Accountable care models for Medicaid reimbursement aim to improve care quality and reduce costs by linking payments to performance. Oregon’s coordinated care organizations (CCOs) assume financial responsibility for their members and are incentivized to help clinics improve performance on specific quality metrics. This study explores how Oregon’s CCO model influences partnerships between payers and primary care clinics, focusing on strategies used to enhance screening and treatment for unhealthy alcohol use (UAU).

In this qualitative study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with informants from 12 of 13 Oregon CCOs active in 2019 and 2020. The interviews focused on payer–provider partnerships, specifically around UAU screening and treatment, which is a long-standing CCO metric. We used thematic analysis to identify key themes and causal-loop diagramming to uncover feedback dynamics and communicate key findings. Meadows’ leverage point framework was applied to categorize findings based on their potential to drive change.

CCO strategies to support clinics included building relationships, reporting on metric progress, providing EHR technical assistance, offering training, and implementing alternative payment methods. CCOs prioritized clinics with more members and those highly motivated. Our analysis showed that while the CCO model aligned goals between payers and clinics, it may perpetuate rural disparities by prioritizing larger, better-resourced clinics.

Oregon’s CCO model fosters partnerships centered on quality metrics but may unintentionally reinforce rural disparities by incentivizing support for larger clinics. Applying the Meadows framework highlighted leverage points within these partnerships.

Despite one-third of patients with cancer using cannabis for symptom management, little is known about their access to and usage of cannabis. Community Engagement (CE) studios involving community experts with chronic health conditions were used to inform a qualitative study on access to and use of cannabis products among patients with cancer.

We conducted two 2-hour CE studios with residents from Western NY (WNY) (N = 18). Our sample primarily included White and Black residents (56% vs. 39%). After a researcher-led 10-minute presentation, a community facilitator led the discussion, which focused on questions about challenges to cannabis use, recommendations for providers when discussing cannabis with patients, and community factors influencing use.

Community experts reported that state legalization of cannabis made it easier to access cannabis, but the costs of cannabis and distance to dispensaries hindered their ability to obtain it. Discrimination was also a key barrier to medical cannabis receipt. There were differences in the perceived safety of where to obtain cannabis (dispensaries vs. friends). Community experts wanted providers to be more informed and less biased about recommending cannabis. Community experts recommended conducting focus groups for the subsequent study to ask questions about cannabis use.

The CE studios encouraged us to switch formats from qualitative interviews to focus groups and provided guidance on question topics for the subsequent study. Incorporating community expert’s feedback through CE studios is an effective strategy to design more impactful studies.

Despite the central role that patient and community engagement plays in translational science and health equity research, there remain significant institutional barriers for researchers and their community partners to engage in this work meaningfully and sustainably. The goal of this paper is to describe the process and outcomes of Engage for Equity PLUS at Stanford School of Medicine, which was aimed at understanding and addressing institutional barriers and facilitators for community-engaged research (CEnR).

A Stanford champion team of four faculty and two community partners worked with the University of New Mexico team to conduct two workshops (n = 26), focus groups (n = 2), interviews with leaders (n = 4), and an Institutional Multi-Stakeholder Survey (n = 35). These data were employed for action planning to identify strategies to build institutional support for CEnR.

Findings revealed several key institutional barriers to CEnR, such as the need to modify organizational policies and practices to expedite and simplify CEnR administration, silos in collaboration, and the need for capacity building. Facilitators included several offices devoted to and engaging in innovative CEnR efforts. Based on these findings, action planning resulted in three priorities: 1) Addressing IRB barriers, 2) Addressing barriers in post-award policies and procedures, and 3) Increasing training in CEnR within Stanford and for community partners.

Addressing institutional barriers is critical for Academic Medical Centers and their partners to meaningfully and sustainably engage in CEnR. The Engage for Equity PLUS process offers a roadmap for Academic Medical Centers with translational science and health equity goals.

Managing clinical trials is a complex process requiring careful integration of human, technology, compliance, and operations for success. We collaborated with experts to develop a multi-axial Clinical Trials Management Ecosystem (CTME) maturity model (MM) to help institutions identify best practices for CTME capabilities.

A working group of research informaticists was established. An online session on maturity models was hosted, followed by a review of the candidate domain axes and finalization of the axes. Next, maturity level attributes were defined for min/max levels (level 1 and level 5) for each axis of the CTME MM, followed by the intermediate levels. A REDCap survey comprising the model’s statements was then created, and a subset of working group members tested the model by completing it at their respective institutions. The finalized survey was distributed to all working group members.

We developed a CTME MM comprising five maturity levels across 11 axes: study management, regulatory and audit management, financial management, investigational product management, subject identification and recruitment, subject management, data, reporting analytics & dashboard, system integration and interfaces, staff training & personnel management, and organizational maturity and culture. Informaticists at 22 Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs and one other organization self-assessed their institutional CTME maturity. Respondents reported relatively high maturity for study management and investigational product management. The reporting analytics & dashboard axis was the least mature.

The CTME MM provides a framework to research organizations to evaluate their current clinical trials management maturity across 11 axes and identify areas for future growth.

Disparities in access to palliative care persist, particularly among underserved populations. We elicited recommendations for integrating community health workers (CHWs) into clinical care teams, by exploring perspectives on potential barriers and facilitators, ultimately aiming to facilitate equitable access to palliative care.

Twenty-five stakeholders were recruited for semi-structured interviews through purposive snowball sampling at three enrollment sites in the USA. Interviews were conducted to understand perspectives on the implementation of a CHW palliative care intervention for African American patients with advanced cancer. After transcription, primary and secondary coding were conducted. Framework analysis was utilized to refine the data, clarify themes, and generate recommendations for integrating CHWs into palliative care teams.

Our sample comprised 25 key informants, including 6 palliative care providers, 6 oncologists, 5 cancer center leaders, 2 cancer care navigators, and 6 CHWs. Thematic analysis revealed five domains of recommendations: (1) increasing awareness and understanding of the CHW role, (2) improving communication and collaboration, (3) ensuring access to resources, (4) enhancing CHW training, and (5) ensuring leadership support for integration. Informants shared barriers, facilitators, and recommendations within each domain based on their experiences.

Barriers to CHW integration within palliative care teams included limited awareness of the CHW role and inadequate training opportunities, alongside practical and logistical challenges. Conversely, promoting CHW engagement, providing adequate training, and ensuring support from leadership have the potential to aid integration.

The translational science workforce requires preparation in both core skills for biomedical research and competencies for advancing progress along the translational pipeline. Delivering this content in a highly accessible manner will help expand and diversify the workforce.

The NCATS Education Branch offers online case study-based courses in translational science for a general scientific audience. The branch updated its course in preclinical translational science with additional content aligned with the NCATS Translational Science Principles, which characterize effective approaches to advance translation. The updated course was offered in 2021 and 2022. The branch also revised the course evaluation to capture knowledge change aligned with the NCATS Translational Science Principles.

Of 106 students, 88 completed baseline or endpoint surveys, with 48 completing both. Most found the online format (n = 48; 91%) and case study approach (n = 48; 91%) effective. There was a statistically significant increase in knowledge related to the Translational Science Principles (p < 0.001). Survey items with the highest endpoint scores reflected the principles on creativity and innovation, efficiency, cross-disciplinary team science, and boundary-crossing collaborations. Findings highlighted the effectiveness of pairing a case study with lectures that offer generalizable strategies aligned with the translational science principles. Students reported the course helped them learn about the trajectory of a drug discovery and development initiative, where their own work fit in, and scientific and operational approaches to apply in their own work.

This online case study-based course was effective in teaching generalizable principles for translational science to students with varied scientific backgrounds.

Preoperative anxiety is a common phenomenon affecting 60–80% of surgical patients, with potential implications for surgical outcomes. Despite its prevalence, there remains a lack of consensus on its precise effects and optimal management strategies.

This meta-analysis aimed to synthesize current evidence on the impact of preoperative anxiety on various surgical outcomes, including anesthetic and analgesic requirements, delirium, recovery times, and pain.

We conducted a comprehensive literature search and meta-analysis of studies examining the relationship between preoperative anxiety and surgical outcomes. Standardized mean differences (SMD), correlation (COR), and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

Our analysis revealed significant associations between preoperative anxiety and increased anesthetic requirements (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.32–1.01) and analgesic requirements (SMD = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65–1.12). Preoperative anxiety was associated with postoperative delirium in adults (OR = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.11–3.26), unlike the pediatric population. Preoperative anxiety was associated with prolonged time to reach Modified Aldrete Score of 9 (SMD = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.50–1.07) and extubation time (SMD = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.58–1.21). Preoperative anxiety was positively correlated with propofol consumption (STAI-S COR = 0.35, 95%CI: 0.15–0.55). No significant association between preoperative anxiety and postoperative pain was found.

This meta-analysis provides evidence for the wide-ranging effects of preoperative anxiety on surgical outcomes. The findings emphasize the need for routine preoperative anxiety screening and the development of targeted interventions. Future research should focus on long-term impacts and the effectiveness of various anxiety management strategies.

Dissemination and implementation (D&I) scientists are key members of collaborative, interdisciplinary clinical and translational research teams. Yet, early career D&I researchers (ECRs) have few guidelines for cultivating productive research collaborations. We developed recommendations for ECRs in D&I when serving as collaborators or co-investigators.

We employed a consensus-building approach: (1) group discussions to identify 3 areas of interest: “Marketing yourself” (describing your value to non-D&I collaborators), “Collaboration considerations” (contributions during proposal development), and “Responsibilities following project initiation” (defining your role throughout projects); (2) first survey and focus groups to iteratively rank/refine sub-domains within each area; (3) second survey and expert input on clarity/content of sub-domains; and (4) iterative development of key recommendations.

Forty-four D&I researchers completed the first survey, 12 of whom attended one of three focus groups. Twenty-nine D&I researchers completed the second survey (n = 29) and 10 experts provided input. We identified 25 recommendations. Findings suggest unique collaboration strengths (e.g, partnership-building) and challenges (e.g., unclear link to career milestones) for ECR D&I researchers, and underscore the value of ongoing training and mentorship for ECRs and the need to intersect collaborative D&I efforts with health equity principles.

Research collaborations are essential in clinical and translational research. We identified recommendations for D&I ECRs to be productive research collaborators, including training and support needs for the field. Findings suggest an opportunity to examine research collaboration needs among early career D&I scientists, and provide guidance on how to successfully provide mentorship and integrate health equity principles into collaborative research.

Research participants” feedback about their participation experiences offers critical insights for improving programs. A shared Empowering the Participant Voice (EPV) infrastructure enabled a multiorganization collaborative to collect, analyze, and act on participants’ feedback using validated participant-centered measures.

A consortium of academic research organizations with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) programs administered the Research Participant Perception Survey (RPPS) to active or recent research participants. Local response data also aggregated into a Consortium database, facilitating analysis of feedback overall and for subgroups.

From February 2022 to June 2024, participating organizations sent surveys to 28,096 participants and received 5045 responses (18%). Respondents were 60% female, 80% White, 13% Black, 2% Asian, and 6% Latino/x. Most respondents (85–95%) felt respected and listened to by study staff; 68% gave their overall experience the top rating. Only 60% felt fully prepared by the consent process. Consent, feeling valued, language assistance, age, study demands, and other factors were significantly associated with overall experience ratings. 63% of participants said that receiving a summary of the study results would be very important to joining a future study. Intersite scores differed significantly for some measures; initiatives piloted in response to local findings raised experience scores.

RPPS results from 5045 participants from seven CTSAs provide a valuable evidence base for evaluating participants’ research experiences and using participant feedback to improve research programs. Analyses revealed opportunities for improving research practices. Sites piloting local change initiatives based on RPPS findings demonstrated measurable positive impact.

Academic-community research partnerships focusing on addressing the social determinants of health and reducing health disparities have grown substantially in the last three decades. Early-stage investigators (ESIs), however, are less likely to receive grant funding from organizations like the National Institutes of Health, and we know little about the facilitators and barriers they face on their career journeys or the best ways to support them and their community research partnerships. This study examines ESIs’ experiences with a program that funded and supported their community-partnered pilot health disparities research.

Fourteen ESIs from five cohorts of pilot investigators participated in in-depth focus groups between April 2020 and February 2024. Two reviewers independently identified significant quotes and created codes. Thematic analysis was used to develop relevant themes.

The overarching theme was that the program was a launch pad for the ESIs’ research careers. Four distinct sub-themes contributing to the launch pad theme were: (1) ESI Growth & Adaptation; (2) Community and Support; (3) The Value of Collaboration and Partnership; (4) Need for Effective Mentorship. The results suggest the program offered ESIs and community partners substantial, unique support and resources, but challenges remained.

Future programs helping ESIs who conduct community-engaged research to launch their research careers should consider implementing tailored support while offering strategies to eliminate or reduce institutional barriers, including strengthening mentoring.