Expanding the Concept of Translational Research: Making a Place for Environmental Health Sciences.

SUMMARY: The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) introduces a new translational research framework that builds upon previous biomedical models to create a more comprehensive and integrated environmental health paradigm. The framework was developed as a graphical construct that illustrates the complexity of designing, implementing, and tracking translational research in environmental health. We conceptualize translational research as a series of concentric rings and nodes, defining "translation" as movement either from one ring to another or between nodes on a ring. A "Fundamental Questions" ring expands upon the research described in other frameworks as "basic" to include three interrelated concepts critical to basic science research: research questions, experimental settings, and organisms. This feature enables us to capture more granularity and thus facilitates an approach for categorizing translational research and its growth over time. We anticipate that the framework will help researchers develop compelling long-term translational research stories and accelerate public health impacts by clearly mapping out opportunities for collaborations. By using this paradigm, researchers everywhere will be better positioned to design research programs, identify research partners based on cross-disciplinary research needs, identify stakeholders who are likely to use the research for environmental decision-making and intervention, and track progress toward common goals. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3657.

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Superfund Research Program: a model for multidisciplinary training of the next generation of environmental health scientists.

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Superfund Research Program (SRP) funds university-based, multidisciplinary research on human health and environmental science and engineering with the central goals to understand how hazardous substances contribute to disease and how to prevent exposures to these environmental chemicals. This multi-disciplinary approach allows early career scientists (e.g. graduate students and postdoctoral researchers) to gain experience in problem-based, solution-oriented research and to conduct research in a highly collaborative environment. Training the next generation of environmental health scientists has been an important part of the SRP since its inception. In addition to basic research, the SRP has grown to include support of broader training experiences such as those in research translation and community engagement activities that provide opportunities to give new scientists many of the skills they will need to be successful in their field of research. Looking to the future, the SRP will continue to evolve its training component by tracking and analyzing outcomes from its trainees by using tools such as the NIEHS CareerTrac database system, by increasing opportunities for trainees interested in research that goes beyond US boundaries, and in the areas of bioinformatics and data integration. These opportunities will give them the skills needed to be competitive and successful no matter which employment sector they choose to enter after they have completed their training experience.

Automated Research Impact Assessment: A New Bibliometrics Approach.

As federal programs are held more accountable for their research investments, The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has developed a new method to quantify the impact of our funded research on the scientific and broader communities. In this article we review traditional bibliometric analyses, address challenges associated with them, and describe a new bibliometric analysis method, the Automated Research Impact Assessment (ARIA). ARIA taps into a resource that has only rarely been used for bibliometric analyses: references cited in "important" research artifacts, such as policies, regulations, clinical guidelines, and expert panel reports. The approach includes new statistics that science managers can use to benchmark contributions to research by funding source. This new method provides the ability to conduct automated impact analyses of federal research that can be incorporated in program evaluations. We apply this method to several case studies to examine the impact of NIEHS funded research.

Evaluating community and campus environmental public health programs.

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' (NIEHS) Partnerships for Environmental Public Health (PEPH) program created the Evaluation Metrics Manual as a tool to help grantees understand how to map out their programs using a logic model, and to identify measures for documenting their achievements in environmental public health research. This article provides an overview of the manual, describing how grantees and community partners contributed to the manual, and how the basic components of a logic model can be used to identify metrics. We illustrate how the approach can be implemented, using a real-world case study from the University of Texas Medical Branch, where researchers worked with community partners to develop a network to address environmental justice issues.

Greatest 'HITS': A new tool for tracking impacts at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Evaluators of scientific research programs have several tools to document and analyze products of scientific research, but few tools exist for exploring and capturing the impacts of such research. Understanding impacts is beneficial because it fosters a greater sense of accountability and stewardship for federal research dollars. This article presents the High Impacts Tracking System (HITS), a new approach to documenting research impacts that is in development at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). HITS is designed to help identify scientific advances in the NIEHS research portfolio as they emerge, and provide a robust data structure to capture those advances. We have downloaded previously un-searchable data from the central NIH grants database and developed a robust coding schema to help us track research products (going beyond publication counts to the content of publications) as well as research impacts. We describe the coding schema and key system features as well as several development challenges, including data integration, development of a final data structure from three separate ontologies, and ways to develop consensus about codes among program staff.

Toward the assessment of scientific and public health impacts of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Extramural Asthma Research Program using available data.

BACKGROUND: In the past 15 years, asthma prevalence has increased and is disproportionately distributed among children, minorities, and low-income persons. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Division of Extramural Research and Training developed a framework to measure the scientific and health impacts of its extramural asthma research to improve the scientific basis for reducing the health effects of asthma. OBJECTIVES: Here we apply the framework to characterize the NIEHS asthma portfolio's impact in terms of publications, clinical applications of findings, community interventions, and technology developments. METHODS: A logic model was tailored to inputs, outputs, and outcomes of the NIEHS asthma portfolio. Data from existing National Institutes of Health (NIH) databases are used, along with publicly available bibliometric data and structured elicitation of expert judgment. RESULTS: NIEHS is the third largest source of asthma-related research grant funding within the NIH between 1975 and 2005, after the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Much of NIEHS-funded asthma research focuses on basic research, but results are often published in journals focused on clinical investigation, increasing the likelihood that the work is moved into practice along the "bench to bedside" continuum. NIEHS support has led to key breakthroughs in scientific research concerning susceptibility to asthma, environmental conditions that heighten asthma symptoms, and cellular mechanisms that may be involved in treating asthma. CONCLUSIONS: If gaps and limitations in publicly available data receive adequate attention, further linkages can be demonstrated between research activities and public health improvements. This logic model approach to research impact assessment demonstrates that it is possible to conceptualize program components, mine existing databases, and begin to show longer-term impacts of program results. The next challenges will be to modify current data structures, improve the linkages among relevant databases, incorporate as much electronically available data as possible, and determine how to improve the quality and health impact of the science that we support.

NIEHS extramural global environmental health portfolio: opportunities for collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Global environmental health has emerged as a critical topic for environmental health researchers and practitioners. Estimates of the environmental contribution of total worldwide disease burden range from 25 to 33%. OBJECTIVE: We reviewed grants funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) during 2005-2007 to evaluate the costs and scientific composition of the global environmental health portfolio, with the ultimate aim of strengthening global environmental health research partnerships. METHODS/RESULTS: We examined NIEHS grant research databases to identify the global environmental health portfolio. In the past 3 fiscal years (2005-2007), the NIEHS funded 57 scientific research projects in 37 countries, at an estimated cost of $30 million. Metals such as arsenic, methylmercury, and lead are the most frequently studied toxic agents, but a wide range of stressors, routes of exposure, and agents are addressed in the portfolio. CONCLUSIONS: The portfolio analysis indicates that there is a firm foundation of research activities upon which additional global environmental health partnerships could be encouraged. Current data structures could be strengthened to support more automated analysis of grantee information.

Framing scientific analyses for risk management of environmental hazards by communities: case studies with seafood safety issues.

Risk management provides a context for addressing environmental health hazards. Critical to this approach is the identification of key opportunities for participation. We applied a framework based on the National Research Council's (NRC) analytic-deliberative risk management dialogue model that illustrates two main iterative processes: informing and framing. The informing process involves conveying information from analyses of risk issues, often scientific, to all parties so they can participate in deliberation. In the framing process, ideas and concerns from stakeholder deliberations help determine what and how scientific analyses will be carried out. There are few activities through which affected parties can convey their ideas from deliberative processes for framing scientific analyses. The absence of participation results in one-way communication. The analytic-deliberative dialogue, as envisioned by the NRC and promoted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), underscores the importance of two-way communication. In this article we present case studies of three groups--an Asian and Pacific Islander community coalition and two Native American Tribes--active in framing scientific analyses of health risks related to contaminated seafood. Contacts with these organizations were established or enhanced through a regional NIEHS town meeting. The reasons for concern, participation, approaches, and funding sources were different for each group. Benefits from their activities include increased community involvement and ownership, better focusing of analytical processes, and improved accuracy and appropriateness of risk management. These examples present a spectrum of options for increasing community involvement in framing analyses and highlight the need for increased support of such activities.

Methodologic and logistic issues in conducting longitudinal birth cohort studies: lessons learned from the Centers for Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research.

In anticipation of the National Children's Study, lessons can be learned from the smaller birth cohort studies conducted by five Centers for Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The populations studied are diverse in ethnicity and social class and reside in urban and rural environments. Although almost all of the centers chose to enroll participants through medical care facilities, they had to develop independent staffs and structures because of the overburdened medical care system. Some of the lessons learned by the centers include the importance of continuous funding, building community partnerships to conduct culturally appropriate research, hiring bilingual and bicultural staff from the community, prioritizing research goals, developing biorepositories to ensure future utility of samples, instituting quality control procedures for all aspects of specimen and data collection, maintaining frequent contact with study participants, ensuring ethical conduct of the research in a changing medical-legal climate, and communicating results in a timely and appropriate manner to participants and the wider community. All centers underestimated the necessary start-up time, staff, and costs in conducting these birth cohort studies. Despite the logistical complexity and added expenses, all centers emphasize the importance of studying the impact of environmental exposures on those children most at risk, those living in minority and low-income communities. These centers present barriers encountered, solutions found, and considerations for future research, with the hope that the lessons learned can help inform the planning and conduct of the National Children's Study.

Promoting transparency of long-term environmental decisions: the Hanford Decision Mapping System pilot project.

Nuclear waste cleanup is a challenging and complex problem that requires both scientific analysis and dialogue among a variety of stakeholders. This article describes an effort to develop an online information system that supports this analytic-deliberative dialogue by integrating cleanup information for the Hanford Site, and making it more "transparent." A framework for understanding and evaluating transparency guided system development. Working directly with stakeholders, we identified information needs and developed new ways to organize and present the information so that it would be more transparent to interested parties, with the ultimate aim of fostering greater participation in decision dialogues and processes. The complexity of the information needed for dialogue suggested that several types of communication devices ("information structures") were warranted. Five information structures were developed for the pilot Decision Mapping System (http://nalu.geog.washington.edu/dms). Decision maps hyperlinked decision information to maps of Hanford. Background Information provided context in a narrative format. Decision Paths organized decision process information on a timeline and provided direct hyperlinks to online documentation. The Geographic Library hyperlinked decision documents to maps. Finally, a Discussion Forum allowed users to make comments and view remarks from others. Early lessons from this work suggest that transparency is integral to long-term management, a participatory design process contributed greatly to its perceived success, and better data integration to support decision making is needed. This work has broad implications for risk communicators and risk managers because it speaks to the design of information systems to support "analytic-deliberative" decision processes (i.e., those that rely upon both risk science and public dialogue).

Nuclear waste transportation: case studies of identifying stakeholder risk information needs.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for the cleanup of our nation's nuclear legacy, involving complex decisions about how and where to dispose of nuclear waste and how to transport it to its ultimate disposal site. It is widely recognized that a broad range of stakeholders and tribes should be involved in this kind of decision. All too frequently, however, stakeholders and tribes are only invited to participate by commenting on processes and activities that are near completion; they are not included in the problem formulation stages. Moreover, it is often assumed that high levels of complexity and uncertainty prevent meaningful participation by these groups. Considering the types of information that stakeholders and tribes need to be able to participate in the full life cycle of decision making is critical for improving participation and transparency of decision making. Toward this objective, the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) participated in three public processes relating to nuclear waste transportation and disposal in 1997-1998. First, CRESP organized focus groups to identify concerns about nuclear waste transportation. Second, CRESP conducted exit surveys at regional public workshops held by DOE to get input from stakeholders on intersite waste transfer issues. Third, CRESP developed visual tools to synthesize technical information and allow stakeholders and tribes with varying levels of knowledge about nuclear waste to participate in meaningful discussion. In this article we share the results of the CRESP findings, discuss common themes arising from these interactions, and comment on special considerations needed to facilitate stakeholder and tribal participation in similar decision-making processes.

Environmental health services in Europe 5: guidelines for evaluation of environmental health services

This publication aims to fill a gap identified by Member States: to provide a practical introduction for environmental health professionals and managers to evaluate their services. The first task is to review the most critical components and aim of an evaluation, to see how these relate to the overall framework of environmental health service management. Evaluation of health services is an established field. Several books and reports have been published on the subject, both inside and outside of WHO. This publication does not intend to rewrite these documents or restate their arguments. Its goal is to introduce environmental health professionals to evaluation principles, tools and examples from which they can pick and choose elements to suit their specific needs. The book is designed to guide practitioners towards questions that must be answered to evaluate and improve services. With this in mind, references and suggestions for further reading appear at the end of each chapter, and key recommendations are presented in boxes throughout the text.