scholarly journals 3406 Understanding the Barriers, Challenges, and Facilitators to Community-Engaged Research: A Review of a CTSA Community Engagement Pilot Program

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 99-100
Author(s):  
Ashley Dunn ◽  
Kendra L. Smith ◽  
Rhonda McClinton-Brown ◽  
Jill W. Evans ◽  
Lisa Goldman-Rosas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Disparities ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Pilot Project ◽  
Pilot Program ◽  
Stanford University ◽  
Community Engaged Research ◽  
Academic Partnerships ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Engaging patients and consumers in research is a complex process where innovative strategies are needed to effectively translate scientific discoveries into improvements in the public’s health (Wilkins et. al., 2013; Terry et. al., 2013). The Clinical Translational Science Awards (CTSA)—supported by the National Institute of Health (NIH) under the auspices of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)—aim to provide resources and support needed to strengthen our nation’s clinical and translational research (CTR) enterprise. In 2008, Stanford University was awarded a CTSA from the NIH, establishing Spectrum (Stanford Center for Clinical and Translational Research and Education) and its Community Engagement (CE) Program aimed at building long-standing community-academic research partnerships for translational research in the local area surrounding Stanford University. To date, the CE Pilot Program has funded 38 pilot projects from the 2009-2017 calendar year. The purpose of this study was to understand, through a unique pilot program, the barriers, challenges, and facilitators to community-engaged research targeting health disparities as well as community-academic partnerships. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Investigators conducted a qualitative study of the community engagement pilot program. Previous pilot awardees were recruited via email and phone to participate in a one-hour focus group to discuss their pilot project experience—describing any barriers, challenges, and facilitators to implementing their pilot project. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The focus group revealed that community engage research through the pilot program was not only appreciated by faculty, but projects were successful, and partnerships developed were sustained after funding. Specifically, the pilot program has seen success in both traditional and capacity building metrics: the initial investment of $652,250.00 to fund 38 projects has led to over $11 million dollars in additional grant funding. In addition, pilot funding has led to peer-reviewed publications, data resources for theses and dissertations, local and national presentations/news articles, programmatic innovation, and community-level impact. Challenges and barriers were mainly related to timing, grant constraints, and university administrative processes. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The Community Engagement Pilot Program demonstrates an innovative collaborative approach to support community-academic partnerships. This assessment highlights the value and importance of pilot program to increase community engaged research targeting health disparities. Challenges are mainly administrative in nature: pilot awardees mentioned difficulties working on university quarterly timelines, challenges of subcontracting or sharing money with community partners, onerous NIH prior approval process, and limitations to carryover funding. However, pilot grants administered through the program strengthen the capacity to develop larger scale community-based research initiatives.

scholarly journals 3519 Community Engagement And Health Disparities In Clinical And Translational Research Course: A Joint Academic Institution Approach

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 65-65
Author(s):  
Rakale Collins Quarells ◽  
Winifred Thompson ◽  
Elleen Yancey ◽  
Tabia Akintobi
Keyword(s):  
Health Disparities ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Behavioral Science ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Community Engaged Research ◽  
Institute Of Technology

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Current translational research moves beyond bench to bedside and includes translating scientific evidence to clinical practice and into the community settings (T1-T5). This progression is dynamic, involving patient-physician, community, and academic organizational structures and translational strategies. However, basic and clinician scientists are often unprepared and/or ill equipped to successfully conduct community-engaged research which may aid in more efficient translation of their research findings. The recognized need for such training was the impetus for our course which was originally designed and implemented through the innovative and sustainable joint academic-community partnerships of Morehouse School of Medicine and Emory University with the support of Georgia Institute of Technology. Since that time the course has evolved with the recently added partner, University of Georgia. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Initially developed and implemented in 2008, the course continues through the Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance, Community Engagement and Research Program (GaCTSA/CERP), a Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) (UL1TR002378). The course is an introduction to community-engaged research concepts/methods. This includes behavioral science; community engagement principles; clinical translational research partnerships; and strategies in planning, implementing, evaluating, and disseminating community-engaged research to address health disparities. The course is open to the four GaCTSA academic institutions’ faculty, MD, PhD, MS in Clinical Research, and the Graduate Certificate in Translational Science students. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Students received scholarly and hands-on training in community engaged research through faculty- and community member-led didactic lectures/interactions, team science activities, and a final assignment involving work with a community-based organization. From 2008-2017 over 230 students have matriculated through this course and many are now involved in community-engaged translational research. Most students in the class were MD/PhD students (33%), however 21% were junior faculty, attending physicians (21%), or fellows/residents/ postdocs (15%). Evaluations over the years indicate that most students were unware of Community-Based Participatory or community-engagement strategies for conducting translational research. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Effective application of community-engaged translational research requires essential skills training to facilitate the translational research paradigm. Translational researchers, at any stage, will benefit from understanding the entire translational research process and the importance of quickly bringing research advances to patients and the community.

scholarly journals Clinical and Translational Research and Community Engagement: Implications for Researcher Capacity Building

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 329-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Sprague Martinez ◽  
Beverley Russell ◽  
Carolyn Leung Rubin ◽  
Laurel K. Leslie ◽  
Doug Brugge
Keyword(s):  
Community Engagement ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Capacity Building ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

scholarly journals 3573 Critical Barriers to Effective Community-Academic Research Partnerships and Potential Solutions

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 86-87
Author(s):  
Susan J Woolford ◽  
Ayse G. Buyuktur ◽  
Patricia Piechowski ◽  
Aalap Doshi ◽  
Erica E. Marsh
Keyword(s):  
Community Engagement ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
The State ◽  
Academic Institutions ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Research Partnerships ◽  
Partnership Development ◽  
Community Engaged Research ◽  
Academic Partnerships ◽  
Effective Community

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Background: The importance of engaging community in research and fostering community-academic research partnerships is increasingly acknowledged by Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) institutes. However, forming and maintaining such collaborations is often hampered by numerous challenges. It is critical to investigate the barriers to effective community-academic partnerships and to develop novel approaches to overcome these barriers. Objective: To explore community and academic perspectives of the challenges faced by community-academic research partnerships and potential solutions to these identified challenges. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Methods: In an effort to explore creative approaches to address these issues, the Community Engagement Program at the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research (MICHR), the CTSA site that serves Michigan, hosted a retreat to elicit the input of community members and academics from across the state. There was a mix of participants ranging from those with established community-academic partnerships to others who were new to community-engaged research and in early stages of forming partnerships. At the retreat, attendees were randomly divided into groups and asked to answer the specific question, “What are your barriers to partnering in research?” After each group identified a set of barriers and reported their findings to the entire room, attendees were asked to work again in their small groups to discuss potential solutions to these barriers. Ideas for solutions were also shared with the entire room. As part of the process of brainstorming about these questions, attendees were asked to document their ideas --- for both barriers and solutions --- on post-it notes which were then grouped by category. Artifacts from the retreat were saved digitally and transcripts made from these records. The findings were then analyzed to identify common themes. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Results: Eighty-six participants attended the retreat from across the state of Michigan. Forty-three represented community organizations that focus on addressing a wide array of social determinants of health issues. The remaining forty-three participants represented various academic institutions. The most frequently mentioned challenges to community-academic partnerships were related to communication and relationship building. To overcome barriers in these areas, participants noted that it is critical to collaboratively and explicitly identify shared goals, values and norms in the early stages of partnership development. This was closely linked to the need for additional funding to help foster and strengthen relationships by allowing partners to spend time together to both work and socialize informally, preferably in face-to-face settings. These were deemed crucial for building trust and common ground. In addition, more equitable funding and role distribution --- including shared leadership and governance of research projects between community and academia--- that recognizes and supports the true costs of involvement in research for community members was viewed as important. Other frequently noted issues on the part of community members were the need for greater respect for community partners and for more training opportunities to build capacity within communities to participate in research. Participants from academic institutions emphasized that the current requirements and timeline for promotion in academia make it harder for them to participate in community-engaged research, especially as early career researchers. They maintained that wider recognition of the value of community-engaged research is necessary and that this requires the support of home departments. Finally, participants underscored the importance of building infrastructure to better connect potential partners from the community and academia by making it easier to identify common interests and reciprocal strengths. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Conclusion: The problems faced by community-academic partnerships may be alleviated by working with community and academic members to identify potential solutions. Further work is needed to systematically examine barriers and the efficacy of solutions to enhance community-academic partnerships. Acknowledgements: We thank all attendees of the MICHR Community Engagement retreat for their participation in this activity that explored barriers to effective community-academic partnerships. Their honest and frank feedback was essential to broaching sensitive topics related to partnership development, and to identify realistic and practical solutions. We also thank all members of the planning committee and our colleagues in the Community Engagement Program for their work on bringing together community and academic members for this retreat. This project was supported by grant number UL1TR002240 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS).

scholarly journals 2174 Building the next generation of translational researchers in health disparities

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 52-52
Author(s):  
Carlamarie Noboa ◽  
Zulmarie de Pedro-Serbía ◽  
Lourdes E. Soto de Laurido ◽  
Aracelis H. Chardon
Keyword(s):  
Health Disparities ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Online Course ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Working Together ◽  
Study Population ◽  
Research Consortium ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Translational research involves researchers’ teams working together to address health issues. However, successful translational researchers in health disparities require a set of competencies and skills. In order to increase the number of new minority investigators in translational research focused on health disparities, the Hispanics-in-Research Capability: SoHP & SoM Partnership and the Puerto Rico Clinical and Translational Research Consortium designed and implemented a webinar series “Fostering the Next Generation of Researchers in Health Disparities.” METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: From March 31 to July 14, 2017, this webinar series offered the theoretical perspectives of health disparities, research methodology specific to its study, and intervention strategies to address health disparities in communities through minority investigators. National and local interdisciplinary experts were the presenters. Participants’ experience and impact were assessed through a self-administrated questionnaire. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 78 minority investigators participated in this webinar. Overall, participants indicated that the webinar improved their knowledge and skills about health disparities research. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Results guide the programs actions plans to enhance and support the translational researchers’ capacity. Diverse capacity building initiatives including peer-to-peer education, online course, tailored coaching, and other interventions have been designed to address researchers’ needs. This webinar was a pathway to build the next generation of translational researchers in health disparities.

scholarly journals 2215 The value of storytelling in community stakeholder feedback for clinical and translational research

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 75-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie L. Novak ◽  
Sheba George ◽  
Kenneth Wallston ◽  
Yolanda Vaughn ◽  
Tiffany Israel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Community Engagement ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Lived Experiences ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Receiver Functions ◽  
The Body ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Community Stakeholder ◽  
Community Stakeholders ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Community stakeholder engagement along the translational spectrum of biomedical research has been identified as a potentially crucial factor for encouraging participation among underrepresented groups, improving research relevance, and adoption of evidence into practice. Although we have developed various methods to improve communication between researchers and community stakeholders, we have not focused much attention on the manner by which community stakeholders choose to communicate with researchers in scientific feedback settings. In our PCORI funded study using Community Engagement Studios to elicit feedback on research from community stakeholders, we found that feedback from participants was frequently provided in the form of stories. This presentation aims to describe these narratives, examine their function in the feedback process and consider how a focus on these narratives enhances our understanding of community engagement for clinical and translational research. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The present study comes from a larger randomized, controlled methodological study. We randomized 20 investigators seeking input on their research to either a Community Engagement Studio (a panel of community members or patients) or a Translational Studio (a panel of researchers). Any faculty member or research trainee at Vanderbilt University or Meharry Medical College was eligible to participate. Each Studio panel was convened to provide project-specific input. The 153 stakeholders who participated in CE Studios were patients, caregivers, or patient advocates identified by health status, health condition, or demographic variables based on the project-based needs of the 20 researchers randomized in this project. Stakeholders include individuals with diabetes, heart failure, Parkinson’s disease, sickle cell disease, and ICU survivors. All stakeholders had experience as a partner or consultant on a research project or through serving on a research advisory board or committee. All Studios were recorded and transcribed, and experienced qualitative researchers analyzed the data. For this paper, we focus on the narrative feedback in the form of stories elicited in the CE Studios. Using qualitative methods, we coded the transcripts from the 20 CE Studios to identify stories and their functions in the feedback. Stories were defined as narratives with (a) at least one actor (b) action that unfolds over time, and (c) a realization, destination, or conflict resolution (i.e., a point of the story). For example, “I refilled my mother’s pillbox on Sunday and on Friday I found the pillbox still completely full” would be a story, however, “my mother doesn’t take her meds correctly” would not. We coded the stories for how they facilitated communication in the Studio using an open-coding style, that is we did not apply a specific theoretical framework of interaction or communication. It was possible for any given story to have more than one code applied to it; that is they were not classified in a mutually exclusive way. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We found 5 major functions of stories in the Studios. Basic sender-receiver functions were noted, including responding to queries and seeking mutual understanding. The other functions served to move or add to the conversation, including adding expansion and depth, characterizing abstract concepts, and providing context, with the latter being the most frequent function of stories. Speakers provided context in a wide variety of dimensions, ranging from the context of the body to spatial and institutional contexts. These stories served to help others understand the speakers’ lived experiences. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: We often engage community members in research for their expertise with regards to their lived experiences as patients or community members, and for their experiences of healthcare and social determinants of health in particular community contexts. Yet we may expect them to share their expertise in a manner that is consistent with a scientific, explanatory framing and language. However, we know there is a difference in the way that professional researchers discuss research Versus how community members discuss research. In our PCORI study, we found that our Community Studio participants relied on storytelling as an important means to communicate their lived experiences. Their stories were often key to communicating the complex contexts of their experiences. We focus on examining these narrative practices and their functions in how community members engaged with and provided advice to researchers. This understanding may help us in: (1) Characterizing the contexts, processes, and meanings associated with community stakeholder experiences that are otherwise difficult to access. (2) Identifying community priorities relevant to research that are embedded in community narratives to better align research priorities with community needs and to improve patient outcomes. (3) Collecting insights for improving the design of community engagement activities in research. (4) Harnessing more fully the potential of community engagement in research.

scholarly journals 3432 Stanford MedTech: An Innovative CTSA-Supported Pilot Program

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 126-127
Author(s):  
Ashley Dunn ◽  
Linda Lucian ◽  
Gordon Saul ◽  
Paul Yock ◽  
Mark Cullen
Keyword(s):  
Patient Care ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Mobile Technologies ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Pilot Program ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Funding Mechanism ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Helping researchers assess and effectively translate innovations into healthcare improvements is a complex process (Terry et. al., 2013). The Clinical Translational Science Awards (CTSA)—supported by the National Institute of Health (NIH) under the auspices of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)— provide the resources and support needed to strengthen our nation’s clinical and translational research (CTR) enterprise. In 2008, Stanford University was awarded a CTSA from the NIH, establishing Spectrum (the Stanford Center for Clinical and Translational Research and Education). Under the Spectrum umbrella, the Byers Center for Biodesign manages the MedTech Pilot Program with the goal of translating discoveries into novel health technologies that address important unmet health needs. The MedTech Pilot Program is an innovative funding mechanism that seeks to (1) stimulate clinical translational research, (2) help promising projects bridge the gap between the bench and the patients’ bedside, and (3) encourage collaborative, transdisciplinary work. Specifically, the Pilot Program offers up to $50,000 to support projects involving medical devices and mobile technologies used for (1) therapeutic applications and (2) device-based patient-specific (or POC) diagnostic applications. This analysis of the MedTech Pilot Program will: 1) describe the Program’s structure and process; 2) highlight the intensive, hands-on mentorship and practical guidance awardees receive that enables them to more efficiently and effectively advance their projects toward patient care; and 3) characterize the progress of the 36 funded projects. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Key elements of the Pilot Program’s infrastructure and mentoring processes as they relate to project outcomes were identified. Additionally, outcomes data were collected from two sources: (1) annual survey of Pilot Awardees and (2) publicly available information relevant to the pilot projects. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The Pilot Program’s framework and infrastructure has supported a diverse group of transdisciplinary projects. These projects were evaluated using both traditional and non-traditional metrics (e.g., patents, startups, publications). The initial investment of $1.5 million to fund 36 projects has led to over $88 million dollars in additional funding. Additionally, taking full advantage of the expertise in Silicon Valley, strong mentorship has helped advance projects along the clinical and translational path. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The Pilot Program has benefited Stanford innovators and researchers by providing seed funding to help promising projects bridge the gap between the bench and the bedside. The intensive, hands-on mentorship, early pilot funding, and practical guidance pilot awardees receive effectively help translate their technologies into patient care.

scholarly journals 3347 Developing Relevant Community Engagement Metrics to Evaluate Engagement Support and Outcomes

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 87-88
Author(s):  
Grisel M. Robles-Schrader ◽  
Keith A Herzog ◽  
Josefina Serrato
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Process Analysis ◽  
National Level ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Implementation Phase ◽  
Community Engaged Research ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Academic Partnerships

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The goals in this project were two-fold:. Develop metrics that assessed community engagement support the center provides, and. Systematically document the fluid and time-intensive nature of providing community engaged research support, as well as key outcomes. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The CCH utilized REDCap software in combination with Excel, to create and implement a data collection system to monitor and report on the full spectrum of engagement activities offered by the center. Center staff collaborated in identifying relevant metrics, developing the data collection instruments, and beta-testing instruments with real examples. This facilitated the integration of contextual factors (defined as factors such as the history, size, and diversity of the community, the organizational mission, the structure and size of the CE team, the number of years a university has been supporting community-engaged research work, etc.). Taking a collaborative approach in developing the center’s evaluation plan offered the added benefit of facilitating staff/faculty buy-in, building staff capacity, and engaging the team in understanding concepts related to performance measurement versus management. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Key benefits of these engagement tracking systems include: consolidating data into a central location, standardizing tracking processes and critical definitions, and supporting more automated reporting systems (e.g., dashboards) that facilitate quality improvement and highlight success stories. Data were compiled and reported via on-line dashboard (REDCap and Tableau) to help center leadership and staff analyze:. Quality improvement issues (How quickly are we responding to a request for support? Are we providing resources that meet the needs of community partners? Academics? Community-academic partnerships?);. Qualitative process analysis (In what research phase are we typically receiving requests for support (e.g. proposal development phase, implementation phase, etc.)? What types of projects are applying for seed grants? After the seed grant ends, are the community-academic partnerships continuing to partner on research activities?);. Outcomes (Are new partnerships stemming from our support? Are supported research projects leading to new policies, practices, programs?). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: There is a gap in the literature regarding meaningful, actionable, and feasible community engaged metrics that capture critical processes and outcomes. This project identified many more relevant metrics and demonstrates that it is worthwhile to take a collaborative, inclusive approach to identifying, tracking, and reporting on key process and outcome metrics in order to convey a more comprehensive picture of community engagement activities and to inform continuous improvement efforts. Community engagement centers across CTSIs offer a similar range of programs and services. At the same time, much of the community-engaged research literature describes metrics related to community-academic grant submissions, funds awarded, and peer-reviewed publications. Experts that work in the arena of providing community engagement support recognize that these metrics are sufficient in understanding the spectrum of engagement opportunities. Community engagement (CE) teams nationally can utilize these metrics in developing their evaluation infrastructure. At the national level, NCATS can utilize the metrics for CE common metrics related to these programs and services. Critical to this process:. Leveraging resources that will facilitate collecting generalizable data (national metrics) while allowing sites to continue collecting nuanced data (local programs and services). Gathering input from CE teams, stakeholders, and researchers to further refine these metrics and data collection methods. Utilizing REDCap, Tableau and other resources that can facilitate data collection and analysis efforts.

scholarly journals 2332

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
pp. 74-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis P. Scanlon ◽  
Laura J. Wolf ◽  
Cynthia Chuang ◽  
Jen Kraschnewski ◽  
Eugene Lengerich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Research Committee ◽  
Literature Synthesis ◽  
Individual Project ◽  
Study Population ◽  
Effective Community ◽  
Major Factors ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Community engagement is a commonly used term, but is complex in both meaning and application. In order to help academic institutions and administrators develop infrastructure to promote and support community engagement and to help investigators work productively with communities, this analysis discusses the major components of community engagement in research on both the institutional and individual project levels as well as the interplay between them. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A literature synthesis conducted by a community engagement in research committee at 1 CTSA institution that examined the myriad factors related to effective community engagement in research identified across multiple disciplines was used to distill the major factors identified, assesses the interplay of the identified factors, and produce a conceptual model to help administrators and investigators apply best practices in engaging communities in clinical and translational research. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: This work takes a concept—community engagement in research—that is often stated and discussed, but is highly complex and challenging to implement—and identifies and discusses the multiple, interrelated factors germane to it. The model illustrates that while community engagement in research is implemented in the context of individual projects, a deep and continual interplay between individual projects and the goals, capacity, and policies of research institutions is needed for rigorous, ethical, and effective community engagement. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Results are presented through a conceptual framework which displays the major components needed for rigorous, ethical, and effective community engagement in clinical and translational research. In addition, the conceptual framework presented will provide assistance to those developing approaches to measure and evaluate institutional readiness for community engagement in research as well as the effectiveness of individual community engagement efforts.

scholarly journals 2496

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
pp. 81-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meryl Sufian ◽  
Derrick Tabor ◽  
Phuong-Tu Le
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Disparities ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Health Disparity ◽  
Minority Health ◽  
Underserved Populations ◽  
Burden Of Illness ◽  
Adherence To Medication ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: (1) To explain and discuss minority health and health disparities and the mechanisms, for example, individual behaviors and lifestyle, genetics and epigenetics, physical and cultural environment, and clinical events and health care, that lead to health disparities. (2) To explore the intersection between health disparity science and clinical and translational science. (3) To present and discuss the NIMHD Framework and how it can be used to guide multilevel research to address minority health and health disparities. (4) To highlight examples of NIMHD-funded novel and innovative research relevant to clinical and translational research from a health disparities perspective. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The NIMHD Research Framework will be introduced that is currently being used by NIMHD to address minority health and health disparity research. The Framework looks at targeted populations in relation to biological, behavioral, physical, and sociocultural environmental domains of influence as well as the health care system. These domains have different levels of influence: individual, family/interpersonal, community, and population. Targeted populations include NIH-designated health disparity populations, that include racial/ethnic minorities, socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, underserved rural populations, and sexual and gender minorities. The following research opportunities are among the many opportunities offered by NIMHD: Disparities in Surgical Care and Outcomes Social Epigenomics for Minority Health and Health Disparities Addressing Health Disparities Among Immigrant Populations. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Select examples of NIMHD supported minority health and health disparities research that intersects with clinical and translational research will be presented. Candidate examples include: Genetic Architecture of Lupus (SLE) in individuals with Asian ancestry; A Novel Racial Disparity Marker for Risk Prediction in Triple Negative Breast Cancer Patients; Self-Applied Wearable Ultrasound Therapy for Osteoarthritis Management in Rural Central NY; Design and Development of a Multifunctional Self-service Health Screening Kiosk. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Despite notable improvements gained as a result of medical and scientific advances, there continues to be an alarming disproportionate burden of illness and lack of representation in research among minority and other socially disadvantaged and underserved populations. To meet this challenge, NIMHD is committed to supporting a wide range of clinical and translational research aimed at the development of innovative strategies and approaches to reduce and, eventually, eliminate health disparities. NIMHD’s mission, research priorities, and funding opportunities are relevant to the efforts and interests of clinical and translational scientists, especially those interested in the translation of research findings into interventions, products, and tools that may improve minority health and quality of life, increase adherence to medication and treatment regimens, increase access, and improve the delivery of health services.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document