Evidence is limited on how to synthesize and incorporate the views of stakeholders into a multisite pragmatic trial and how much academic teams change study design and protocol in response to stakeholder input. This qualitative study describes how stakeholders contributed to the design, conduct, and dissemination of findings of a multisite pragmatic clinical trial, the COMprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services (COMPASS) Study. We engaged stakeholders as integral research partners by embedding them in study committees and community resource networks that supported local sites. Data stemmed from formal focus groups and continuous participation in working groups. Guided by Grounded Theory, we extracted themes from focus group and meeting notes. These were discussed as a team and with other stakeholder groups for feasibility. A consensus approach was used. Stakeholder input changed many aspects of the study including: the care model that treated stroke as a chronic condition after hospital discharge, training for hospital-based providers who often lacked awareness of the barriers to recovery that patients face, support for caregivers who were essential for stroke patients’ recovery, and for community-based health and social service providers whose services can support recovery yet often go underutilized. Stakeholders brought value to both pragmatic research and health service delivery. Future studies should test the impact of elements of study implementation informed by stakeholders vs those that are not.

Background: The Comprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services (COMPASS) Study is one of the first large pragmatic randomized-controlled clinical trials using comparative effectiveness research methods, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. In the COMPASS Study, we compare the effectiveness of a patient-centered, transitional care intervention versus usual care for stroke patients discharged home from acute care. Outcomes include stroke patient post-discharge functional status and caregiver strain 90 days after discharge, and hospital readmissions. A central tenet of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded research is stakeholder engagement throughout the research process. However, evidence on how to successfully implement a pragmatic trial that changes systems of care in combination with robust stakeholder engagement is limited. This combination is not without challenges. Methods: We present our approach for broad-based stakeholder engagement in the context of a pragmatic trial with the participation of patients, caregivers, community stakeholders, including the North Carolina Stroke Care Collaborative hospital network, and policy makers. To maximize stakeholder engagement throughout the COMPASS Study, we employed a conceptual model with the following components: (1) Patient and Other Stakeholder Identification and Selection; (2) Patient and Other Stakeholder Involvement Across the Spectrum of Research Activities; (3) Dedicated Resources for Patient and Other Stakeholder Involvement; (4) Support for Patient and Other Stakeholder Engagement Through Organizational Processes; (5) Communication with Patients and Other Stakeholders; (6) Transparent Involvement Processes; (7) Tracking of Engagement; and (8) Evaluation of Engagement. Conclusion: In this paper, we describe how each component of the model is being implemented and how this approach addresses existing gaps in the literature on strategies for engaging stakeholders in meaningful and useful ways when conducting pragmatic trials.

It is unknown whether there are racial differences in the heritability of major depressive disorder (MDD) because most psychiatric genetic studies have been conducted in samples comprised largely of white non-Hispanics. To examine potential differences between African-American (AA) and European-American (EA) young adult women in (1) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) MDD prevalence, symptomatology, and risk factors, and (2) genetic and/or environmental liability to MDD, we analyzed data from a large population-representative sample of twins ascertained from birth records (n = 550 AA and n = 3226 EA female twins) aged 18–28 years at the time of MDD assessment by semi-structured psychiatric interview. AA women were more likely to have MDD risk factors; however, there were no significant differences in lifetime MDD prevalence between AA and EA women after adjusting for covariates (odds ratio = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67–1.15). Most MDD risk factors identified among AA women were also associated with MDD at similar magnitudes among EA women. Although the MDD heritability point estimate was higher among AA women than EA women in a model with paths estimated separately by race (56%, 95% CI: 29–78% vs. 41%, 95% CI: 29–52%), the best fitting model was one in which additive genetic and non-shared environmental paths for AA and EA women were constrained to be equal (A = 43%, 33–53% and E = 57%, 47–67%). In spite of a marked elevation in the prevalence of environmental risk exposures related to MDD among AA women, there were no significant differences in lifetime prevalence or heritability of MDD between AA and EA young women.

Aspects of disordered eating and personality traits, such as neuroticism, are correlated and individually heritable. We examined the phenotypic correlation between binge eating episodes and indices of personality (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and control/impulsivity). For correlations ≥|0.20|, we estimated the extent to which genetic and environmental factors contributed to this correlation. Participants included 3,446 European American same-sex female twins from the Missouri Adolescent Female Twin Study (median age = 22 years). Binge eating episode was assessed via interview questions. Personality traits were assessed by self-report questionnaires. There was a significant moderate phenotypic correlation between binge eating episode and neuroticism (r = 0.33) as well as conscientiousness (r = -0.21), while other correlations were significant but smaller (r ranging from -0.14 to 0.14). Individual differences in binge eating episodes, neuroticism, and conscientiousness were attributed to additive genetic influences (38% [95% CI: 21–53%], 45% [95% CI: 38–52%], and 44% [95% CI: 0.33–0.55%] respectively), with the remaining variance attributed to individual-specific environmental influences. Covariance was attributable to genetic (neuroticism r g = 0.37; conscientiousness r g = -0.22) and individual-specific environmental (neuroticism r e = 0.28; conscientiousness r e = -0.19) influences. Personality traits may be an early indicator of genetic vulnerability to a variety of pathological behaviors, including binge eating episode. Furthermore, prior research documenting phenotypic correlations between eating disorder diagnoses and personality may have stemmed from etiological overlap between these personality traits and aspects of disordered eating, such as binge eating episode.

Human height and body mass index are influenced by a large number of genes, each with small effects, along with environment. To identify common genetic variants associated with these traits, we performed genome-wide association studies in 11,536 individuals composed of Australian twins, family members, and unrelated individuals at ∼550,000 genotyped SNPs. We identified a single genome-wide significant variant for height (P value = 1.06 × 10–9) located in HHIP, a well-replicated height-associated gene. Suggestive levels of association were found for other known genes associated with height (P values < 1 × 10–6): ADAMTSL3, EFEMP1, GPR126, and HMGA2; and BMI (P values < 1 × 10–4): FTO and MC4R. Together, these variants explain less than 2% of total phenotypic variation for height and 0.5% for BMI.