Mitigating structural racism to reduce inequities in sepsis outcomes: a mixed methods, longitudinal intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis affects 1.7 million patients in the US annually, is one of the leading causes of mortality, and is a major driver of US healthcare costs. African American/Black and LatinX populations experience higher rates of sepsis complications, deviations from standard care, and readmissions compared with Non-Hispanic White populations. Despite clear evidence of structural racism in sepsis care and outcomes, there are no prospective interventions to mitigate structural racism in sepsis care, nor are we aware of studies that report reductions in racial inequities in sepsis care as an outcome. Therefore, we will deliver and evaluate a coalition-based intervention to equip health systems and their surrounding communities to mitigate structural racism, driving measurable reductions in inequities in sepsis outcomes. This paper presents the theoretical foundation for the study, summarizes key elements of the intervention, and describes the methodology to evaluate the intervention. METHODS: Our aims are to: (1) deliver a coalition-based leadership intervention in eight U.S. health systems and their surrounding communities; (2) evaluate the impact of the intervention on organizational culture using a longitudinal, convergent mixed methods approach, and (3) evaluate the impact of the intervention on reduction of racial inequities in three clinical outcomes: a) early identification (time to antibiotic), b) clinical management (in-hospital sepsis mortality) and c) standards-based follow up (same-hospital, all-cause sepsis readmissions) using interrupted time series analysis. DISCUSSION: This study is aligned with calls to action by the NIH and the Sepsis Alliance to address inequities in sepsis care and outcomes. It is the first to intervene to mitigate effects of structural racism by developing the domains of organizational culture that are required for anti-racist action, with implications for inequities in complex health outcomes beyond sepsis.

PMLB v1.0: an open-source dataset collection for benchmarking machine learning methods.

MOTIVATION: Novel machine learning and statistical modeling studies rely on standardized comparisons to existing methods using well-studied benchmark datasets. Few tools exist that provide rapid access to many of these datasets through a standardized, user-friendly interface that integrates well with popular data science workflows. RESULTS: This release of PMLB (Penn Machine Learning Benchmarks) provides the largest collection of diverse, public benchmark datasets for evaluating new machine learning and data science methods aggregated in one location. v1.0 introduces a number of critical improvements developed following discussions with the open-source community. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: PMLB is available at https://github.com/EpistasisLab/pmlb. Python and R interfaces for PMLB can be installed through the Python Package Index and Comprehensive R Archive Network, respectively.

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.

Assessing Research Activity and Capacity of Community-Based Organizations: Refinement of the CREAT Instrument Using the Delphi Method.

Community-based organizations (CBOs) are essential partners in community-engaged research, yet little is known about their research capacity. Community experts and organizations bring unique knowledge of the community to research partnerships, but standard validated measures of CBO research capacity do not yet exist. We report here on the refinement through a structured Delphi panel of a previously developed and piloted framework of CBO research capacity and an accompanying instrument, the Community REsearch Activity Assessment Tool (CREAT). A Delphi panel composed of twenty-three experts recruited from community (52%) and academic researchers (48%) from around the USA participated in five rounds of review to establish consensus regarding framework domains, operational definitions, and tool items. Panelists rated the importance of items on a 5-point Likert scale and assessed for the inclusion and language of items. Initial rounds of review began with reviewing the framework and definitions, with subsequent rounds including review of the full instrument. Concluding rounds brought back items that had not yet reached consensus for additional review. Median response values (MRV) and intra-quartile ranges (IQR) were calculated for each Likert item. Items with an MRV > 3.5 were deemed as having reached consensus and were retained. Language changes were made for items with MRV > 2.0 and < 3.5 and an IQR > 1.5. Items with MRV < 2.0 were excluded from the final tool. Panelist response rate was high (> 75%). Consensus was achieved for the inclusion of all domains, subdomains and operational definitions except "evidence-based practices." Extensive changes to the CREAT instrument were made for clarification, to provide additional detail and to ensure applicability for CBOs. The CREAT framework and tool was refined through input from community and academic researchers. Availability of a validated tool to assess research capacity of CBOs will support targeted research capacity building for community organizations and partners, thus strengthening collaborations.

Using community-based participatory research and organizational diagnosis to characterize relationships between community leaders and academic researchers.

Sustaining collaborations between community-based organization leaders and academic researchers in community-engaged research (CEnR) in the service of decreasing health inequities necessitates understanding the collaborations from an inter-organizational perspective. We assessed the perspectives of community leaders and university-based researchers conducting community-engaged research in a medium-sized city with a history of community-university tension. Our research team, included experts in CEnR and organizational theory, used qualitative methods and purposeful, snowball sampling to recruit local participants and performed key informant interviews from July 2011-May 2012. A community-based researcher interviewed 11 community leaders, a university-based researcher interviewed 12 university-based researchers. We interviewed participants until we reached thematic saturation and performed analyses using the constant comparative method. Unifying themes characterizing community leaders and university-based researchers' relationships on the inter-organizational level include: 1) Both groups described that community-engaged university-based researchers are exceptions to typical university culture; 2) Both groups described that the interpersonal skills university-based researchers need for CEnR require a change in organizational culture and training; 3) Both groups described skepticism about the sustainability of a meaningful institutional commitment to community-engaged research 4) Both groups described the historical impact on research relationships of race, power, and privilege, but only community leaders described its persistent role and relevance in research relationships. Challenges to community-academic research partnerships include researcher interpersonal skills and different perceptions of the importance of organizational history. Solutions to improve research partnerships may include transforming university culture and community-university discussions on race, power, and privilege.