Latinx populations are underrepresented in clinical research. Asking Latinx research participants about their research experiences, barriers, and facilitators could help to improve research participation for these populations.

The Salud Estres y Resilencia (SER) Hispano cohort study is a longitudinal cohort study of young adult Latinx immigrants whose design and conduct were tailored for their study population. We administered the Research Participant Perception Survey (RPPS) to SER Hispano participants to assess their experiences in the study. We describe overall results from the RPPS and compare results of surveys administered to SER Hispano participants via email versus telephone.

Of 340 participants who were contacted with the RPPS, 142 (42%) responded. Among respondents, 53 (37%) responded by initial email contact; and 89 (63%) responded by subsequent phone contact. The majority of respondents were between 35 and 44 years of age (54%), female (76%), and of Cuban origin (50%). Overall, research participants expressed high satisfaction with their research experience; 84% stated that they would “definitely” recommend research participation to friends and family, with no significant difference by method of survey administration (P = 0.45). The most common factor that was chosen that would influence future research participation was having summary results of the research shared with them (72%).

We found that culturally tailored studies can be good experiences for Latinx research participants; and we found that use of the RPPS can be administered successfully, particularly when administered by more than one method, including telephone, to evaluate and to improve research experiences for this population.

External funding is a critical metric in research career advancement, particularly in biomedical fields. Grant-writing coaching emerges as a strategy in biomedical workforce development. Recognizing disparities in grant success among early-career investigators from underrepresented groups, the National Research Mentoring Network Strategic Empowerment Tailored for Health Equity Investigators (NRMN-SETH) provides grant-writing coaching to support these scholars. This study explores the roles of NRMN-SETH grant-writing coaches in fostering technical skills and social support in a group setting.

This qualitative study employed semi-structured interviews with 16 NIH-funded investigators who served as coaches within the NRMN-SETH program. Data were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using the Framework Method, identifying key roles related to coaching practices.

Findings reveal that grant-writing coaching involved personalized guidance, confidence-building, and structured group interactions. Coaches emphasized individualized feedback on grant components and provided iterative guidance. The group-based coaching environment fostered peer support and normalized challenges, creating a collaborative atmosphere conducive to skill-building. Coaches noted the importance of institutional support in enabling participants to engage in the program, though challenges arose in managing participants with varying grant-writing experience.

This study highlights the potential of grant-writing coaching to enhance research capacity among underrepresented scholars, offering a structured, supportive approach that complements traditional mentorship. Integrating tailored coaching programs within biomedical workforce development, particularly at minority-serving and low-resourced institutions, may reduce disparities in grant success. Future research could expand on these findings by investigating the long-term career impacts of coaching and testing the effectiveness of peer-led, group-based components in grant-writing success.

Clinical trials provide the “gold standard” evidence for advancing the practice of medicine, even as they evolve to integrate real-world data sources. Modern clinical trials are increasingly incorporating real-world data sources – data not intended for research and often collected in free-living contexts. We refer to trials that incorporate real-world data sources as real-world trials. Such trials may have the potential to enhance the generalizability of findings, facilitate pragmatic study designs, and evaluate real-world effectiveness. However, key differences in the design, conduct, and implementation of real-world vs traditional trials have ramifications in data management that can threaten their desired rigor.

Three examples of real-world trials that leverage different types of data sources – wearables, medical devices, and electronic health records are described. Key insights applicable to all three trials in their relationship to Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) are derived.

Insight and recommendations are given on four topic areas: A. Charge of the DSMB; B. Composition of the DSMB; C. Pre-launch Activities; and D. Post-launch Activities. We recommend stronger and additional focus on data integrity.

Clinical trials can benefit from incorporating real-world data sources, potentially increasing the generalizability of findings and overall trial scale and efficiency. The data, however, present a level of informatic complexity that relies heavily on a robust data science infrastructure. The nature of monitoring the data and safety must evolve to adapt to new trial scenarios to protect the rigor of clinical trials.

West Virginia is a rural state with high rates of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and prediabetes. The Diabetes Prevention and Management (DPM) program was a health coach (HC)-led, 12-month community-based lifestyle intervention.

The study examined the impact of the DPM program on changes in glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) and weight over twelve months among rural adults with diabetes and prediabetes. Program feasibility and acceptability were also explored.

An explanatory sequential quantitative and qualitative one-group study design was used to gain insight into the pre- and 12-month changes to health behavior and clinical outcomes. Trained HCs delivered the educational sessions and provided weekly health coaching feedback. Assessments included demographics, clinical, anthropometric, and qualitative focus groups. Participants included 94 obese adults with diabetes (63%) and prediabetes (37%). Twenty-two participated in three focus groups.

Average attendance was 13.7 ± 6.1 out of 22 sessions. Mean weight loss was 4.4 ± 11.5 lbs at twelve months and clinical improvement in A1C (0.4%) was noted among T2DM adults. Program retention (82%) was higher among older participants and those with poor glycemic control. While all participants connected to a trained HC, only 72% had regular weekly health coaching. Participants reported overall acceptability and satisfaction with the program and limited barriers to program engagement.

Our findings suggest that it is feasible to implement an HC-led DPM program in rural communities and improve A1C in T2DM adults. Trained HCs have the potential to be integrated with healthcare teams in rural regions of the United States.

Scientific endeavors are increasingly carried out by teams of scientists. While there is growing literature on factors associated with effective science teams, little is known about processes that facilitate the success of dissemination and implementation (D&I) teams studying the uptake of healthcare innovations. This study aimed to identify strategies used by D&I scientists to promote team science.

Using a nominal group technique, a sample of 27 D&I scholars responded to the question, “What strategies have you or others used to promote team science?” Participants were asked to individually respond and then discuss within a small group to determine the group’s top three strategies. Through a facilitated consensus discussion with the full sample, a rank-ordered list of three strategies was determined.

A total of 126 individual responses (M = 9; SD = 4.88) were submitted. Through small group discussion, six groups ranked their top three strategies to promote team science. The final ranked list of strategies determined by the full sample included: (1) developing and maintaining clear expectations, (2) promoting and modeling effective communication, and (3) establishing shared goals and a mission of the work to be accomplished.

Because of its goal of translating knowledge to practice, D&I research necessitates the use of team science. The top strategies are in line with those found to be effective for teams in other fields and hold promise for improving D&I team cohesion and innovation, which may ultimately accelerate the translation of health innovations and the improvement of care quality and outcomes.

To overcome the dearth of high-quality, evidence-based, role-specific training for community health workers and promotoras (CHW/Ps) working with research teams, we developed and evaluated a peer-led research best practices training for CHW/Ps. This article qualitatively explores the training experiences from the perspectives of CHW/Ps.

CHW/Ps were recruited from communities and partners affiliated with study sites in Michigan, Florida, and California to participate in peer facilitated trainings in English and Spanish. A purposeful sample of CHW/Ps completed interviews from July to December 2023 about their perceptions of the training. Three coders analyzed the interviews using a combination of the rigorous and accelerated data reduction (RADaR) technique and thematic text analysis.

Seventeen CHW/Ps participated in interviews (N = 10 in English; N = 7 in Spanish). The mean age was 43.7 ± 14.5 years, most were female (59%), and 47% identified as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish. We identified three primary themes, each with resulting subthemes: (1) CHW/Ps’ Perceptions of the Training, (2) Factors Influencing Receipt of the Training, and (3) CHW/Ps’ Recommendations for Future Trainings. Despite offering some opportunities for improvement in various areas, CHW/P learners found the training further clarified their role as CHW/Ps, enhanced their knowledge and skills, and provided a beneficial foundation for CHW/Ps working in community-engaged research.

A peer-led research best practices training for CHW/Ps is an effective strategy for enhancing CHW/Ps’ knowledge and skills. Training CHW/Ps in research best practices is a strategy for enhancing the capacity and capability of this community-engaged research workforce

Recruitment of study participants is challenging and can incur significant costs. Social media advertising is a promising method for recruiting clinical studies and may improve cost efficiency by targeting populations likely to match a study’s qualifications. Prior systematic reviews of social media as a recruitment tool have been favourable, however, there are no meta-analyses of its cost-effectiveness.

Studies evaluating recruitment costs through social media and non-social media methods were identified on MEDLINE and EMBASE. Articles were screened through a two-step process in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Cost data were extracted from selected articles and meta-analyzed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The primary outcome was the relative cost-effectiveness of social media compared to non-social media recruitment, defined as the odds ratio of recruiting a participant per US dollar spent. The secondary outcome was the cost-effectiveness of social media recruitment compared to other online recruitment methods only.

In total, 23 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The odds ratio of recruiting a participant through social media advertising compared to non-social media methods per dollar spent was 1.97 [95% CI 1.24–3.00, P = 0.004]. The odds ratio of recruiting a participant through social media compared to other online methods only was 1.66 [95% CI 1.02–2.72, P = 0.04].

Social media advertising may be more cost-effective than other methods of recruitment, however, the magnitude of cost-effectiveness is highly variable between studies. There are limited data on newer social media platforms and on difficult-to-reach populations such as non-English speakers or older individuals.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) has been a leader in cancer-related dissemination & implementation (D&I) science. Given increased demand for D&I research, the CPCRN Scholars Program launched in 2021 to expand the number of practitioners, researchers, and trainees proficient in cancer D&I science methods.

The evaluation was informed by a logic model and data collected through electronic surveys. Through an application process (baseline survey), we assessed scholars’ competencies in D&I science domains/subdomains, collected demographic data, and asked scholars to share proposed project ideas. We distributed an exit survey one month after program completion to assess scholars’ experience and engagement with the program and changes in D&I competencies. A follow-up survey was administered to alumni nine months post-program to measure their continued network engagement, accomplishments, and skills.

Three cohorts completed the program, consisting of 20, 17, and 25 scholars in Years 1-3, respectively. There was a significant increase in the total D&I competency scores for all three cohorts for 4 overarching domains and 43 subdomains (MPre = 1.38 MPost = 1.89). Differences were greatest for the domain of Practice-Based Considerations (0.50 mean difference) and Theory & Analysis (0.47 mean difference). Alumni surveys revealed that scholars appreciated access to D&I-focused webinars, toolkits, and training resources. 80% remain engaged with CPCRN workgroups and investigators.

Program evaluation with scholars and alumni helped with ongoing quality assurance, introspection, and iterative program adaptation to meet scholars’ needs. This approach is recommended for large-scale capacity-building training programs.

Here we present a novel approach to evaluate peripheral blood mononuclear cell vascular adhesion using a microfluidic model designed to approximate the complexity of a human arteriole. While EC monolayer assays are commonly used to investigate leukocyte-EC interactions, we hypothesized that our single channel arteriole (SCA) on a chip would recapitulate the microvasculature more accurately and provide additional insight into the initial stages of atherogenesis.

This model is comprised of stromal cells embedded in a hydrogel surrounding a channel lined by endothelial cells (EC) that has an inner diameter approximating a small arteriole. Under physiologic shear conditions, the EC take on a phenotype distinct from monolayer cultures, including alignment with the direction of flow.

Significant differences were found between the SCA and monolayer cultures in the expression of key EC and stromal cell markers, including ICAM-1, VCAM-1, PDGFB, aSMA, and KLF2. Indeed, flow-induced PDGFB expression likely mediated the recruitment and differentiation of αSMA-positive cells to the vessel wall. Importantly, the vessels were responsive to stimulation by inflammatory mediators, showing both increased leukocyte adhesion and increased permeability. Finally, mechanically mediated protrusion of the vessel wall into the lumen disrupted flow, producing increased shear over the vessel wall.

In summary, our studies demonstrate the utility of the SCA model for studies of small vessel physiology under both normal and disrupted flow and to lay the groundwork for further development into a model for atherosclerosis. Additionally, our data emphasize the advantages of complex 3D assays over more traditional 2D cultures.

Clinical and Translational Award (CTSA) programs are developing relevant training for researchers and community stakeholders participating in community-engaged research (CEnR). However, there is limited research exploring the ways community stakeholders and partners with key CEnR experiences can inform and shape training priorities for prospective CEnR scholars to build meaningful and equitable partnerships.

This study conducted and analyzed online individual semi-structured in-depth interviews with community stakeholders (n = 13) engaged in CEnR to identify training priorities for graduate students and emerging scholars.

Thematic analysis of 13 interview transcripts revealed four major training priorities for prospective scholars interested in engaging in CEnR: 1) researcher’s positionality, 2) equitable power sharing, 3) funding, and 4) ethics.

Building equitable research partnerships was a central theme woven across all four training priorities. Further research should focus on examining the development, implementation, and evaluation of CEnR training in partnership with community stakeholders and partners with relevant CEnR experience. Adopting a collaborative approach to incorporate both community stakeholders and researchers’ priorities can align training competencies to better prepare scholars to engage in building research partnerships.