Erratum: Sociome Data Commons: A scalable and sustainable platform for investigating the full social context and determinants of health - ERRATUM.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/cts.2023.670.].

CommunityRx, a social care assistance intervention for family and friend caregivers delivered at the point of care: two concurrent blinded randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: CommunityRx is an evidence-based social care intervention delivered to family and friend caregivers ("caregivers") at the point of healthcare to address health-related social risks (HRSRs). Two CommunityRx randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are being fielded concurrently on Chicago's South Side, a predominantly African American/Black community. CommunityRx-Hunger is a double-blind RCT enrolling caregivers of hospitalized children. CommunityRx-Dementia is a single-blind RCT enrolling caregivers of community-residing people with dementia. RCTs with caregivers face recruitment barriers, including caregiver burden and lack of systematic strategies to identify caregivers in clinical settings. COVID-19 pandemic-related visitor restrictions exacerbated these barriers and prompted the need for iteration of the protocols from in-person to remote operations. This study describes these protocols and methods used for successful iteration to overcome barriers. METHODS AND FINDINGS: CommunityRx uses individual-level data to generate personalized, local community resource referrals for basic, health and caregiving needs. In early 2020, two in-person RCT protocols were pre-tested. In March 2020, when pandemic conditions prohibited face-to-face clinical enrollment, both protocols were iterated to efficient, caregiver-centered remote operations. Iterations were enabled in part by the Automated Randomized Controlled Trial Information-Communication System (ARCTICS), a trial management system innovation engineered to integrate the data collection database (REDCap) with community resource referral (NowPow) and SMS texting (Mosio) platforms. Enabled by engaged Community Advisory Boards and ARCTICS, both RCTs quickly adapted to remote operations. To accommodate these adaptations, launch was delayed until November (CommunityRx-Hunger) and December (CommunityRx-Dementia) 2020. Despite the delay, 65% of all planned participants (CommunityRx-Hunger n = 417/640; CommunityRx-Dementia n = 222/344) were enrolled by December 2021, halfway through our projected enrollment timeline. Both trials enrolled 13% more participants in the first 12 months than originally projected for in-person enrollment. DISCUSSION: Our asset-based, community-engaged approach combined with widely accessible institutional and commercial information technologies facilitated rapid migration of in-person trials to remote operations. Remote or hybrid RCT designs for social care interventions may be a viable, scalable alternative to in-person recruitment and intervention delivery protocols, particularly for caregivers and other groups that are under-represented in traditional health services research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: CommunityRx-Hunger (NCT04171999, 11/21/2019); CommunityRx for Caregivers (NCT04146545, 10/31/2019).

Effect of a Social Care Intervention on Health Care Experiences of Caregivers of Hospitalized Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Health-related social risks (HRSRs), like food and housing insecurity, are stigmatized conditions that, when addressed in clinical settings, could inadvertently compromise health care experiences. Objective: To test the noninferiority hypothesis that a low-intensity, high-scale social care intervention does not promote experiences of discrimination or diminish satisfaction with care compared to usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a double-blind randomized clinical trial conducted from November 2020 to June 2022 with 12-month follow-up analyzing data obtained 1 week after baseline intervention at a 155-bed academic urban children's hospital with 5300 annual admissions. Participants were recruited from their children's hospital rooms during their children's inpatient hospital stays. Inclusion criteria were identifying as the primary caregiver of a child younger than 18 years who was hospitalized in the general, intensive care, or transplant units; living in 1 of 42 target zip codes; and consenting to receive text messages. Caregivers of healthy newborns and caregivers of children expected to be hospitalized for less than 24 hours or greater than 30 days were excluded. A total of 637 eligible parents and caregivers were enrolled. Interventions: Participants were randomized to usual care or usual care plus CommunityRx, a low-intensity, universally delivered, electronic medical record-integrated social care assistance intervention providing personalized information about local resources alongside education about HRSRs and how to access additional support. Usual care included an admission brochure about hospital-based free food options and nonsystematic provision of resource information. Main Outcomes and Measures: Experiences of discrimination, measured using the Discrimination in Medical Settings Scale (range 7-35; higher scores indicate more frequent discrimination) and satisfaction with hospital discharge 1 week postdischarge using Child HCAHPS (range 0-100; higher scores indicate higher satisfaction). The a priori noninferiority margins (control minus intervention) were -0.9 (discrimination) and 1.6 (satisfaction). Results: Of 637 eligible caregiver participants, most identified as female (n = 600 [94.3%]), Black (n = 505 [79.4%]), and had household income less than $50 000 per year (n = 488 [78.5%]). One-third were experiencing food insecurity (n = 223). Half of participants reported discrimination experiences during the pediatric hospitalization (n = 259). Discrimination experiences among the intervention group were noninferior to those among the control group (mean [SD] score: control, 10.3 [4.7] vs intervention, 10.0 [4.6]; difference, 0.2; 90% CI, -0.5 to 0.9). Mean (SD) satisfaction with discharge was high (control, 84.2 [23.8] vs intervention, 81.9 [24.8]), but evidence was insufficient to support intervention noninferiority for this end point (difference, 2.3; 90% CI, -1.2 to 5.8). Food security status did not moderate the relationship between intervention and either outcome. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that a universally delivered social care assistance intervention did not promote caregiver experiences of discrimination during a child's hospitalization but were inconclusive regarding satisfaction. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04171999.

Two concurrent randomized controlled trials of CommunityRx, a social care intervention for family and friend caregivers delivered at the point of care.

Background: CommunityRx is an evidence-based social care intervention delivered to family and friend caregivers ("caregivers") at the point of healthcare to address health-related social risks (HRSRs). CommunityRx-Hunger is a double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) that enrolls caregivers of hospitalized children. CommunityRx-Dementia is a single-blind RCT that enrolls caregivers of community-residing people with dementia. Clinical trials that enroll caregivers face recruitment barriers, including caregiver burden and lack of systematic strategies to identify and track caregivers. COVID-19 pandemic-related visitor restrictions exacerbated these barriers and prompted the need for iteration of the CommunityRx protocols from in-person to remote operations. This study describes the novel methods used to iterate existing RCT protocols and factors contributing to their successful iteration. Methods: CommunityRx uses individual-level data to generate personalized community resource referrals for basic, health and caregiving needs. Our research program uses an asset-based, community-engaged approach including study-specific community advisory boards (CABs). In early 2020, both RCT protocols were pre-tested in-person. In March 2020, when pandemic conditions prohibited enrollment during clinical encounters, both protocols were iterated to efficient, caregiver-centered remote operations. Iterations were enabled in part by the Automated Randomized Controlled Trial Information-Communication System (ARCTICS), a trial management system innovation engineered to integrate the data collection database (REDCap) with community resource referral (NowPow) and SMS texting (Mosio) platforms. Results: Enabled by engaged CABs and ARCTICS, both RCTs quickly adapted to remote operations. Designed before the pandemic, we had planned to launch both trials by March 2020 and complete enrollment by December 2021. The pandemic postponed launch until November (CommunityRx-Hunger) and December (CommunityRx-Dementia) 2020. Despite the delay, 65% of all planned participants (CommunityRx-Hunger n = 417/640; CommunityRx-Dementia n = 222/344) were enrolled by December 2021, halfway through our projected enrollment timeline. Both trials enrolled 13% more participants in 12 months than originally projected in-person. Conclusions: Our asset-based, community-engaged approach combined with widely accessible institutional and commercial information technologies facilitated rapid migration to remote trial operations. Remote or hybrid RCT designs for social care interventions may be a viable, scalable alternative to in-person recruitment and intervention delivery protocols, particularly for caregivers and other groups that are under-represented in traditional health services research. Trial Status: Both studies are registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: CommunityRx-Hunger (NCT04171999); CommunityRx for Caregivers (NCT04146545); My Diabetes My Community (NCT04970810).

"We're playing on the same team": Communication (dis)connections between trauma patients and surgical residents.

BACKGROUND: Patient-physician communication is key to better clinical outcomes and patient well-being. Communication between trauma patients and their physicians remains relatively unexplored. We aimed to identify and characterize the range of strengths and challenges in patient-physician communication in the setting of trauma care. METHODS: A qualitative, grounded theory approach was used to explore communication strengths and challenges for patients and residents. Patients previously admitted to the trauma service for violent injuries were recruited and interviewed in-person during their trauma clinic appointments. Surgical residents were recruited via email and interviewed virtually via Zoom. Anonymous, semistructured interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. RESULTS: Twenty-nine interviews with patients and 14 interviews with residents were conducted. Patients reported feeling ignored and misunderstood and having inadequate communication with physicians. Residents cited lack of time, patients' lack of health literacy, differences in background, and emotional responses to trauma as barriers to effective communication with patients. Patients and residents reported an understanding of each other's stressors, similar emotional experiences regarding traumatic stress, and a desire to communicate with each other in greater depth both inside and outside of the hospital. CONCLUSION: Trauma patients and residents can feel disconnected due to the lack of time for thorough communication and differences in background; however, they understand each other's stressors and share similar emotional responses regarding trauma and a desire for increased communication, connection, and solidarity. Leveraging these shared values to guide interventions, such as a resident curriculum, may help bridge disconnects and improve their communication. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Improvisational and Standup Comedy, Graphic Medicine, and Theatre of the Oppressed to Teach Advancing Health Equity.

Ninety-minute virtual workshops that used improvisational comedy, standup comedy, graphic medicine, and Theatre of the Oppressed were implemented in 2020 within a required health equity course at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine to train 90 first-year medical students in advancing health equity. Learning objectives were to (1) deepen understanding of diverse human experiences by developing relationship skills, such as empathy, active listening, engagement, and observation; (2) recognize how diverse patients perceive students and how students perceive them to gain insight into one's identity and how intersectional systems of oppression can stigmatize and marginalize different identities; and (3) engage in free, frank, fearless, and safe conversations about structural racism, colonialism, White and other social privileges, and systemic factors that lead to health inequities. With a 61% (109/180 [90 students × 2 workshops per student]) survey response rate, 72% of respondents thought workshops were very good or excellent, and 83% agreed or strongly agreed they would recommend workshops to others. Key recommendations are to (1) incorporate experiential storytelling and discussion; (2) define clear learning goals for each workshop, map exercises to these goals, and explain their relevance to students; and (3) create a safe, courageous, brave space for exploration and discussion. For health equity, transformation happens as students share their perspectives of curriculum content from their intersectional identities, experiences, and varied privileges; are challenged by others' perspectives; and attempt to understand how others can experience the same content differently. The arts create a powerful form of sharing beyond routine conversations or discussions, which is critical for honest dialogue on difficult topics, such as racism, homophobia, and White privilege and other social privileges. Educators should enable students to have the space, time, and courage to share their true perspectives and engage in authentic discussions that may be uncomfortable but transformative.

Erratum: Bridging the gap between research, policy, and practice: Lessons learned from academic-public partnerships in the CTSA network - CORRIGENDUM.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/cts.2020.23.].

Bridging the gap between research, policy, and practice: Lessons learned from academic-public partnerships in the CTSA network.

A primary barrier to translation of clinical research discoveries into care delivery and population health is the lack of sustainable infrastructure bringing researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and communities together to reduce silos in knowledge and action. As National Institutes of Health's (NIH) mechanism to advance translational research, Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) awardees are uniquely positioned to bridge this gap. Delivering on this promise requires sustained collaboration and alignment between research institutions and public health and healthcare programs and services. We describe the collaboration of seven CTSA hubs with city, county, and state healthcare and public health organizations striving to realize this vision together. Partnership representatives convened monthly to identify key components, common and unique themes, and barriers in academic-public collaborations. All partnerships aligned the activities of the CTSA programs with the needs of the city/county/state partners, by sharing resources, responding to real-time policy questions and training needs, promoting best practices, and advancing community-engaged research, and dissemination and implementation science to narrow the knowledge-to-practice gap. Barriers included competing priorities, differing timelines, bureaucratic hurdles, and unstable funding. Academic-public health/health system partnerships represent a unique and underutilized model with potential to enhance community and population health.

Measuring quality and outcomes of research collaborations: An integrative review.

INTRODUCTION: Although the science of team science is no longer a new field, the measurement of team science and its standardization remain in relatively early stages of development. To describe the current state of team science assessment, we conducted an integrative review of measures of research collaboration quality and outcomes. METHODS: Collaboration measures were identified using both a literature review based on specific keywords and an environmental scan. Raters abstracted details about the measures using a standard tool. Measures related to collaborations with clinical care, education, and program delivery were excluded from this review. RESULTS: We identified 44 measures of research collaboration quality, which included 35 measures with reliability and some form of statistical validity reported. Most scales focused on group dynamics. We identified 89 measures of research collaboration outcomes; 16 had reliability and 15 had a validity statistic. Outcome measures often only included simple counts of products; publications rarely defined how counts were delimited, obtained, or assessed for reliability. Most measures were tested in only one venue. CONCLUSIONS: Although models of collaboration have been developed, in general, strong, reliable, and valid measurements of such collaborations have not been conducted or accepted into practice. This limitation makes it difficult to compare the characteristics and impacts of research teams across studies or to identify the most important areas for intervention. To advance the science of team science, we provide recommendations regarding the development and psychometric testing of measures of collaboration quality and outcomes that can be replicated and broadly applied across studies.

Engaging patients, clinicians, and the community in a Clinical Data Research Network: Lessons learned from the CAPriCORN CDRN.

Engaging patients, clinicians, and community members in the development of a research network creates opportunities and challenges beyond engagement in discrete learning activities. This paper describes our experiences establishing and maintaining a stakeholder engagement infrastructure for the Chicago Area Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network (CAPriCORN) and highlights important lessons learned over the first 4 years. During this time, the CAPriCORN Patient and Community Advisory Committee (PCAC) appointed patient, clinician, and community representatives to governance and advisory groups throughout the network, developed a process and criteria for patient- and clinician-centered review of research proposals, and evolved from a large, diverse group to a smaller yet still diverse, more actively engaged group with connections to the broader community. Key challenges faced by the PCAC have included determining the optimal size and composition of the group, understanding the complex structure of the network as a whole, coordinating with other network entities and functions, and integrating the patient and community voice into the research review process. Efforts to engage stakeholders in clinical data research networks should anticipate and develop solutions to address these challenges.

The ACCOuNT Consortium: A Model for the Discovery, Translation, and Implementation of Precision Medicine in African Americans.

The majority of pharmacogenomic (PGx) studies have been conducted on European ancestry populations, thereby excluding minority populations and impeding the discovery and translation of African American-specific genetic variation into precision medicine. Without accounting for variants found in African Americans, clinical recommendations based solely on genetic biomarkers found in European populations could result in misclassification of drug response in African American patients. To address these challenges, we formed the Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center (TCC), African American Cardiovascular Pharmacogenetic Consortium (ACCOuNT), to discover novel genetic variants in African Americans related to clinically actionable cardiovascular phenotypes and to incorporate African American-specific sequence variations into clinical recommendations at the point of care. The TCC consists of two research projects focused on discovery and translation of genetic findings and four cores that support the projects. In addition, the largest repository of PGx information on African Americans is being established as well as lasting infrastructure that can be utilized to spur continued research in this understudied population.

CommunityRx: A Population Health Improvement Innovation That Connects Clinics To Communities.

The CommunityRx system, a population health innovation, combined an e-prescribing model and community engagement to strengthen links between clinics and community resources for basic, wellness, and disease self-management needs in Chicago. The components of CommunityRx were a youth workforce, whose members identified 19,589 public-serving entities in the 106-square-mile implementation region between 2012 and 2014; community health information specialists, who used the workforce's findings to generate an inventory of 14,914 health-promoting resources; and a health information technology (IT) platform that was integrated with three electronic health record systems at thirty-three clinical sites. By mapping thirty-seven prevalent social and medical conditions to community resources, CommunityRx generated 253,479 personalized HealtheRx prescriptions for more than 113,000 participants. Eighty-three percent of the recipients found the HealtheRx very useful, and 19 percent went to a place they learned about from the HealtheRx. All but one organization continued using the CommunityRx system after the study period ended. This study demonstrates the feasibility of using health IT and workforce innovation to bridge the gap between clinical and other health-promoting sectors.

Community grand rounds: re-engineering community and academic partnerships in health education-a partnership and programmatic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Community participation in population health improvement can assist university researchers in targeting intervention resources more effectively and efficiently, leading to more effective implementation of interventions, because of joint ownership of both process and product. Two academic health centers partnered with community based organizations to develop a bidirectional educational seminar series called "Community Grand Rounds" (CGR), which identified health concerns of Chicago's South Side residents and provided information regarding university and community resources that addressed community health concerns. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the community consultants' perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of the planning and implementation of the seminars that resulted from the partnership. METHODS: We conducted one-on-one interviews and focus groups with community consultants to assess their perceptions of the partnership using a tailored version of a previously developed individual and focus group interview instrument. Analysis of the interview text was conducted using grounded theory where themes were coded as they emerged. CONCLUSIONS: CGR is an effective mechanism for providing needed community health information in an easily accessible format. Additional work is needed to determine whether this format represents a sustainable community-university partnership.

Building community-engaged health research and discovery infrastructure on the South Side of Chicago: science in service to community priorities.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the roles community members can and should play in, and an asset-based strategy used by Chicago's South Side Health and Vitality Studies for, building sustainable, large-scale community health research infrastructure. The Studies are a family of research efforts aiming to produce actionable knowledge to inform health policy, programming, and investments for the region. METHODS: Community and university collaborators, using a consensus-based approach, developed shared theoretical perspectives, guiding principles, and a model for collaboration in 2008, which were used to inform an asset-based operational strategy. Ongoing community engagement and relationship-building support the infrastructure and research activities of the studies. RESULTS: Key steps in the asset-based strategy include: 1) continuous community engagement and relationship building, 2) identifying community priorities, 3) identifying community assets, 4) leveraging assets, 5) conducting research, 6) sharing knowledge and 7) informing action. Examples of community member roles, and how these are informed by the Studies' guiding principles, are provided. CONCLUSIONS: Community and university collaborators, with shared vision and principles, can effectively work together to plan innovative, large-scale community-based research that serves community needs and priorities. Sustainable, effective models are needed to realize NIH's mandate for meaningful translation of biomedical discovery into improved population health.

Transitions of Care Consensus policy statement: American College of Physicians, Society of General Internal Medicine, Society of Hospital Medicine, American Geriatrics Society, American College Of Emergency Physicians, and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

The American College of Physicians, Society of Hospital Medicine, and Society of General Internal Medicine convened a multi-stakeholder consensus conference in July 2007 to address the quality gaps in the transitions between inpatient and outpatient settings and to develop consensus standards for these transitions. Over 30 organizations sent representatives to the Transitions of Care Consensus Conference. Participating organizations included medical specialty societies from internal medicine as well as family medicine and pediatrics, governmental agencies such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, performance measure developers such as the National Committee for Quality Assurance and the American Medical Association Physician Consortium on Performance Improvement, nurse associations such as the Visiting Nurse Associations of America and Home Care and Hospice, pharmacist groups, and patient groups such as the Institute for Family-Centered Care. The Transitions of Care Consensus Conference made recommendations for standards concerning the transitions between inpatient and outpatient settings for future implementation. The American College of Physicians, Society of Hospital Medicine, Society of General Internal Medicine, American Geriatric Society, American College of Emergency Physicians, and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine all endorsed this document.

Transitions of Care Consensus Policy Statement American College of Physicians-Society of General Internal Medicine-Society of Hospital Medicine-American Geriatrics Society-American College of Emergency Physicians-Society of Academic Emergency Medicine.

The American College of Physicians (ACP), Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM), Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM), American Geriatric Society (AGS), American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) developed consensus standards to address the quality gaps in the transitions between inpatient and outpatient settings. The following summarized principles were established: 1.) Accountability; 2) Communication; 3.) Timely interchange of information; 4.) Involvement of the patient and family member; 5.) Respect the hub of coordination of care; 6.) All patients and their family/caregivers should have a medical home or coordinating clinician; 7.) At every point of transitions the patient and/or their family/caregivers need to know who is responsible for their care at that point; 9.) National standards; and 10.) Standardized metrics related to these standards in order to lead to quality improvement and accountability. Based on these principles, standards describing necessary components for implementation were developed: coordinating clinicians, care plans/transition record, communication infrastructure, standard communication formats, transition responsibility, timeliness, community standards, and measurement.

Activation of patients for successful self-management.

Patients, not healthcare providers, are the primary managers of their health conditions. Current healthcare falls short of providing the kind of support that patients need to optimally manage their conditions. But there are simple and effective self-management support tools and methods that are easy to learn and can be used within the time constraints of the office visit. In addition to tools and methods, supporting self-management requires practice redesign to reliably deliver optimal care to all patients. Whether the care team consists of a solo physician or a large, multiphysician organization, applying basic principles and using simple tools can enable patients to take a more active role in improving their health.

A quality improvement tool to assess self-management support in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Self management is an essential, central component of effective care for diabetes and other chronic illnesses, yet very few instruments exist to assess delivery or consistency of self-management support. The Assessment of Primary Care Resources and Supports for Chronic Disease Self-Management (PCRS) tool assesses both organizational infrastructure and delivery of self-management support services. METHODS: The PCRS was developed by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Diabetes Initiative and underwent several stages of development, including three pilot tests, review by experts, and implementation by a national quality improvement (QI) program. RESULTS: The development and testing of the instrument resulted in the current 16-item measure. Use of the PCRS in a QI collaborative with 20 diverse health care teams across the United States demonstrated that the instrument is helpful in assessing areas for improvement. DISCUSSION: Initial experience suggests that the PCRS is a user-friendly self-assessment tool that primary care teams can use to assess their current capacity to support and implement consistent patient-centered self management. The initial evaluation indicates that the PCRS has acceptable psychometric properties and is applicable across different types of primary care teams and chronic illness conditions.

Assessing delivery of the five 'As' for patient-centered counseling.

The '5As' model of behavior change provides a sequence of evidence-based clinician and office practice behaviors (Assess, Advise, Agree, Assist, Arrange) that can be applied in primary care settings to address a broad range of behaviors and health conditions. Although the 5As approach is becoming more widely adopted as a strategy for health behavior change counseling, practical and standardized assessments of 5As delivery are not widely available. This article provides clinicians and researchers with alternatives for assessment of 5As implementation for both quality improvement, and for research and evaluation purposes, and presents several practical tools they may wish to use. Sample instruments for tracking delivery of the 5As and related tools that are in the public domain are provided to facilitate integration of self-management support into clinical care. We discuss the strengths and limitations of the various assessment approaches. Promising and practical measures to assess the 5As exist for both quality improvement and research purposes. Additional validation is needed on almost all current procedures, and both clinicians and researchers are encouraged to use these instruments and share the resulting data.

Patient self-management in the primary care treatment of depression.

Efforts to improve primary care treatment of depression incorporate elements of the chronic illness care model, including patient self-management strategies. Case studies, focus groups and the literature suggest six key components of depression self-management programs: (1) implement behavioral change interventions, (2) plan for crisis and relapse prevention, (3) re-establish personal meaning, (4) attend to patients' experience, context and community, (5) build a patient-clinician partnership and (6) create an integrated, self-management support structure. Successful implementation of these components is facilitated by (1) the care system's collective and empathic understanding of the disease itself; (2) sufficient time; (3) adequate funding and (4) robust clinical information systems.