Seattle Children’s Research Institute is identifying the amount and type of health equity scholarship being conducted institution wide. However, methods for categorizing how scholarship is equity-focused are lacking. We developed and evaluated the reliability of a health equity scholarship coding schema applied to Seattle Children’s affiliated scholarship.

A 2021–2022 Ovid MEDLINE affiliation search yielded 3551 affiliated scholarship records, with 1079 records identified via an existing filter as scholarship addressing social determinants of health. Through reliability testing and examining concordance and discordance across three independent coders of these records, we developed a coding schema to classify health equity scholarship (yes/no). When health equity scholarship proved positive/Yes, the coders assigned a one through five maturity rating of the scholarship towards addressing inequities. Subsequent reliability testing including a new coder was conducted for 992 subsequent affiliated scholarship records (Oct 2022–June 2023), with additional testing of the sensitivity and specificity of the existing filter relative to the new coding schema.

Reliability for identifying health equity scholarship was consistently high (Fleiss kappas ≥ .78) and categorization of health equity scholarship into maturity levels was moderate (Fleiss kappas ≥ .47). The coding schema identified additional health equity scholarship not captured in an existing filter for social determinants of health scholarship. Based on the new schema, 23.3% of Seattle Childrens’ affiliated scholarship published October 2002–June 2023 was health equity focused.

This new coding schema can be used to identify and categorize health equity scholarship to help quantitate the health equity focus of portfolios of human-focused research.

Demonstrating the impact of implementation science presents a new frontier for the field, and operationalizing downstream impact is challenging. The Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) offers a new approach for assessing and demonstrating research impact. Here we describe integration of the TSBM into a mentored training network.

Washington University’s Clinical and Translational Science Awards TSBM team collaborated with a National Institute of Mental Health-supported training program, the Implementation Research Institute (IRI), a 2-year training institute in mental health implementation science. This partnership included three phases: (1) introductory workshop on research impact, (2) workshop on demonstrating impact, and (3) sessions to guide dissemination, including interactive tools and consultation with the TSBM research team. Fifteen IRI alumni were invited to participate in the pilot; six responded agreeing to participate in the training, develop TSBM case studies, and provide feedback about their experiences. Participants applied the tools and gave feedback on design, usability, and content. We present their case studies and describe how the IRI used the results to incorporate TSBM into future trainings.

The case studies identified 40 benefits spanning all four TSBM domains, including 21 community, 11 policy, five economic, and three clinical benefits. Participants reported that TSBM training helped them develop a framework for talking about impact. Selecting benefits was challenging for early-stage projects, suggesting the importance of early training.

The case studies showcased the institute’s impact and the fellows’ work and informed refinement of tools and methods for incorporating TSBM into future IRI training.

Community inclusion in research may increase the quality and relevance of research, but doing so in an equitable way is complex. Novel approaches used to build engagement with historically marginalized communities in other sectors may have relevance in the clinical research sector.

To address long-standing gaps and challenges, a stakeholder group was convened to develop a theory of change (ToC), a structured method for obtaining input from stakeholders to enhance the design, conduct, and dissemination of research. The stakeholder group, comprised of Black residents within a metropolitan area, followed a structured monthly meeting schedule for 12 months to produce an outcome map, a model that formally defines aspects of research and engagement for this community.

Stakeholders reported significant improvements in trust in and engagement with research over the 12-month period, but not changes in health empowerment (individual, organizational, or community level). Through this convening process, a ToC and outcome map were developed with the focus of building bidirectional relationships between groups identifying as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) and researchers in Boston, MA. Additionally, the group developed a community ownership model and guidelines for researchers to adhere to when utilizing the ToC and outcome map with BIPOC communities.

Co-ownership of models to develop bidirectional relationships between researchers and community members, such as the ToC and outcome map, may advance and further the value and reach of community-based participatory research while increasing levels of trust and engagement in research.

Social determinants of health (SDoH), such as socioeconomics and neighborhoods, strongly influence health outcomes. However, the current state of standardized SDoH data in electronic health records (EHRs) is lacking, a significant barrier to research and care quality.

We conducted a PubMed search using “SDOH” and “EHR” Medical Subject Headings terms, analyzing included articles across five domains: 1) SDoH screening and assessment approaches, 2) SDoH data collection and documentation, 3) Use of natural language processing (NLP) for extracting SDoH, 4) SDoH data and health outcomes, and 5) SDoH-driven interventions.

Of 685 articles identified, 324 underwent full review. Key findings include implementation of tailored screening instruments, census and claims data linkage for contextual SDoH profiles, NLP systems extracting SDoH from notes, associations between SDoH and healthcare utilization and chronic disease control, and integrated care management programs. However, variability across data sources, tools, and outcomes underscores the need for standardization.

Despite progress in identifying patient social needs, further development of standards, predictive models, and coordinated interventions is critical for SDoH-EHR integration. Additional database searches could strengthen this scoping review. Ultimately, widespread capture, analysis, and translation of multidimensional SDoH data into clinical care is essential for promoting health equity.

The COVID-19 pandemic amplified known challenges associated with the conduct of inpatient clinical trials, while also introducing new ones that needed to be addressed.

Stakeholders based in the United States who participated in the conduct of inpatient therapeutic trials for the treatment of COVID-19 as part of the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines program identified challenges experienced in the conduct of these trials through a series of meeting to discuss and identify common themes. In addition, innovations developed to address these challenges and other potential solutions that may be utilized in future pandemics were highlighted.

Six thematic challenges including infection control considerations, the interplay between provision of clinical care and research, competing clinical trials, arduous consenting procedures, onerous procedural requirements, and participant recruitment including achieving representation of diverse populations were identified and are discussed here.

Consideration of the lessons learned and recommendation outlined here may allow for more efficient conduct of inpatient clinical trials in future pandemics.

Community health workers (CHWs) stand as critical frontline agents within the Brazilian healthcare system. In this qualitative study, we examined the impact of a community-based behavioral change intervention spearheaded by CHWs.

The intervention focused on promoting healthy behaviors – physical activity, nutrition, and emotional well-being – among individuals aged 50 and older living in a rural community in Brazil. The intervention was designed, implemented, and evaluated in close collaboration with CHWs and local administrators. The implementation of the intervention unfolded in two waves, each lasting 12 months. Interviews with CHWs, health administrators, and intervention participants conducted at post-intervention and 6-year follow-up centered on CHWs as delivery agents and examined the implementation of the intervention in primary care contexts around adoption, implementation, and long-term maintenance.

Inductive analysis revealed four themes that highlight CHWs’ motivation to take active roles in health promotion and overcoming challenges such as unfamiliarity with new roles or limited training. In addition, enhanced community bonds, job satisfaction, and trust in CHWs gained through the intervention, empowered CHWs to realize their potential and importance. Another important area relates to the CHWs’ ability to leverage their deep community ties and cultural insights to enhance the intervention’s significance. CHWs’ participation in the program also led to personal benefits and self-care practices, setting an example for the community they serve.

This study underscores the positive impact of a community-based intervention led by CHWs. Such programs have the potential for nationwide dissemination, leveraging the CHWs’ widespread presence and deep community integration.

Researchers generally do an excellent job tracking the scientific impacts of their scholarship in ways that are relevant for academia (e.g., publications, grants) but too often neglect to focus on broader impacts on population health and equity. The National Cancer Institute’s Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) includes 7 P50 Centers that are interested in broad measures of impact. We provide an overview of the approach underway within the ISC3 consortium to identify health and social impacts.

ISC3 adapted and applied the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) to identify the impact on the discipline of D&I science and to consider dissemination and implementation (D&I) impacts in the four original TSBM domains: (1) clinical; (2) community; (3) economic; and (4) policy. To collect data from all Centers, we: (1) co-developed a set of detailed impact indicators with examples; (2) created a data collection template; and (3) summarized the impact data from each center.

Based on data from 48 ISC3 pilot studies, cores, or consortium activities, we identified 84 distinct benefits. The most common impacts were shown for implementation science (43%), community (28%), and clinical (18%). Frequent audiences included primary care providers, public health practitioners, and community partners. ISC3 members highlighted the need for product feedback, and storytelling assistance to advance impact.

The ISC3 consortium is using a participatory approach to successfully apply the TSBM, thus seeking to maximize the real-world impacts of D&I science. The D&I field needs to prioritize ways to more fully document and communicate societal impacts.

Recruitment of participants into research studies remains a major concern for investigators. Using clinical teams to identify potentially eligible patients can present a significant barrier. To overcome this, we implemented a process for using our patient portal, called MyChart, as a new institutional recruitment option utilizing our electronic health record’s existing functionality.

To streamline the institutional approval process, we established a working group comprised of representatives from human subject protection, information technology, and privacy and vetted our process with many stakeholder groups. Our specific process for study approval is described and started with a consultation with our recruitment and retention function funded through our Clinical and Translational Science Award.

The time from consultation to the first message(s) sent ranged from 84 to 442 days and declined slightly over time. The overall patient response rate to MyChart messages about available research studies was 23% with one third of those saying they were interested in learning more. The response rate for Black and Hispanic patients was about 50% that of White patients.

Many different types of studies from any medical specialty successfully identified interested patients using this option. Study teams needed support in defining appropriate inclusion/exclusion criteria to identify the relevant population in the electronic health records and they needed assistance writing study descriptions in plain language. Using MyChart for recruitment addressed a critical barrier and opened up the opportunity to provide a full recruitment consultation to identify additional recruitment channels the study teams would not have considered otherwise.