Researcher Views of Barriers to Clinical and Translational Research in a Statewide Program.

The Tracking and Evaluation Core of Rhode Island Advance-CTR conducted an online needs assessment survey at the program's inception in 2016 and again in 2021. Now dealing with well-established support systems provided by the grant, we were particularly interested in how the perceived needs of the research community in Rhode Island might have changed over five years. Specifically, what barriers have been reduced or eliminated and which have persisted or increased? How do those barriers vary by demographic status and what implications do those differences have for the CTR? An online survey was completed by 199 researchers, who reported the extent to which they perceived the lack of access to a range of research supports as a barrier to conducting research at their institution. Overall, researchers indicated statistically significant changes from 2016 to 2021 such that a lack of pilot project funding and proposal development support had decreased as barriers, while space for research, and advice on commercial development, had increased. Statistically significant differences in the salience of particular barriers by some demographic variables were also noted and the results of this study suggest Centers for Clinical and Translational Research can have salutary effects on the research paradigm within their partnering institutions in a relatively short time.

Evaluating systemic changes to support clinical and translational health research.

In evaluation research, "programs" are often conceptualized as clearly bounded, narrow in scope, focused on specific outcomes, using a well-defined linear causal model, and hence, suitable for standard evaluation methods. The evaluation work reported here was carried out in a more challenging context, where large, complex, interwoven systems were targets for change as a means to influence a diffuse array of outcomes. Our evaluation of an NIH-funded program to improve statewide infrastructure for clinical and translational health research ("Advance-CTR") used qualitative data provided by investigators who used the program's services, were funded awardees, or were members of an internal advisory committee (leadership representatives from partnering institutions). We examined perceived barriers to systemic changes to enhance research, as well as how systems have changed due to the Rhode Island Advance-CTR program's efforts, to what degree, and with what effects. Using the causal logic of our program to connect these more distal systemic outcomes to the services and components of Advance-CTR, we discuss the effects this program has had on researchers and their environments, contributing to the development of sustainable programs of research that ultimately improve the health and well-being of our state's residents.

Improving the quality and quantity of clinical and translational research statewide: An application of group concept mapping.

INTRODUCTION: Advance Clinical and Translational Research (Advance-CTR) serves as a central hub to support and educate clinical and translational researchers in Rhode Island. Understanding barriers to clinical research in the state is the key to setting project aims and priorities. METHODS: We implemented a Group Concept Mapping exercise to characterize the views of researchers and administrators regarding how to increase the quality and quantity of clinical and translational research in their settings. Participants generated ideas in response to this prompt and rated each unique idea in terms of how important it was and feasible it seemed to them. RESULTS: Participants generated 78 unique ideas, from which 9 key themes emerged (e.g., Building connections between researchers). Items rated highest in perceived importance and feasibility included providing seed grants for pilot projects, connecting researchers with common interests and networking opportunities. Implications of results are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The Group Concept Mapping exercise enabled our project leadership to better understand stakeholder-perceived priorities and to act on ideas and aims most relevant to researchers in the state. This method is well suited to translational research enterprises beyond Rhode Island when a participatory evaluation stance is desired.

Fraternity and sorority leaders and members: a comparison of alcohol use, attitudes, and policy awareness.

BACKGROUND: Studies have documented that members of college fraternities and sororities (i.e., Greeks) drink more heavily and experience more alcohol-related consequences than other students. Few studies have examined the role of Greek leaders in the socialization of Greek members. OBJECTIVES: The present study investigated how alcohol-related attitudes and behaviors among Greek leaders differ from the attitudes and behaviors of members. METHODS: At a single university, two anonymous surveys were conducted in 2006 and 2007 (N = 726 and 757, respectively) at fraternity and sorority chapter meetings. All individuals present at the meetings were invited to participate. One-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs), controlling for age and sex, were conducted to examine the effect of leadership status on alcohol-related attitudes and behaviors. Zero-inflated negative binomial regression was used to analyze the effect of leadership status on alcohol-impaired driving. RESULTS: Few differences were found between Greek leaders and members. In both years, leaders perceived alcohol control policies as stricter than did members. Notably, leaders and members did not significantly differ in reports of alcohol use or consequences. CONCLUSION: With this additional study, the literature suggests that alcohol-related attitude and behavioral differences between Greek leaders and members may be highly variable across college and university campuses. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: The socialization process among Greek leaders and members warrants further investigation. The current findings suggest that future research should examine the roles that campus climate and on-campus initiatives may play in the Greek socialization process.

Perceived parental and peer disapproval toward substances: influences on adolescent decision-making.

This study investigated the relative influence of perceived parent and peer disapproval for using drugs on youth intentions to use drugs. In a cross-sectional design, sixth and eighth grade students (N = 1,649) completed surveys that included measures of parent disapproval, peer disapproval, and intentions to use drugs in the future. Parent influences were more salient for sixth graders, whereas peer influences were predominant for eighth graders. Peer disapproval was significantly evident in the sixth grade sample, as was parent disapproval in the eighth grade sample. Additionally, girls' drug use intentions were higher than were boys'. These findings suggest that parents can have a robust protective role over and above peer influences and that girls' intentions to use substances deserve increased attention. Editors' Strategic Implications: These findings, if replicated, should help practitioners develop developmentally appropriate strategies and programs for substance use prevention.

Supporting community-based prevention and health promotion initiatives: developing effective technical assistance systems.

As research evidence for the effectiveness of community-based prevention has mounted, so has recognition of the gap between research and community practice. As a result, state and local governments are taking a more active role in building the capacity of community-based organizations to deliver evidence-based prevention interventions. Innovations are taking place in the establishment of technical assistance or support systems to influence the prevention and health education activities of community-based organizations. Several challenges for technical assistance systems are described: (1) setting prevention priorities and allocating limited technical assistance resources, (2) balancing capacity-building versus program dissemination efforts, (3) collaborating across categorical problem areas, (4) designing technical assistance initiatives with enough "dose strength" to have an effect, (5) balancing fidelity versus adaptation in program implementation, (6) building organizational cultures that support innovation, and (7) building local evaluative capacity versus generalizable evaluation findings.