Future directions of the National Institutes of Health Science of Behavior Change Program.

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health Science of Behavior Change Common Fund Program has accelerated the investigation of mechanisms of behavior change applicable to multiple health behaviors and outcomes and facilitated the use of the experimental medicine approach to behavior change research. PURPOSE: This commentary provides a brief background of the program, plans for its next phase, and thoughts about how the experimental medicine approach to behavior change research can inform future directions in two areas of science-reproductive health and COVID-19 vaccine uptake. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of a mechanisms-based approach into behavior intervention research offers new opportunities for improving health.

The NIH Science of Behavior Change Program: Transforming the science through a focus on mechanisms of change.

The goal of the NIH Science of Behavior Change (SOBC) Common Fund Program is to provide the basis for an experimental medicine approach to behavior change that focuses on identifying and measuring the mechanisms that underlie behavioral patterns we are trying to change. This paper frames the development of the program within a discussion of the substantial disease burden in the U.S. attributable to behavioral factors, and details our strategies for breaking down the disease- and condition-focused silos in the behavior change field to accelerate discovery and translation. These principles serve as the foundation for our vision for a unified science of behavior change at the NIH and in the broader research community.

Down syndrome: national conference on patient registries, research databases, and biobanks.

A December 2010 meeting, "Down Syndrome: National Conference on Patient Registries, Research Databases, and Biobanks," was jointly sponsored by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, MD, and the Global Down Syndrome Foundation (GDSF)/Linda Crnic Institute for Down Syndrome based in Denver, CO. Approximately 70 attendees and organizers from various advocacy groups, federal agencies (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and various NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices), members of industry, clinicians, and researchers from various academic institutions were greeted by Drs. Yvonne Maddox, Deputy Director of NICHD, and Edward McCabe, Executive Director of the Linda Crnic Institute for Down Syndrome. They charged the participants to focus on the separate issues of contact registries, research databases, and biobanks through both podium presentations and breakout session discussions. Among the breakout groups for each of the major sessions, participants were asked to generate responses to questions posed by the organizers concerning these three research resources as they related to Down syndrome and then to report back to the group at large with a summary of their discussions. This report represents a synthesis of the discussions and suggested approaches formulated by the group as a whole.

Creating a global rare disease patient registry linked to a rare diseases biorepository database: Rare Disease-HUB (RD-HUB).

A movement to create a global patient registry for as many as 7,000 rare diseases was launched at a workshop, "Advancing Rare Disease Research: The Intersection of Patient Registries, Biospecimen Repositories, and Clinical Data." http://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/PATIENT_REGISTRIES_WORKSHOP/. The workshop was sponsored by the Office of Rare Diseases Research (ORDR). The focus was the building of an infrastructure for an internet-based global registry linking to biorepositories. Such a registry would serve the patients, investigators, and drug companies. To aid researchers the participants suggested the creation of a centralized database of biorepositories for rare biospecimens (RD-HUB)http://biospecimens.ordr.info.nih.gov/ that could be linked to the registry. Over two days of presentations and breakout sessions, several hundred attendees discussed government rules and regulations concerning privacy and patients' rights and the nature and scope of data to be entered into a central registry as well as concerns about how to validate patient and clinician-entered data to ensure data accuracy. Mechanisms for aggregating data from existing registries were also discussed. The attendees identified registry best practices, model coding systems, international systems for recruiting patients into clinical trials and novel ways of using the internet directly to invite participation in research. They also speculated about who would bear ultimate responsibility for the informatics in the registry and who would have access to the information. Hurdles associated with biospecimen collection and how to overcome them were detailed. The development of the recommendations was, in itself, an indication of the commitment of the rare disease community as never before.