The USA has higher rates of preterm birth and incarceration than any other developed nation, with rates of both being highest in Southern states and among Black Americans, potentially due to rurality and socioeconomic factors. To test our hypothesis that prior-year county-level rates of jail admission, economic distress, and rurality were positively associated with premature birth rates in the county of delivery in 2019 and that the strength of these associations is greater for Black women than for White or Hispanic women, we merged five datasets to perform multivariable analysis of data from 766 counties across 12 Southern/rural states.

We used multivariable linear regression to model the percentage of babies born premature, stratified by Black (Model 1), Hispanic (Model 2), and White (Model 3) mothers. Each model included all three independent variables of interest measured using data from the Vera Institute, Distressed Communities Index, and Index of Relative Rurality.

In fully fitted stratified models, economic distress was positively associated with premature births among Black (F = 33.81, p < 0.0001) and White (F = 26.50, p < 0.0001) mothers. Rurality was associated with premature births among White mothers (F = 20.02, p < 0.0001). Jail admission rate was not associated with premature births among any racial group, and none of the study variables were associated with premature births among Hispanic mothers.

Understanding the connections between preterm birth and enduring structural inequities is a necessary scientific endeavor to advance to later translational stages in health-disparities research

We evaluate a CTSA program hub by applying bibliometrics, social network analysis (SNA), and altmetrics and examine the changes in research productivity, citation impact, research collaboration, and CTSA-supported research topics since our pilot study in 2017.

The sampled data included North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS)-supported publications produced between September 2008 and March 2021. We applied measures and metrics from bibliometrics, SNA, and altmetrics to the dataset. In addition, we analyzed research topics and correlations between different metrics.

1154 NC TraCS-supported publications generated over 53,560 citation counts by April 2021. The average cites per year and the relative citation ratio (RCR) mean of these publications improved from 33 and 2.26 in 2017 to 48 and 2.58 in 2021. The number of involved UNC units in the most published authors’ collaboration network increased from 7 (2017) to 10 (2021). NC TraCS-supported co-authorship involved 61 NC organizations. PlumX metrics identified articles with the highest altmetrics scores. About 96% NC TraCS-supported publications have above the average SciVal Topic Prominence Percentile; the average approximate potential to translate of the included publication was 54.2%; and 177 publications addressed health disparity issues. Bibliometric measures (e.g., citation counts, RCR) and PlumX metrics (i.e., Citations, Captures, and Social-Media) are positively correlated (p < .05).

Bibliometrics, SNA, and altmetrics offer distinctive but related perspectives to examine CTSA research performance and longitudinal growth, especially at the individual program hub level. These perspectives can help CTSAs build program foci.

Diabetes mellitus in underrepresented racial and ethnic groups (URG) is rapidly increasing in incidence and has worse outcomes than diabetes in non-Hispanic White individuals. Rare and Atypical Diabetes Network (RADIANT) established recruitment targets based on the racial and ethnic distribution of the USA to enroll a diverse study population. We examined participation of URG across RADIANT study stages and described strategies to enhance recruitment and retention of URG.

RADIANT is a multicenter NIH-funded study of people with uncharacterized forms of atypical diabetes. RADIANT participants consent online and progress through three sequential study stages, as eligible.

We enrolled 601 participants with mean age 44 ± 16.8 years, 64.4% female. At Stage 1, 80.6% were White, 7.2% African American (AA), 12.2% other/more than one race, and 8.4% Hispanic. Enrollment of URG was significantly below preset targets across most stages. Referral sources differed by race (p < 0.001) but not ethnicity (p = 0.15). Most AA participants were referred by RADIANT investigators (58.5% vs. 24.5% in Whites), whereas flyers, news, social media, and family or friends were more frequent referral sources for White individuals (26.4% vs. 12.2% in AA). Ongoing initiatives to increase enrollment of URG in RADIANT include engaging with clinics/hospitals serving URG, screening electronic medical records, and providing culturally competent study coordination and targeted advertisement.

There is low participation of URG in RADIANT, potentially limiting the generalizability of its discoveries. Investigations into barriers and facilitators for recruitment and retention of URG in RADIANT, with implications for other studies, are ongoing.

Compared to the general population, individuals incarcerated in jails and prisons are more vulnerable to infection and mortality from communicable diseases, such as COVID-19 and influenza. However, vaccination rates among incarcerated individuals as well as staff who work in jails and prisons remain disproportionately low. Healthcare administrators working in jails have first-hand experience about barriers to vaccine provision, but their perspectives are infrequently collected and analyzed.

We reached out to Health Services Administrators (HSAs) from all 14 Massachusetts (MA) county jails for qualitative in-depth interviews to understand how their personal and professional feelings about vaccination relate to the barriers and facilitators that surround administration of vaccines in jail.

Eight people participated in the study (8/14 = 57% response rate). Key themes emerged, including 1) HSAs expressed divergent opinions on incarceration as the correct opportunity to vaccinate individuals, 2) HSAs’ personal views on vaccines influenced their operationalization of vaccination in jail, and 3) opinions varied on whether their institutions’ vaccine protocols needed modification.

Our findings highlight the critical need to leverage the feedback and influence of stakeholders such as HSAs in efforts to improve preventative healthcare delivery in carceral health systems.

It is important for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine providers, vaccine recipients, and those not yet vaccinated to be well informed about vaccine side effects. We sought to estimate the risk of post-vaccination venous thromboembolism (VTE) to meet this need.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to quantify excess VTE risk associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in US veterans age 45 and older using data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Surveillance Tool. The vaccinated cohort received at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at least 60 days prior to 3/06/22 (N = 855,686). The control group was those not vaccinated (N = 321,676). All patients were COVID-19 tested at least once before vaccination with a negative test. The main outcome was VTE documented by ICD10-CM codes.

Vaccinated persons had a VTE rate of 1.3755 (CI: 1.3752–1.3758) per thousand, which was 0.1 percent over the baseline rate of 1.3741 (CI: 1.3738–1.3744) per thousand in the unvaccinated patients, or 1.4 excess cases per 1,000,000. All vaccine types showed a minimal increased rate of VTE (rate of VTE per 1000 was 1.3761 (CI: 1.3754–1.3768) for Janssen; 1.3757 (CI: 1.3754–1.3761) for Pfizer, and for Moderna, the rate was 1.3757 (CI: 1.3748–1.3877)). The tiny differences in rates comparing either Janssen or Pfizer vaccine to Moderna were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Adjusting for age, sex, BMI, 2-year Elixhauser score, and race, the vaccinated group had a minimally higher relative risk of VTE as compared to controls (1.0009927 CI: 1.007673–1.0012181; p < 0.001).

The results provide reassurance that there is only a trivial increased risk of VTE with the current US SARS-CoV-2 vaccines used in veterans older than age 45. This risk is significantly less than VTE risk among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The risk-benefit ratio favors vaccination, given the VTE rate, mortality, and morbidity associated with COVID-19 infection.

Optimizing the effectiveness of a team-based approach to unite multiple disciplines in advancing specific translational areas of research is foundational to improving clinical practice. The current study was undertaken to examine investigators’ experiences of participation in transdisciplinary team science initiatives, with a focus on challenges and recommendations for improving effectiveness.

Qualitative interviews were conducted with investigators from twelve multidisciplinary teams awarded pilot research funding by the University of Kentucky College of Medicine to better understand the barriers and facilitators to effective team science within an academic medical center. An experienced qualitative researcher facilitated one-on-one interviews, which lasted about one hour. Structured consensus coding and thematic analysis were conducted.

The sample was balanced by gender, career stage (five were assistant professor at the time of the award, seven were senior faculty), and training (six were PhDs; six were MD physicians). Key themes at the team-level centered on the tension between clinical commitments and research pursuits and the limitations for effective team functioning. Access to tangible support from home departments and key university centers was identified as a critical organizational facilitator of successful project completion. Organizational barriers centered on operationalizing protected time for physicians, gaps in effective mentoring, and limitations in operational support.

Prioritizing tailored mentoring and career development support for early career faculty, and particularly physician faculty, emerged as a key recommendation for improving team science in academic medical centers. The findings contribute to establishing best practices and policies for team science in academic medical centers.

Impactful, transdisciplinary scientific discoveries are created by teams of researchers spanning multiple disciplines, but collaboration across disciplines can be challenging. We examined how team dynamics and collaboration are related to successes and barriers faced by teams of researchers from multiple disciplines.

A mixed-methods approach was used to examine 12 research teams granted multidisciplinary pilot awards. Team members were surveyed to assess their team dynamics and individual views about transdisciplinary research. Forty-seven researchers (59.5%) responded, including two to eight members from each funded team. Associations were examined between collaborative dynamics and scholarly product outcomes, including manuscripts, grant proposals, and awarded grants. One member from each team was selected for an in-depth interview to contextualize and extend information about collaborative processes, successes, and barriers to performing transdisciplinary research.

Quality of team interactions was positively associated with achievement of scholarly products (r = 0.64, p = 0.02). Satisfaction with team members (r = 0.38) and team collaboration scores (r = 0.43) also demonstrated positive associations with achievement of scholarly products, but these were not statistically significant. Qualitative results support these findings and add further insight into aspects of the collaborative process that were particularly important to foster success on multidisciplinary teams. Beyond scholarly metrics, additional successes from the multidisciplinary teams were identified through the qualitative portion of the study including career development and acceleration for early career researchers.

Both the quantitative and qualitative study results indicate that effective collaboration is critical to multidisciplinary research team success. Development and/or promotion of team science-based trainings for researchers would promote these collaborative skills.