Stakeholder engagement infrastructure to support multicenter research networks: Advances from the clinical research networks participating in PCORnet.

Background: The evidence based on the inclusion of patients and other stakeholders as partners in the clinical research process has grown substantially. However, little has been reported on how stakeholders are engaged in the governance of large-scale clinical research networks and the infrastructure used by research networks to support engagement in network-affiliated activities. Objectives: The objective was to document engagement activities and practices emerging from Clinical Research Networks (CRNs) participating in PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, specifically regarding governance and engagement infrastructure. Methods: We conducted an environmental scan of PCORnet CRN engagement structures, assets, and services, focusing on network oversight structures for policy development and strategic decision-making. The scan included assets and services for supporting patient/stakeholder engagement. Data were collected by searching web-based literature and tool repositories, review of CRN Engagement Plans, analysis of previously collected key informant interviews, and CRN-based iterative review of structured worksheets. Results: We identified 87 discrete engagement structures, assets, and services across nine CRNs. All CRNs engage patients/stakeholders in their governance, maintain workgroups and/or staff dedicated to overseeing engagement strategies, and offer one or more services to non-CRN researchers to enhance conducting engaged clinical research. Conclusions: This work provides an important resource for the research community to explore engagement across peers, reflect on progress, consider opportunities to leverage existing infrastructure, and identify new collaborators. It also serves to highlight PCORnet as a resource for non-CRN researchers seeking to efficiently conduct engaged clinical research and a venue for advancing the science of engagement.

Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Precision Medicine.

Purpose: The Precision Medicine Health Disparities Collaborative fosters collaboration between researchers with diverse backgrounds in precision medicine and health disparities research, to include training at the interface between genomics and health disparities. Understanding how perceptions about precision medicine differ by background may inform activities to better understand such differences. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Center members and beyond. Data were collected on categories of educational background, current activities, and level of agreement with 20 statements related to genomics and health disparities. Respondents categorized their background and activities as social/behavioral, genetics, both, or neither. Fisher's exact test was used to assess levels of agreement in response to each statement. Statistically significant associations were further analyzed using ordinal logistic regression adjusting for age, self-identified race/ethnicity, and gender. Results: Of 130 respondents, 50 (38%) identified educational backgrounds and current activities as social-behavioral or genomic 55 (42%). Respondents differed by educational background on the statement Lifestyle and other life experiences influence how genes impact disease risk (p=0.0009). Respondents also differed by current activities on the statement Reducing disparities in access to health care will make precision medicine more effective (p=0.0008), and on Racism and discrimination make me concerned about how genetic test results will be used (p=0.0011). Conclusions: Respondents who differed on prior education and current activities, whether social behavioral science or human genomics, were associated with different perceptions regarding precision medicine and health disparities. These results identify potential barriers and opportunities to strengthen transdisciplinary collaboration.

Recognizing Cross-Institutional Fiscal and Administrative Barriers and Facilitators to Conducting Community-Engaged Clinical and Translational Research.

PURPOSE: This qualitative study examined fiscal and administrative (i.e., pre- and post-award grants process) barriers and facilitators to community-engaged research among stakeholders across 4 Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) institutions. METHOD: A purposive sample of 24 key informants from 3 stakeholder groups-community partners, academic researchers, and research administrators-from the CTSA institutions at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Medical University of South Carolina, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and Yale University participated. Semistructured interviews were conducted in March-July 2018, including questions about perceived challenges and best practices in fiscal and administrative processes in community-engaged research. Transcribed interviews were independently reviewed and analyzed using the Rapid Assessment Process to facilitate key theme and quote identification. RESULTS: Community partners were predominantly Black, academic researchers and research administrators were predominantly White, and women made up two-thirds of the overall sample. Five key themes were identified: level of partnership equity, partnership collaboration and communication, institutional policies and procedures, level of familiarity with varying fiscal and administrative processes, and financial management expectations. No stakeholders reported best practices for the institutional policies and procedures theme. Cross-cutting challenges included communication gaps between stakeholder groups; lack of or limits in supporting community partners' fiscal capacity; and lack of collective awareness of each stakeholder group's processes, procedures, and needs. Cross-cutting best practices centered on shared decision making and early and timely communication between all stakeholder groups in both pre- and post-award processes. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the importance of equitable processes, triangulated communication, transparency, and recognizing and respecting different financial management cultures within community-engaged research. This work can be a springboard used by CTSA institutions to build on available resources that facilitate co-learning and discussions between community partners, academic researchers, and research administrators on fiscal readiness and administrative processes for improved community-engaged research partnerships.

KL2 mentored career development programs at clinical and translational science award hubs: Practices and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) include KL2 mentored career development awards for faculty commencing clinical and translational research. A survey of KL2 leaders revealed program practices, curricular elements and compelling data about scholar characteristics and outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a literature review, framed the survey construct, and obtained input from across the CTSA consortium. A REDCap survey was emailed in fall 2016 to 61 active programs. RESULTS: Fifty-five programs (90.2%) responded. Respondents had been funded from 3 to 11 years, including 22 "mature" hubs funded for ≥8 years. Program cohort sizes were 56% "small", 22% "medium", and 22% "large." Hubs offer extensive competency-aligned training opportunities relevant to clinical and translational research, including graduate degrees, mentorship, and grant-writing. Seventy-two percent of hubs report parallel "KL2-equivalent" career development programs. All hubs share their training and facilitate intermingling with other early stage investigators. A total of 1,517 KL2 scholars were funded. KL2 awardees are diverse in their disciplines, research projects, and representation; 54% are female and 12% self-identified as underrepresented in biomedical research. Eighty-seven percent of scholars have 2-3 mentors and are currently supported for 2-3 years. Seventy-eight percent of alumni remain at CTSA institutions in translational science. The most common form of NIH support following scholars' KL2 award is an individual career development award. CONCLUSIONS: The KL2 is a unique career development award, shaped by competency-aligned training opportunities and interdisciplinary mentorship that inform translational research pathways. Tracking both traditional and novel outcomes of KL2 scholars is essential to capture their career trajectories and impact on health.

The Impact of an Educational Video on Clinical Trial Enrollment and Knowledge in Ethnic Minorities: A Randomized Control Trial.

Introduction: Innovative methods to increase awareness about clinical trials and address barriers associated with low participation among racial/ethnic minorities are desperately needed. African Americans comprise 5% of all clinical trial participants, and Hispanics make up 1%. Use of multimedia educational material has shown promise as an effective strategy to increase minority clinical trial enrollment. However, this approach has not been broadly implemented. We tested the effect of a video educational program on clinical trial knowledge and enrollment in a sample of oncology outpatients. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 63 oncology patients without previous history of clinical trial participation. Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention, to watch a clinical trial educational video in the office, or to the control group which did not receive in-office education. The Clinical Trial Knowledge survey was administered before the intervention and 1 week after the intervention. Participation in clinical trials was assessed 1-year post study participation. Results for white participants and ethnic minorities were compared. Ethnicity was self-reported through the electronic health record and confirmed by self-reporting on questionnaire. Results: Sixty-three participants were recruited in this study. At 1-year follow-up, 3 participants enrolled in clinical trials in the study group which had received office-based video intervention and 2 participants enrolled in the control group (Z = 0.39, p = 0.69). These results were not statistically significant. Impact of the intervention by ethnicity could not be assessed due to low total clinical trial enrollment. The video intervention did not change knowledge, attitudes, or barriers as measured by the Clinical Trial Knowledge Survey. Minority participants did report significantly more negative beliefs and barriers to participation than white participants. Conclusions: Increasing awareness and knowledge about clinical trials in underrepresented communities is an important step to providing opportunities for participation. Future studies should focus on how to address the negative expectations of clinical trials and the greater information needs in minority populations. Tailored or personalized messaging may address negative perceptions of clinical trial participation.

A Multilevel Approach to Stakeholder Engagement in the Formulation of a Clinical Data Research Network.

OBJECTIVES: To ensure meaningful engagement of stakeholders (patients, clinicians, and communities) in developing the Mid-South Clinical Data Research Network (MS-CDRN), we implemented a comprehensive, multilevel approach: (1) identify barriers to involving stakeholders in governance, network design, and implementation; (2) engage stakeholders in priority setting and research topic generation; (3) develop strategies to fully integrate stakeholders in CDRN governance and oversight; and (4) solicit guidance on patient-centered tools and strategies for recruiting research participants. METHODS: We engaged stakeholders: (1) as integral research team members; (2) on oversight and advisory committees; (3) as consultants (using Community Engagement Studios); and (4) through interviews and surveys. We recruited stakeholders from community health centers, churches, barbershops, health fairs, a volunteer registry, and a patient portal. We prioritized recruitment from populations often underrepresented in research. RESULTS: During the first 18 months, we engaged 5670 stakeholders in developing the MS-CDRN. These were research team members and on governance committees (N=10), consultants (N=58), survey respondents (N=5543), and interviewees (N=59). Stakeholders identified important barriers and facilitators to engagement, developed stakeholder-informed policies, provided feedback on priority topics and research questions, and developed an intake process for data requests and interventional studies that included reviewing for appropriate patient-centeredness, patient engagement, and dissemination. DISCUSSION: Multilevel stakeholder engagement is a novel systematic approach to developing a meaningful patient-centered and patient-engaged research program. This approach allows ongoing input from highly engaged stakeholders while leveraging focused input from larger, more diverse groups to enhance the patient-centeredness of research and increase relevance to broader audiences.

Clinicians' perspectives on and interest in participating in a clinical data research network across the Southeastern United States.

BACKGROUND: Partnerships between clinicians and researchers could increase the generalizability of research findings and increase uptake of research results across populations. Yet engaging clinicians in research is challenging. Clinical Data Research Networks (CDRNs) provide access to a broad array of clinical data, patients, clinicians and health systems by building on existing health records (EHRs) to facilitate multi-site community engaged research (CEnR). METHODS: A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design was employed. Sixty semi-structured interviews with clinicians from various disciplines and healthcare settings were conducted using five open-ended questions. Inductive content analysis was used to identify emerging themes in the data. RESULTS: We identified the following emerging themes: 1) Research with relevance and benefits to clinics and provider's patient population; 2) Difficulties of engaging in research with existing patient care demands; 3) Clear and continuous two-way communication about research, coordinated with provider and clinic needs; 4) Tailored compensation approaches meet provider preferences; 5) Increasing clinician awareness about Clinical Data Research Networks (CDRNs). CONCLUSION: Our interview study provides insight into community clinician perspectives on Clinical Data Research Networks, indicating motivations and challenges to research involvement including consequences of time spent on research participation, barriers to expanding research and meaningful involvement in research governance. Findings can be used to guide the development of strategies to better engage providers in research in clinical settings, which could ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Sustaining the Clinical and Translational Research Workforce: Training and Empowering the Next Generation of Investigators.

There is mounting concern that clinician-scientists are a vanishing species and that the pipeline for clinical and translational research (CTR) investigators is in jeopardy. For the majority of current junior CTR investigators, the career path involves first obtaining a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded K-type career development award, particularly K08 and K23, and subsequently an NIH R01. This transition, popularly referred to as K2R, is a major hurdle with a low success rate and gaps in funding. In this Perspective, the authors identify factors that facilitate K2R transition and important aspects of increasing and sustaining the pipeline of CTR investigators. They also highlight significant differences in success rates of women and those underrepresented in biomedical research. Early career exposure to research methodology, protected time, multidisciplinary mentoring, and institutional "culture shift" are important for fostering and rewarding team science. Mentoring is the single most important contributor to K2R success, and emerging evidence suggests that formal mentor training and team mentoring are effective. Leadership training can empower junior investigators to thrive as independent CTR investigators. Future research should focus on delineating the difference between essential and supplemental factors to achieve this transition, and mentoring methods that foster success, including those that promote K2R transition of women and those underrepresented in biomedical research. The Clinical and Translational Science Awards National Consortium is well positioned to test existing models aimed at shortening the time frame, increasing the rate of K2R transition, and identifying strategies that improve success.

Type 2 diabetes and mammographic breast density among underserved women.

PURPOSE: We conducted a study of women recruited at Meharry Medical College, a historically black medical school, to investigate the relationship between diabetes and mammographic breast density. METHODS: A total of 476 women completed in-person interviews, body measurements, and full-field digital mammograms on a Hologic mammography unit from December 2011 to February 2014. Average percent breast density for the left and right breasts combined was estimated using Quantra, an automated algorithm for volumetric assessment of breast tissue. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes was determined by self-report. RESULTS: After adjustment for confounding variables, the mean percent breast density among premenopausal women with type 2 diabetes [[Formula: see text] 13.8 %, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 11.6-15.9] was nonsignificantly lower than that of women without type 2 diabetes ([Formula: see text] 15.9 %, 95 % CI 15.0-16.8) (p = 0.07); however, there was no association among postmenopausal women. The effect of type 2 diabetes in severely obese women (BMI ≥ 35) appeared to differ by menopausal status with a reduction in mean percent breast density in premenopausal women, but an increase in mean percent breast density in postmenopausal women which could have been due to chance. CONCLUSIONS: Confirmation of our findings in larger studies may assist in clarifying the role of the insulin signaling breast cancer pathway in women with high breast density.

Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and reduced breast cancer risk among overweight women.

Chronic inflammation is associated with increased risk of multiple cancers, including breast cancer. Adipose tissues produce proinflammatory cytokines, and obesity is a risk factor for postmenopausal breast cancer. We evaluated the association of regular use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with breast cancer risk, overall and by body mass index (BMI) and tumor subtypes defined by estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. We conducted a population-based, case-control study involving 5,078 women aged 25-75 years who were recruited primarily from the Nashville metropolitan area of Tennessee. Multivariate unconditional logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios and 95 % confidence intervals for breast cancer risk after adjusting for multiple potential confounding factors. Regular use of any NSAID was associated with significantly reduced breast cancer risk (OR 0.78; 95 % CI 0.69-0.89). This association was observed for regular use of baby aspirin only (OR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.69-0.99), other NSAIDs only (OR 0.81, 95 % CI 0.69-0.95), and both baby aspirin and other NSAIDs (OR 0.52, 95 % CI 0.40-0.69). These significant inverse associations were found among overweight women (BMI ≥25 kg/m(2)) overall and by subtypes of breast cancer, but not among women with BMI <25 kg/m(2) (P for interaction = 0.023). Regular use of NSAIDs was inversely associated with breast cancer risk, particularly among overweight women. Overweight women may benefit more from the protective effects of NSAID use than normal-weight women.

Associations of hormone-related factors with breast cancer risk according to hormone receptor status among white and African American women.

BACKGROUND: Causes of racial disparities in breast cancer incidence and mortality between white and African American women remain unclear. This study evaluated associations of menstrual and reproductive factors with breast cancer risk by race and cancer subtypes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Included in the study were 1866 breast cancer cases and 2306 controls recruited in the Nashville Breast Health Study, a population-based case-control study. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: African American women were more likely to have estrogen receptor-negative (ER(-)), progesterone receptor-negative (PR(-)), and triple-negative (ER(-)PR(-)HER2(-)) breast cancer than white women. Age at menarche (≥ 14 years) and multiparity (≥ 3 live births) were inversely associated with ER(+) tumors only, whereas late age at first live birth (> 30 years) and nulliparity were associated with elevated risk; such associations were predominantly seen in white women (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.55-0.88; OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.56-0.92; OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.13-1.79; OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.06-1.63, respectively). Age at menopause between 47 and 51 years was associated with elevated risk of ER(-) tumors in both white and African American women. Among women who had natural menopause, positive association between ever-use of hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer risk was seen in white women only (OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.03-1.87). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that certain hormone-related factors are differentially associated with risk of breast cancer subtypes, and these associations also differ by race.

Interactions of hormone replacement therapy, body weight, and bilateral oophorectomy in breast cancer risk.

PURPOSE: To examine potential modifying effects of body weight and bilateral oophorectomy on the association of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) with risk of breast cancer, overall and by subtypes according to status of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her2) among postmenopausal women. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This analysis included 2,510 postmenopausal white women recruited in the Nashville Breast Health Study, a population-based case-control study of breast cancer. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between HRT use and risk of breast cancer overall and by subtypes, adjusted for age and education. RESULTS: Among women with natural menopause and body mass index (BMI) < 25 kg/m(2), ever-use of HRT was associated with increased breast cancer risk (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.32-2.88). Risk was elevated with duration of HRT use (P for trend = 0.002). Similar association patterns were found for ER(+), ER(+)PR(+), and luminal A cancer subtypes but not ER(-), ER(-)PR(-), and triple-negative cancer. In contrast, ever-HRT use in overweight women (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m(2)) showed no association with risk of breast cancer overall or by subtypes; interaction tests for modifying effect of BMI were statistically significant. Ever-HRT use was associated with decreased breast cancer risk (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.38-1.31) among women with prior bilateral oophorectomy but elevated risk (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.92-2.29) among those with hysterectomy without bilateral oophorectomy (P for interaction = 0.057). Similar associations were seen for virtually all breast cancer subtypes, although interaction tests were statistically significant for ER(+) and luminal A only. CONCLUSION: Body weight and bilateral oophorectomy modify associations between HRT use and breast cancer risk, especially the risk of hormone receptor-positive tumors.

Approaches to preparing young scholars for careers in interdisciplinary team science.

To succeed as a biomedical researcher, the ability to flourish in interdisciplinary teams of scientists is becoming ever more important. Institutions supported by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) from the National Institutes of Health have a specific mandate to educate the next generation of clinical and translational researchers. While they strive to advance integrated and interdisciplinary approaches to education and career development in clinical and translational science, general approaches and evaluation strategies may differ, as there is no single, universally accepted or standardized approach. It is important, therefore, to learn about the different approaches used to determine what is effective. We implemented a Web-based survey distributed to education leaders at the 60 funded CTSA institutions; 95% responded to the survey, which included questions on the importance of preparation for interdisciplinary team science careers, methods used to provide such training, and perceived effectiveness of these training programs. The vast majority (86%) of education leaders reported that such training is important, and about half (52%) of the institutions offer such training. Methods of training most often take the form of courses and seminars, both credit bearing and noncredit. These efforts are, by and large, perceived as effective by the training program leaders, although long-term follow-up of trainees would be required to fully evaluate ultimate effectiveness. Results from the survey suggest that CTSA education directors believe that specific training in interdisciplinary team science for young investigators is very important, but few methodologies are universally practiced in CTSA institutions to provide training or to assess performance. Four specific recommendations are suggested to provide measurable strategic goals for education in team science in the context of clinical and translational research.

Well-done meat intake and meat-derived mutagen exposures in relation to breast cancer risk: the Nashville Breast Health Study.

Previous studies of the association of meat intake and meat-derived mutagen exposure with breast cancer risk have produced inconsistent results. We evaluated this association in a population-based case-control study of incident breast cancer conducted in Nashville, Tennessee, United States, including 2,386 breast cancer cases and 1,703 healthy women controls. Telephone interviews were conducted to obtain information related to meat intake including amount, cooking methods, and doneness levels, as well as other known or hypothesized risk factors for breast cancer. Unconditional logistic regression was used to derive odds ratios (ORs) after adjusting for potential confounders. High intake of red meat was associated with a significantly elevated risk of breast cancer (P-trend < 0.001). The association was particularly strong for high intake of well-done red meat (P-trend < 0.001), with an adjusted OR of 1.5 (95% CI = 1.3-1.9) for the highest versus the lowest quartile. Associations between red meat and breast cancer risk were slightly stronger for postmenopausal women than for premenopausal women. Meat-derived mutagens such as 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline and 2-amino-3,4,8-trimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline, were significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk among postmenopausal women only (P-trend = 0.002 and 0.003, respectively). The results from this study provide strong support for the hypotheses that high red meat intake and meat-derived mutagen exposure may be associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.