.

Methods: Adults in the pre-hospital setting, emergency department (ED), or hospital being considered for referral to the ED/hospital or continued hospitalization for intermediate-level care were randomized 1:1 to CP care or usual care. Referral and enrollment data were tracked administratively, and patient characteristics were abstracted from the electronic health record (EHR). Enrolled patients completed baseline surveys, and a subset of intervention patients were interviewed. All CPs and a sample of clinicians and administrators were invited to complete a survey and interview.

Results: Between January 2022 and February 2023, 240 enrolled patients (42% rural) completed surveys, and 22 completed an interview; 63 staff completed surveys and 20 completed an interview. Ninety-three clinicians in 27 departments made at least one referral. Factors related to referrals included program awareness and understanding the CP practice scope. Most patients were enrolled in the hospital, but characteristics were similar to the primary care population and included older and medically complex patients. Challenges to achieving representativeness included limited EHR infrastructure, constraints related to patient consenting, and clinician concerns about patient randomization disrupting preferred care.

Conclusion: Future pragmatic trials in busy clinical settings may benefit from regulatory policies and EHR capabilities that allow for real-world study conduct and representative participation. Trial registration: NCT05232799.

Introduction: Researchers and policymakers recognize that leveraging data routinely collected in clinical practice can support improved research and patient care. Embedding elements of clinical trials, such as patient identification and trial data acquisition, into clinical practice can enable research access and increase efficiencies by reducing duplication of trial and care activities. Yet, cultural, administrative, and data barriers exist. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) developed evidenced-based, multi-partner recommendations to facilitate embedding interventional, randomized trials into clinical practice.

Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews (IDIs) with trial designers and implementers to describe their motivations for embedding interventional, randomized trials into clinical practice. Additionally, we aimed to identify barriers and potential solutions to implementing such trials. Interviews were audio-recorded and analyzed using applied thematic analysis.

Results: We conducted 16 IDIs with 18 trial designers and implementers. Motivations for embedding trials into clinical practice included the desire to implement a learning health system and evaluate trials in real-world settings. Barriers to trial implementation focused on limited staff time and availability, the lack of buy-in, and difficulties using electronic health record data. Solutions included minimizing healthcare settings and patient burden, having a sufficient data and research infrastructure in place, and creating a culture change.

Conclusion: The results informed CTTI recommendations to facilitate the design and operation of embedded trials. These recommendations emphasize areas where sponsors and investigators can rethink the design and conduct of clinical trials to ultimately realize an aligned system of research and care.

Traditional approaches for evaluating the impact of scientific research - mainly scholarship (i.e., publications, presentations) and grant funding - fail to capture the full extent of contributions that come from larger scientific initiatives. The Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) was developed to support more comprehensive evaluations of scientific endeavors, especially research designed to translate scientific discoveries into innovations in clinical or public health practice and policy-level changes. Here, we present the domains of the TSBM, including how it was expanded by researchers within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) program supported by the National Cancer Institute. Next, we describe five studies supported by the Penn ISC3, each focused on testing implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics to reduce key practice gaps in the context of cancer care and identify how each study yields broader impacts consistent with TSBM domains. These indicators include Capacity Building, Methods Development (within the Implementation Field) and Rapid Cycle Approaches, implementing Software Technologies, and improving Health Care Delivery and Health Care Accessibility. The examples highlighted here can help guide other similar scientific initiatives to conceive and measure broader scientific impact to fully articulate the translation and effects of their work at the population level.

Introduction: Community-Engaged Research (CEnR) and Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) require validated measures and metrics for evaluating research partnerships and outcomes. There is a need to adapt and translate existing measures for practical use with diverse and non-English-speaking communities. This paper describes the Spanish translation and adaptation of Engage for Equity's Community Engagement Survey (E² CES), a nationally validated and empirically-supported CEnR evaluation tool, into the full-length "Encuesta Comunitaria," and a pragmatic shorter version "Fortaleciendo y Uniendo EsfueRzos Transdisciplinarios para Equidad de Salud" (FUERTES).

Methods: Community and academic partners from the mainland US, Puerto Rico, and Nicaragua participated in translating and adapting E² CES, preserving content validity, psychometric properties, and importance to stakeholders of items, scales, and CBPR constructs (contexts, partnership processes, intervention and research actions, and outcomes). Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and convergent validity was assessed via a correlation matrix among scales.

Results: Encuesta Comunitaria respondents (N = 57) self-identified as primarily Latinos/as/x (97%), female (74%), and academics (61%). Cronbach's alpha values ranged from 0.72 to 0.88 for items in the context domain to 0.90-0.92 for items in the intervention/research domain. Correlations were found as expected among subscales, with the strongest relationships found for subscales within the same CBPR domain. Results informed the creation of FUERTES.

Conclusions: Encuenta Comunitaria and FUERTES offer CEnR/CBPR practitioners two validated instruments for assessing their research partnering practices, and outcomes. Moreover, FUERTES meets the need for shorter pragmatic tools. These measures can further strengthen CEnR/CBPR involving Latino/a/x communities within the US, Latin America, and globally.

Introduction: Clinical research is critical for healthcare advancement, but participant recruitment remains challenging. Clinical research professionals (CRPs; e.g., clinical research coordinator, research assistant) perform eligibility prescreening, ensuring adherence to study criteria while upholding scientific and ethical standards. This study investigates the key information CRP prioritizes during eligibility prescreening, providing insights to optimize data standardization, and recruitment approaches.

Methods: We conducted a freelisting survey targeting 150 CRPs from diverse domains (i.e., neurological disorders, rare diseases, and other diseases) where they listed essential information they look for from medical records, participant/caregiver inquiries, and discussions with principal investigators to determine a potential participant's research eligibility. We calculated the salience scores of listed items using Anthropac, followed by a two-level analytic procedure to classify and thematically categorize the data.

Results: The majority of participants were female (81%), identified as White (44%) and as non-Hispanic (64.5%). The first-level analysis universally emphasized age, medication list, and medical history across all domains. The second-level analysis illuminated domain-specific approaches in information retrieval: for instance, history of present illness was notably significant in neurological disorders during participant and principal investigator inquiries, while research participation was distinctly salient in potential participant inquiries within the rare disease domain.

Conclusion: This study unveils the intricacies of eligibility prescreening, with both universal and domain-specific methods observed. Variations in data use across domains suggest the need for tailored prescreening in clinical research. Incorporating these insights into CRP training and refining prescreening tools, combined with an ethical, participant-focused approach, can advance eligibility prescreening practices.

The Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) Cross-Trial Statistics Group gathered lessons learned from statisticians responsible for the design and analysis of the 11 ACTIV therapeutic master protocols to inform contemporary trial design as well as preparation for a future pandemic. The ACTIV master protocols were designed to rapidly assess what treatments might save lives, keep people out of the hospital, and help them feel better faster. Study teams initially worked without knowledge of the natural history of disease and thus without key information for design decisions. Moreover, the science of platform trial design was in its infancy. Here, we discuss the statistical design choices made and the adaptations forced by the changing pandemic context. Lessons around critical aspects of trial design are summarized, and recommendations are made for the organization of master protocols in the future.