Effective patient engagement is central to patient-centered outcomes research. A well-designed infrastructure supports and facilitates patient engagement, enabling study development and implementation. We sought to understand infrastructure needs from recipients of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) pilot grant awards.

We surveyed recipients of PCORI pilot project awards on self-perceived strengths in engagement infrastructure through PCORI’s Ways of Engaging-Engagement Activity Tool survey, and interviewed leaders of 8 projects who volunteered as exemplars. Descriptive statistics summarized the survey findings. We conducted a thematic analysis of the interview transcripts.

Of the 50 surveyed pilots, 22 answered the engagement infrastructure questions (44% response rate). Survey and interview findings emphasized the importance of committed institutional leadership, ongoing relationships with stakeholder organizations, and infrastructure funding through Clinical and Translational Science Awards, PCORI, and institutional discretionary funds.

These findings highlight the importance of and how to improve upon existing institutional infrastructure.

The role of lay health workers in data collection for clinical and translational research studies is not well described. We explored lay health workers as data collectors in clinical and translational research studies. We also present several methods for examining their work, i.e., qualitative interviews, fidelity checklists, and rates of unusable/missing data.

We conducted 2 randomized, controlled trials that employed lay health research personnel (LHR) who were employed by community-based organizations. In one study, n = 3 Latina LHRs worked with n = 107 Latino diabetic participants. In another study, n = 6 LHR worked with n = 188 Cambodian American refugees with depression. We investigated proficiency in biological, behavioral, and psychosocial home-based data collection conducted by LHR. We also conducted in-depth interviews with lay LHR to explore their experience in this research role. Finally, we described the training, supervision, and collaboration for LHR to be successful in their research role.

Independent observers reported a very high degree of fidelity to technical data collection protocols (>95%) and low rates of missing/unusable data (1.5%–11%). Qualitative results show that trust, training, communication, and supervision are key and that LHR report feeling empowered by their role. LHR training included various content areas over several weeks with special attention to LHR and participant safety. Training and supervision from both the academic researchers and the staff at the community-based organizations were necessary and had to be well-coordinated.

Carefully selected, trained, and supervised LHRs can collect sophisticated data for community-based clinical and translational research.

The Institute of Translational Health Sciences (ITHS), a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA)-funded program at the University of Washington (UW), established the Drug and Device Advisory Committee (DDAC) to provide product-specific scientific and regulatory mentoring to investigators seeking to translate their discoveries into medical products. An 8-year retrospective analysis was undertaken to evaluate the impact of the DDAC programs on commercialization metrics.

Tracked metrics included the number of teams who consulted with the DDAC, initiated a clinical trial, formed a startup, or were successful obtaining federal small business innovation awards or venture capital. The review includes historical comparisons of the startup rates for the UW School of Medicine and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, two ITHS-affiliated institutions that have had different DDAC utilization rates.

Between 2008 and 2016, the DDAC supported 161 unique project teams, 28% of which went on to form a startup. The commercialization rates for the UW School of Medicine increased significantly following integration of the DDAC into the commercialization programs offered by the UW technology transfer office.

A formalized partnership between preclinical consulting and the technology transfer programs provides an efficient use of limited development funds and a more in-depth vetting of the business opportunity and regulatory path to development.

Health systems have many incentives to screen patients for health-related social needs (HRSNs) due to growing evidence that social determinants of health impact outcomes and a new regulatory context that requires health equity measures. This study describes the experience of one large urban health system in scaling HRSN screening by implementing improvement strategies over five years, from 2018 to 2023.

In 2018, the health system adapted a 10-item HRSN screening tool from a widely used, validated instrument. Implementation strategies aimed to foster screening were retrospectively reviewed and categorized according to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Statistical process control methods were utilized to determine whether implementation strategies contributed to improvements in HRSN screening activities.

There were 280,757 HRSN screens administered across 311 clinical teams in the health system between April 2018 and March 2023. Implementation strategies linked to increased screening included integrating screening within an online patient portal (ERIC strategy: involve patients/consumers and family members), expansion to discrete clinical teams (ERIC strategy: change service sites), providing data feedback loops (ERIC strategy: facilitate relay of clinical data to providers), and deploying Community Health Workers to address HRSNs (ERIC strategy: create new clinical teams).

Implementation strategies designed to promote efficiency, foster universal screening, link patients to resources, and provide clinical teams with an easy-to-integrate tool appear to have the greatest impact on HRSN screening uptake. Sustained increases in screening demonstrate the cumulative effects of implementation strategies and the health system’s commitment toward universal screening.

Increasing interest in real-world evidence has fueled the development of study designs incorporating real-world data (RWD). Using the Causal Roadmap, we specify three designs to evaluate the difference in risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with oral semaglutide versus standard-of-care: (1) the actual sequence of non-inferiority and superiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs), (2) a single RCT, and (3) a hybrid randomized-external data study.

The hybrid design considers integration of the PIONEER 6 RCT with RWD controls using the experiment-selector cross-validated targeted maximum likelihood estimator. We evaluate 95% confidence interval coverage, power, and average patient time during which participants would be precluded from receiving a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1-RA) for each design using simulations. Finally, we estimate the effect of oral semaglutide on MACE for the hybrid PIONEER 6-RWD analysis.

In simulations, Designs 1 and 2 performed similarly. The tradeoff between decreased coverage and patient time without the possibility of a GLP1-RA for Designs 1 and 3 depended on the simulated bias. In real data analysis using Design 3, external controls were integrated in 84% of cross-validation folds, resulting in an estimated risk difference of –1.53%-points (95% CI –2.75%-points to –0.30%-points).

The Causal Roadmap helps investigators to minimize potential bias in studies using RWD and to quantify tradeoffs between study designs. The simulation results help to interpret the level of evidence provided by the real data analysis in support of the superiority of oral semaglutide versus standard-of-care for cardiovascular risk reduction.

Translating research findings into practice requires understanding how to meet communication and dissemination needs and preferences of intended audiences including past research participants (PSPs) who want, but seldom receive, information on research findings during or after participating in research studies. Most researchers want to let others, including PSP, know about their findings but lack knowledge about how to effectively communicate findings to a lay audience.

We designed a two-phase, mixed methods pilot study to understand experiences, expectations, concerns, preferences, and capacities of researchers and PSP in two age groups (adolescents/young adults (AYA) or older adults) and to test communication prototypes for sharing, receiving, and using information on research study findings.

PSP and researchers agreed that sharing study findings should happen and that doing so could improve participant recruitment and enrollment, use of research findings to improve health and health-care delivery, and build community support for research. Some differences and similarities in communication preferences and message format were identified between PSP groups, reinforcing the best practice of customizing communication channel and messaging. Researchers wanted specific training and/or time and resources to help them prepare messages in formats to meet PSP needs and preferences but were unaware of resources to help them do so.

Our findings offer insight into how to engage both PSP and researchers in the design and use of strategies to share research findings and highlight the need to develop services and support for researchers as they aim to bridge this translational barrier.

Little is known about what motivates people to enroll in research registries. The purpose of this study is to identify facilitators of registry enrollment among diverse older adults.

Participants completed an 18-item Research Interest Assessment Tool. We used logistic regression analyses to examine responses across participants and by race and gender.

Participants (N=374) were 58% black, 76% women, with a mean age of 68.2 years. All participants were motivated to maintain their memory while aging. Facilitators of registry enrolled varied by both race and gender. Notably, blacks (estimate=0.71, p<0.0001) and women (estimate=0.32, p=0.03) were more willing to enroll in the registry due to home visits compared with whites and men, respectively.

Researchers must consider participant desire for maintaining memory while aging and home visits when designing culturally tailored registries.

This study identified underlying career orientation types of clinical research coordinators (CRCs) using cluster analysis. Select career (satisfaction, engagement, and planning) and competency-related (perceived competence) information was used to identify four distinct career orientation types.

A web-based survey was administered to CRCs employed in one of four research institutions affiliated with a National Institutes of Health-funded Clinical and Translational Research Award (CTSA) in the southeastern USA. Each respondent completed a survey containing questions about personal background, individual attributes, perceived professional competence, and career orientation.

The first CRC type (35.2%) possessed a positive, knowledge-seeking orientation, characterized by high career-related scores but a conservative assessment of perceived competence. The second CRC type (18.6%) represented an optimistic and confident career orientation reflected in moderate to high scores on each of the four identifying factors. The third CRC type (27.6%) reflected an inconsistent career orientation highlighted by lowered perceived competence. The final CRC type (18.6%) reflected a disengaged orientation characterized by negative responses to all career and competence factors.

Understanding the career orientation of CRCs can be helpful to institutional administrators and clinical investigators as they seek to support the professional development of CRCs through tailored training efforts or work-related supports. Knowledge of career orientation may also inform individual CRCs as they manage their personal career paths by assessing current levels of functioning, career-related strengths or weaknesses, and training needs.

The goal of this pilot study was to identify changes associated with completion of a unique six-week hand exercise program in persons with carpometacarpal osteoarthritis.

Twenty-four individuals, aged 55–80, with doctor-diagnosed carpometacarpal osteoarthritis participated in the study. Movement data from standard clinical motions and complex multi-planar motions were obtained using a motion capture system at three-time points: an initial visit, after two weeks of hand exercises, and after completion of the six-week exercise program.

This exercise program produced trends of improvement in complex multi-planar motions. Specifically, joint angle changes were seen during opposition and the formation of an “okay sign” that was included as part of the exercise program.

Through the use of motion capture, changes were identified in thumb joint function after exercise. Specifically, motions associated with the more complex multi-planar tasks showed changes in individual joint contributions following the six-week exercise intervention. The results suggest that further exploration of this exercise program, particularly the inclusion of complex multi-planar tasks during osteoarthritis treatment and associated evaluations, should be considered in future clinical studies.

The pediatric medical device development (PMDD) process is highly complex, beset by a variety of financial, technical, medical, and regulatory barriers. Startup company innovators and academic investigators often struggle with accessing specialized knowledge relating to regulatory requirements, product development, research, and marketing strategies.

The West Coast Consortium for Technology & Innovation in Pediatrics (CTIP) conducted an educational needs assessment to understand knowledge gaps and inform our educational strategy.

We surveyed a total of 49 medical device startups and 52 academic investigators. Electronic surveys were developed for each group on Qualtrics and focused on manufacturing, regulatory, research, commercialization, and funding. Descriptive statistics were used.

A larger proportion of academic investigator respondents had a clinical background compared to the startup respondents (45% vs. 22%). The biggest barriers for academic investigators were understanding regulatory and safety requirements testing (52%) and finding and obtaining non-dilutive funding was the most difficult (54%). Among startups, understanding clinical research methods and requirements was the biggest barrier (79%).

Startup companies and academic investigators have similar, but not identical, educational needs to better understand the PMD development process. Investigators need more support in identifying funding sources, while startup companies identified an increased need for education on research regulatory topics. These findings can help guide curriculum development as well as opportunities for partnerships between academia and startups.

Despite the intuitive attractiveness of bringing research to participants rather than making them come to central study sites, widespread decentralized enrollment has not been common in clinical trials.

The need for clinical research in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with innovations in technology, led us to use a decentralized trial approach in our Phase 2 COVID-19 trial. We used real-time acquisition and transmission of health-related data using home-based monitoring devices and mobile applications to assess outcomes. This approach not only avoids spreading COVID-19 but it also can support inclusion of participants in more diverse socioeconomic circumstances and in rural settings.

Our team developed and deployed a decentralized trial platform to support patient engagement and adverse event reporting. Clinicians, engineers, and informaticians on our research team developed a Clinical-Trial-in-a-Box tool to optimally collect and analyze data from multiple decentralized platforms.

Applying the decentralized model in Long COVID, using digital health technology and personal devices integrated with our telehealth platform, we share the lessons learned from our work, along with challenges and future possibilities.

The Institute of Translational Health Sciences (Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program hub) developed a program coined Community Voices to invite communities to submit project ideas and be matched with academic researchers. We describe formative research to understand community and academic researcher perspectives on how the program could facilitate collaborations addressing community priorities.

We conducted four focus groups with 31 community-based organization (CBO) representatives and 11 semi-structured interviews with academic researchers in the Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho regions. Questions included the appeal of Community Voices to engage community and academic partners, potential program usefulness, and Community Voices’ potential role in building community–academic partnerships. We used an inductive, constant comparison approach to code transcripts and thematic analysis to generate themes.

Most CBO representatives were female (87.1%) and Hispanic/Latino (61.3%). Most academic researchers had a PhD (63.6%) and worked at a university (81.8%). The themes were: (1) community–academic partnerships built on trust will offer mutual benefit, (2) community-initiated project ideas should prioritize community needs, (3) matchmaking will accelerate connections but should not replace time to foster partnership, (4) Community Voices should go beyond matchmaking and provide ongoing support/training, and (5) fostering effective communication is key to partnership success.

Community Voices is a novel, bidirectional community engagement program model that advances current practices of prioritizing researchers’ project ideas. This community-driven program may shift the future direction of community engagement practices where prioritizing community’s ideas becomes the norm of community–academic partnerships in clinical and translational science.