Rural cancer survivors have worse outcomes than their urban counterparts. To improve outcomes, it is essential that rural survivors participate in research, yet they are underrepresented in cancer research. The aim of this study was to assess urban-rural differences in participation in a cancer survivorship survey and differences in mode of participation (mail, online, or phone) by rurality and age.

We developed a survivorship needs assessment survey and invited cancer survivors to participate by mail, online, or phone. We compared participation between rural and urban invitees and examined differences in mode of participation by rurality and age.

A quarter (25.47%) of invited rural patients and 27.84% of invited urban patients participated in the survivorship study. The probability of participation by urban survivors was approximately 1.09 times higher than for rural survivors (χ2(1) = 4.31, p = 0.038). Rural survivors were more likely to participate by mail (average difference [Rural-Urban] = 9.64%, p < 0.001), while urban survivors were more likely to participate online (average difference [Urban-Rural] = 8.77%, p < 0.001). As participant age increased, the likelihood of survey participation by mail increased (1.16% per year of age, p < 0.001) while the probability of participating online decreased by 1.20% per year of age (p < 0.001).

To ensure equitable access to research for rural and older cancer survivors, researchers should design studies with a range of participation modes. Non-digital methods, such as mailed paper surveys, appear to promote participation among rural and older survivors.

Older adults have a high disease burden but are often underrepresented in research studies due to recruitment and retention obstacles, among others. Geriatric research specialists have identified solutions to these challenges and designed frameworks to help other researchers. Our team utilized three frameworks to create an interactive webinar series aimed to educate research team members on Age-Friendly practices.

We recruited 40 non-aging-trained research team members to participate in a six-session, real-time webinar series from October to November 2022. Sessions were comprised of 20–30 minute didactics and 30–40 minute group discussions. Participants completed pre- and post-program surveys, commitment to change forms, and post-webinar session surveys. Responses were examined for strengths and areas for improvement. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests assessed differences in confidence scores.

Self-reported confidence scores improved after the webinar series. Most participants provided positive feedback and high likeliness to use what they learned and recommend the webinar to others. The strengths were practical tips, applicable tools, and real-world examples. The major area for improvement was information on industry-sponsored trials. The commitment to change responses varied from pledging to use more inclusive language to adapting materials to improve the consent process.

This interactive Age-Friendly Research webinar series was feasible and well received by participants. We created an Age-Friendly Research community fostering commitment to change clinical and translational research to be more inclusive of older adults. Future work will include more information on industry-sponsored trials and expand to other research centers.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we rapidly implemented a plasma coordination center, within two months, to support transfusion for two outpatient randomized controlled trials. The center design was based on an investigational drug services model and a Food and Drug Administration-compliant database to manage blood product inventory and trial safety.

A core investigational team adapted a cloud-based platform to randomize patient assignments and track inventory distribution of control plasma and high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma of different blood groups from 29 donor collection centers directly to blood banks serving 26 transfusion sites.

We performed 1,351 transfusions in 16 months. The transparency of the digital inventory at each site was critical to facilitate qualification, randomization, and overnight shipments of blood group-compatible plasma for transfusions into trial participants. While inventory challenges were heightened with COVID-19 convalescent plasma, the cloud-based system, and the flexible approach of the plasma coordination center staff across the blood bank network enabled decentralized procurement and distribution of investigational products to maintain inventory thresholds and overcome local supply chain restraints at the sites.

The rapid creation of a plasma coordination center for outpatient transfusions is infrequent in the academic setting. Distributing more than 3,100 plasma units to blood banks charged with managing investigational inventory across the U.S. in a decentralized manner posed operational and regulatory challenges while providing opportunities for the plasma coordination center to contribute to research of global importance. This program can serve as a template in subsequent public health emergencies.

Unmet social needs contribute to growing health disparities and rising health care costs. Strategies to collect and integrate information on social needs into patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) show promise for connecting patients with community resources. However, gaps remain in understanding the contextual factors that impact implementing these interventions in clinical settings.

We conducted qualitative interviews with patients and focus groups with providers (January−September 2020) in two primary care clinics to inform the implementation of a module that collects and integrates patient-reported social needs information into the EHR. Questions addressed constructs within the Theoretical Framework for Acceptability and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Data were coded deductively using team-based framework analysis, followed by inductive coding and matrix analyses.

Forty patients participated in interviews, with 20 recruited at the clinics and 20 from home. Two focus groups were conducted with a total of 12 providers. Factors salient to acceptability and feasibility included patients’ discomfort answering sensitive questions, concerns about privacy, difficulty reading/understanding module content, and technological literacy. Rapport with providers was a facilitator for patients to discuss social needs. Providers stressed that limited time with patients would be a barrier, and expressed concerns about the lack of available community resources.

Findings highlight the need for flexible approaches to assessing and discussing social needs with patients. Feasibility of the intervention is contingent upon support from the health system to facilitate social needs assessment and discussion. Further study of availability of community resources is needed to ensure intervention effectiveness.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ideally, real-world data (RWD) collected to generate real-world evidence (RWE) should lead to impact on the care and health of real-world patients. Deriving from care in which clinicians and patients try various treatments to inform therapeutic decisions, N-of-1 trials bring scientific methods to real-world practice.

These single-patient crossover trials generate RWD and RWE by giving individual patients various treatments in a double-blinded way in sequential periods to determine the most effective treatment for a given patient.

This approach is most often used for patients with chronic, relatively stable conditions that provide the opportunity to make comparisons over multiple treatment periods, termed Type 1 N-of-1 trials. These are most helpful when there is heterogeneity of treatment effects among patients and no a priori best option. N-of-1 trials also can be done for patients with rare diseases, potentially testing only one treatment, to generate evidence for personalized treatment decisions, designated as Type 2 N-of-1 trials. With both types, in addition to informing individual’s treatments, when uniform protocols are used for multiple patients with the same condition, the data collected in the individual N-of-1 trials can be aggregated to provide RWD/RWE to inform more general use of the treatments. Thereby, N-of-1 trials can provide RWE for the care of individuals and for populations.

To fulfill this potential, we believe N-of-1 trials should be built into our current healthcare ecosystem. To this end, we are building the needed infrastructure and engaging the stakeholders who should receive value from this approach.

The hidden curriculum encompasses the norms, values, and behaviors within a learning environment. Navigating the hidden curricula of academia is crucial for doctoral trainees, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds. Faculty mentors have an important role in helping trainees uncover and cope with the hidden curriculum. The purpose of this paper is to explore perceptions of the hidden curriculum among diverse doctoral trainees and mentors.

Following a presentation on the hidden curriculum at the Association for Clinical and Translational Science annual meeting in March 2021, attendees were asked to brainstorm ideas for diverse trainees and their mentors. Breakout room discussions were held for specific hidden curriculum topics; participants voted on which topics to discuss from a list of topics defined during the presentation. Ideas from these discussions were presented to the larger group to upvote.

Participants (n = 116) voted to discuss the following hidden curriculum topics: “coping with bias,” “assertive communication,” “knowing how things work,” and “developing a career.” Many suggestions emphasized the role of institutions in empowering mentors to help diverse trainees and, more generally, to meaningfully support policies and programs that facilitate the career success of trainees and faculty from underrepresented backgrounds.

This work generated a list of suggested action items for trainees, mentors, and institutions to ameliorate the hidden curricula of academia, especially for diverse trainees. However, institutions need to support changes that will facilitate these discussions as well as more broadly enable the success of faculty and students from diverse backgrounds.