Taking action to advance the study of race and ethnicity: the Women's Health Initiative (WHI).

"Race" and "ethnicity" are socially constructed terms, not based on biology - in contrast to biologic ancestry and genetic admixture - and are flexible, contested, and unstable concepts, often driven by power. Although individuals may self-identify with a given race and ethnic group, as multidimensional beings exposed to differential life influencing factors that contribute to disease risk, additional social determinants of health (SDOH) should be explored to understand the relationship of race or ethnicity to health. Potential health effects of structural racism, defined as "the structures, policies, practices, and norms resulting in differential access to goods, services, and opportunities of society by "race," have been largely ignored in medical research. The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) was expected to enroll a racially and ethnically diverse cohort of older women at 40 U.S. clinical centers between 1993 and 1998; yet, key information on the racial and ethnic make-up of the WHI cohort of 161,808 women was limited until a 2020-2021 Task Force was charged by the WHI Steering Committee to better characterize the WHI cohort and develop recommendations for WHI investigators who want to include "race" and/or "ethnicity" in papers and presentations. As the lessons learned are of relevance to most cohorts, the essence of the WHI Race and Ethnicity Language and Data Interpretation Guide is presented in this paper. Recommendations from the WHI Race and Ethnicity Language and Data Interpretation Guide include: Studies should be designed to include all populations and researchers should actively, purposefully and with cultural-relevance, commit to recruiting a diverse sample; Researchers should collect robust data on race, ethnicity and SDOH variables that may intersect with participant identities, such as immigration status, country of origin, acculturation, current residence and neighborhood, religion; Authors should use appropriate terminology, based on a participant's self-identified "race" and "ethnicity", and provide clear rationale, including a conceptual framework, for including race and ethnicity in the analytic plan; Researchers should employ appropriate analytical methods, including mixed-methods, to study the relationship of these sociocultural variables to health; Authors should address how representative study participants are of the population to which results might apply, such as by age, race and ethnicity.

Trust in Community-Engaged Research Partnerships: A Methodological Overview of Designing a Multisite Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Initiative.

Community-engaged research (CEnR) builds on the strengths of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) framework to address health in underserved and minority communities. There is a paucity of studies that identify the process from which trust develops in CEnR partnerships. This study responds to the need for empirical investigation of building and maintaining trust from a multistakeholder perspective. We conducted a multi-institutional pilot study using concept mapping with to better understand how trust, a critical outcome of CEnR partnerships, can act as "social capital." Concept mapping was used to collect data from the three stakeholder groups: community, health-care, and academic research partners across three CTSAs. Concept mapping is a mixed-methods approach that allows participants to brainstorm and identify factors that contribute to a concept and describe ways in which those factors relate to each other. This study offers important insights on developing an initial set of trust measures that can be used across CTSAs to understand differences and similarities in conceptualization of trust among key stakeholder groups, track changes in public trust in research, identify both positive and negative aspects of trust, identify characteristics that maintain trust, and inform the direction for future research.

Implementation Science in Perioperative Care.

There is a 17-year gap between the initial publication of scientific evidence and its uptake into widespread practice in health care. The field of implementation science (IS) emerged in the 1990s as an answer to this "evidence-to-practice gap." In this article, we present an overview of implementation science, focusing on the application of IS principles to perioperative care. We describe opportunities for additional training and discuss strategies for funding and publishing IS work. The objective is to demonstrate how IS can improve perioperative patient care, while highlighting perioperative IS studies and identifying areas in need of additional investigation.

Multisite randomized trial of a single-session versus multisession literacy-sensitive self-care intervention for patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Self-care training can reduce hospitalization for heart failure (HF), and more intensive intervention may benefit more vulnerable patients, including those with low literacy. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 1-year, multisite, randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness trial with 605 patients with HF was conducted. Those randomized to a single session received a 40-minute in-person, literacy-sensitive training; the multisession group received the same initial training and then ongoing telephone-based support. The primary outcome was combined incidence of all-cause hospitalization or death; secondary outcomes included HF-related hospitalization and HF-related quality of life, with prespecified stratification by literacy. Overall, the incidence of all-cause hospitalization and death did not differ between intervention groups (incidence rate ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.22). The effect of multisession training compared with single-session training differed by literacy group: Among those with low literacy, the multisession training yielded a lower incidence of all-cause hospitalization and death (incidence rate ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.25), and among those with higher literacy, the multisession intervention yielded a higher incidence (incidence rate ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.50; interaction P=0.048). For HF-related hospitalization, among those with low literacy, multisession training yielded a lower incidence (incidence rate ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-1.12), and among those with higher literacy, it yielded a higher incidence (incidence rate ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.88; interaction P=0.005). HF-related quality of life improved more for patients receiving multisession than for those receiving single-session interventions at 1 and 6 months, but the difference at 12 months was smaller. Effects on HF-related quality of life did not differ by literacy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, an intensive multisession intervention did not change clinical outcomes compared with a single-session intervention. People with low literacy appear to benefit more from multisession interventions than people with higher literacy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00378950.