A new model for catalyzing translational science: the early stage investigator mentored research scholar program in HIV vaccines.

Engagement of early stage investigators (ESIs) in the search for a safe and effective vaccine is critical to the success of this highly challenging endeavor. In the wake of disappointing results from a large-scale efficacy trial, the HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) and Center for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Immunology (CHAVI) developed a novel mentored research program focused on the translation of findings from nonhuman primate studies to human trials of experimental vaccines. From 2008 to 2011, 14 ESI Scholars were selected from 42 complete applications. Post program surveys and tracked outcomes suggest that the combination of flexible funding, transdisciplinary mentorship, and structured training and networking promoted the scientific contributions and career development of promising ESIs. Embedding a multicomponent research program within collaborative clinical trial networks and research consortia is a promising strategy to attract and retain early career investigators and catalyze important translational science.

Enhancing diversity in the public health research workforce: the research and mentorship program for future HIV vaccine scientists.

OBJECTIVES: We developed and evaluated a novel National Institutes of Health-sponsored Research and Mentorship Program for African American and Hispanic medical students embedded within the international, multisite HIV Vaccine Trials Network, and explored its impact on scientific knowledge, acquired skills, and future career plans. METHODS: Scholars conducted social, behavioral, clinical, or laboratory-based research projects with HIV Vaccine Trials Network investigators over 8 to 16 weeks (track 1) or 9 to 12 months (track 2). We conducted an in-depth, mixed-methods evaluation of the first 2 cohorts (2011-2013) to identify program strengths, areas for improvement, and influence on professional development. RESULTS: A pre-post program assessment demonstrated increases in self-reported knowledge, professional skills, and interest in future HIV vaccine research. During in-depth interviews, scholars reported that a supportive, centrally administered program; available funding; and highly involved mentors and staff were keys to the program's early success. CONCLUSIONS: A multicomponent, mentored research experience that engages medical students from underrepresented communities and is organized within a clinical trials network may expand the pool of diverse public health scientists. Efforts to sustain scholar interest over time and track career trajectories are warranted.

Stakeholder perspectives on workplace health promotion: a qualitative study of midsized employers in low-wage industries.

PURPOSE: Study goals were to (1) describe stakeholder perceptions of workplace health promotion (WHP) appropriateness, (2) describe barriers and facilitators to implementing WHP, (3) learn the extent to which WHP programs are offered to workers' spouses and partners and assess attitudes toward including partners in WHP programs, and (4) describe willingness to collaborate with nonprofit agencies to offer WHP. DESIGN: Five 1.5-hour focus groups. SETTING: The focus groups were conducted with representatives of midsized (100-999 workers) workplaces in the Seattle metropolitan area, Washington state. SUBJECTS: Thirty-four human resources professionals in charge of WHP programs and policies from five low-wage industries: accommodation/food services, manufacturing, health care/social assistance, education, and retail trade. MEASURES: A semistructured discussion guide. ANALYSIS: Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts using grounded theory to identify themes. RESULTS: Most participants viewed WHP as appropriate, but many expressed reservations about intruding in workers' personal lives. Barriers to implementing WHP included cost, time, logistical challenges, and unsupportive culture. Participants saw value in extending WHP programs to workers' partners, but were unsure how to do so. Most were willing to work with nonprofit agencies to offer WHP. CONCLUSION: Midsized, low-wage employers face significant barriers to implementing WHP; to reach these employers and their workers, nonprofit agencies and WHP vendors need to offer WHP programs that are inexpensive, turnkey, and easy to adapt.

Workplace health promotion implementation, readiness, and capacity among midsize employers in low-wage industries: a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: To describe workplace health promotion (WHP) implementation, readiness, and capacity among midsize employers in low-wage industries in the United States. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of a national sample of midsize employers (100 to 4999 employees) representing five low-wage industries. RESULTS: Employers' WHP implementation for both employees and employees' spouses and partners was low. Readiness scales showed that employers believe WHP would benefit their employees and their companies, but they were less likely to believe that WHP was feasible for their companies. Employers' capacity to implement WHP was very low; nearly half the sample reported no capacity. CONCLUSION: Midsize employers in low-wage industries implement few WHP programs; their responses to readiness and capacity measures indicate that low capacity may be one of the principal barriers to WHP implementation.

Improving low-wage, midsized employers' health promotion practices: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide) offers evidence-based intervention strategies to prevent chronic disease. The American Cancer Society (ACS) and the University of Washington Health Promotion Research Center co-developed ACS Workplace Solutions (WPS) to improve workplaces' implementation of Community Guide strategies. PURPOSE: To test the effectiveness of WPS for midsized employers in low-wage industries. DESIGN: Two-arm RCT; workplaces were randomized to receive WPS during the study (intervention group) or at the end of the study (delayed control group). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Forty-eight midsized employers (100-999 workers) in King County WA. INTERVENTION: WPS provides employers one-on-one consulting with an ACS interventionist via three meetings at the workplace. The interventionist recommends best practices to adopt based on the workplace's current practices, provides implementation toolkits for the best practices the employer chooses to adopt, conducts a follow-up visit at 6 months, and provides technical assistance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Employers' implementation of 16 best practices (in the categories of insurance benefits, health-related policies, programs, tracking, and health communications) at baseline (June 2007-June 2008) and 15-month follow-up (October 2008-December 2009). Data were analyzed in 2010-2011. RESULTS: Intervention employers demonstrated greater improvement from baseline than control employers in two of the five best-practice categories; implementing policies (baseline scores: 39% program, 43% control; follow-up scores: 49% program, 45% control; p=0.013) and communications (baseline scores: 42% program, 44% control; follow-up scores: 76% program, 55% control; p=0.007). Total best-practice implementation improvement did not differ between study groups (baseline scores: 32% intervention, 37% control; follow-up scores: 39% intervention, 42% control; p=0.328). CONCLUSIONS: WPS improved employers' health-related policies and communications but did not improve insurance benefits design, programs, or tracking. Many employers were unable to modify insurance benefits and reported that the time and costs of implementing best practices were major barriers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT00452816.