Canada is facing its worst crisis among healthcare workers in recent healthcare history. Anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and severe burnout are higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic. University Faculties of Medicine (FoMs) are vital to healthcare systems. Not only are they responsible for training personnel, but clinicians and staff from FoMs often work directly within healthcare systems. FoMs include students, staff, residents, faculty members, residents, researchers, and others, many experiencing higher stress levels due to pandemic tensions. Most FoMs emphasize cognitive and psychomotor learning needs. On the other hand, affective learning needs are not as well addressed within most FoMs. Finding innovative means to ameliorate mental and emotional health status, particularly at this critical juncture, will improve health and wellness, productivity, and retention. This article discusses a pilot program, Wellbeing Convene during COVID-19, in a Canadian FoM, which aimed to (1) provide staff, faculty, residents, and students with a toolkit for greater wellbeing and (2) build a sense of community during isolating times.

Participants found the program beneficial in both regards. We recommend that these kinds of programs be permanently available to all members in FoMs, at no cost. Wellness programs alone, however, will not solve the root causes of mental and emotional stress, often based on concerns related to finances, hierarchical workplace structures, and nature of the work itself, among other factors.

Addressing the mental and emotional health of people in FoMs is vital to improving productivity and reducing stress of FoMs, healthcare professionals, and, ultimately, patients.

The clinical and translational research workforce involved in social and behavioral research (SBR) needs to keep pace with clinical research guidance and regulations. Updated information and a new module on community and stakeholder engagement were added to an existing SBR training course. This article presents evaluation findings of the updated course for the Social and Behavioral Workforce.

Participants working across one university were recruited. Course completers were sent an online survey to evaluate the training. Some participants were invited to join in a focus group to discuss the application of the training to their work. We performed descriptive statistics and conducted a qualitative analysis on focus group data.

There were 99 participants from diverse backgrounds who completed the survey. Most reported the training was relevant to their work or that of the study teams they worked with. Almost half (46%) indicated they would work differently after participating. Respondents with community or stakeholder engaged research experience vs. those without were more likely to report that the new module was relevant to study teams they worked with (t = 5.61, p = 0.001), and that they would work differently following the training (t = 2.63, p = 0.01). Open-ended survey responses (n = 99) and focus group (n = 12) data showed how participants felt their work would be affected by the training.

The updated course was rated highly, particularly by those whose work was related to the new course content. This course provides an up-to-date resource for the training and development for the Social and Behavioral Workforce.

Participation in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) has numerous benefits, yet many eligible children remain unenrolled. This qualitative study sought to explore perceptions of a novel electronic health record (EHR) intervention to facilitate referrals to WIC and improve communication/coordination between WIC staff and healthcare professionals.

WIC staff in three counties were provided EHR access and recruited to participate. An automated, EHR-embedded WIC participation screening and referral tool was implemented within 8 healthcare clinics; healthcare professionals within these clinics were eligible to participate. The interview guide was developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to elicit perceptions of this novel EHR-based intervention. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via telephone. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight WIC staff, seven pediatricians, four medical assistants, and one registered nurse. Most participants self-identified as female (95%) and White (55%). We identified four primary themes: (1) healthcare professionals had a positive view of WIC but communication and coordination between WIC and healthcare professionals was limited prior to WIC having EHR access; (2) healthcare professionals favored WIC screening using the EHR but workflow challenges existed; (3) EHR connections between WIC and the healthcare system can streamline referrals to and enrollment in WIC; and (4) WIC staff and healthcare professionals recommended that WIC have EHR access.

A novel EHR-based intervention has potential to facilitate healthcare referrals to WIC and improve communication/coordination between WIC and healthcare systems.

Leveraging the National COVID-19 Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a nationally sampled electronic health records repository, we explored associations between individual-level social determinants of health (SDoH) and COVID-19-related hospitalizations among racialized minority people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PWH), who have been historically adversely affected by SDoH.

We retrospectively studied PWH and people without HIV (PWoH) using N3C data from January 2020 to November 2023. We evaluated SDoH variables across three domains in the Healthy People 2030 framework: (1) healthcare access, (2) economic stability, and (3) social cohesion with our primary outcome, COVID-19-related hospitalization. We conducted hierarchically nested additive and adjusted mixed-effects logistic regression models, stratifying by HIV status and race/ethnicity groups, accounting for age, sex, comorbidities, and data partners.

Our analytic sample included 280,441 individuals from 24 data partner sites, where 3,291 (1.17%) were PWH, with racialized minority PWH having higher proportions of adverse SDoH exposures than racialized minority PWoH. COVID-19-related hospitalizations occurred in 11.23% of all individuals (9.17% among PWH, 11.26% among PWoH). In our initial additive modeling, we observed that all three SDoH domains were significantly associated with hospitalizations, even with progressive adjustments (adjusted odds ratios [aOR] range 1.36–1.97). Subsequently, our HIV-stratified analyses indicated economic instability was associated with hospitalization in both PWH and PWoH (aOR range 1.35–1.48). Lastly, our fully adjusted, race/ethnicity-stratified analysis, indicated access to healthcare issues was associated with hospitalization across various racialized groups (aOR range 1.36–2.00).

Our study underscores the importance of assessing individual-level SDoH variables to unravel the complex interplay of these factors for racialized minority groups.

The Certificate Program in Translational Research (CPTR) at the Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance provides Ph.D. students, postdoctoral fellows and faculty with didactic, mentored, and experiential training in clinical and translational research.

Quantitative evaluation includes tracking trainee competency, publications, grants and careers in clinical and translational research. Qualitative evaluation includes interviews with trainees about program experiences.

The CPTR provided knowledge and skills in clinical and translational research through coursework, clinical rotations, and collaboration with interdisciplinary scientists. Trainees reported increased confidence in 22 program competencies. Trainees have published more than 290 peer-reviewed articles and received over $4 million in grants from the NIH, over $15 million from the U.S. Department of Defense, and more than $300,000 from foundations. Trainees who completed the program remained in clinical and translational research.

Programs like the CPTR are needed to train investigators to advance biomedical discoveries into population health.

Space matters. We read space like we read people’s faces. Space is an instrument of collaboration and innovation. At the University of Michigan’s Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR), a team was created to creatively and economically enhance our operating space into a flexible workspace that supports privacy, innovation, creativity, and most important, a culture of collaboration.

The team used a human-centered design process to creatively engage the staff at large into analyzing our existing space, identifying latent needs, proposing solutions, generating feedback, and economically building the rethought process.

The redesigned workspace embraces the differences among MICHR’s teams while encouraging collaboration and teamwork and keeping costs at a minimum. It has resulted in a flexible space that includes co-located teams, spaces dedicated to different work goals, an open area for collaboration, quiet zones for focused work, and better wayfinding.

Through our Rethink Space project, we hope to have demonstrated that, by initiating the project internally and by engaging the users of the space themselves in an empathetic, visual, and human-centered way, a space redesign can be undertaken economically while also leading to improved levels of employee and team satisfaction.

The National Institutes of Health launched the NIH Centers for Accelerated Innovation and the Research Evaluation and Commercialization Hubs programs to develop approaches and strategies to promote academic entrepreneurship and translate research discoveries into products and tools to help patients. The two programs collectively funded 11 sites at individual research institutions or consortia of institutions around the United States. Sites provided funding, project management, and coaching to funded investigators and commercialization education programs open to their research communities.

We implemented an evaluation program that included longitudinal tracking of funded technology development projects and commercialization outcomes; interviews with site teams, funded investigators, and relevant institutional and innovation ecosystem stakeholders and analysis and review of administrative data.

As of May 2021, interim results for 366 funded projects show that technologies have received nearly $1.7 billion in follow-on funding to-date. There were 88 start-ups formed, a 40% Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer application success rate, and 17 licenses with small and large businesses. Twelve technologies are currently in clinical testing and three are on the market.

Best practices used by the sites included leadership teams using milestone-based project management, external advisory boards that evaluated funding applications for commercial merit as well as scientific, sustained engagement with the academic community about commercialization in an effort to shift attitudes about commercialization, application processes synced with education programs, and the provision of project managers with private-sector product development expertise to coach funded investigators.

Despite the critical role that quantitative scientists play in biomedical research, graduate programs in quantitative fields often focus on technical and methodological skills, not on collaborative and leadership skills. In this study, we evaluate the importance of team science skills among collaborative biostatisticians for the purpose of identifying training opportunities to build a skilled workforce of quantitative team scientists.

Our workgroup described 16 essential skills for collaborative biostatisticians. Collaborative biostatisticians were surveyed to assess the relative importance of these skills in their current work. The importance of each skill is summarized overall and compared across career stages, highest degrees earned, and job sectors.

Survey respondents were 343 collaborative biostatisticians spanning career stages (early: 24.2%, mid: 33.8%, late: 42.0%) and job sectors (academia: 69.4%, industry: 22.2%, government: 4.4%, self-employed: 4.1%). All 16 skills were rated as at least somewhat important by > 89.0% of respondents. Significant heterogeneity in importance by career stage and by highest degree earned was identified for several skills. Two skills (“regulatory requirements” and “databases, data sources, and data collection tools”) were more likely to be rated as absolutely essential by those working in industry (36.5%, 65.8%, respectively) than by those in academia (19.6%, 51.3%, respectively). Three additional skills were identified as important by survey respondents, for a total of 19 collaborative skills.

We identified 19 team science skills that are important to the work of collaborative biostatisticians, laying the groundwork for enhancing graduate programs and establishing effective on-the-job training initiatives to meet workforce needs.

To compare how clinical researchers generate data-driven hypotheses with a visual interactive analytic tool (VIADS, a visual interactive analysis tool for filtering and summarizing large datasets coded with hierarchical terminologies) or other tools.

We recruited clinical researchers and separated them into “experienced” and “inexperienced” groups. Participants were randomly assigned to a VIADS or control group within the groups. Each participant conducted a remote 2-hour study session for hypothesis generation with the same study facilitator on the same datasets by following a think-aloud protocol. Screen activities and audio were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed. Hypotheses were evaluated by seven experts on their validity, significance, and feasibility. We conducted multilevel random effect modeling for statistical tests.

Eighteen participants generated 227 hypotheses, of which 147 (65%) were valid. The VIADS and control groups generated a similar number of hypotheses. The VIADS group took a significantly shorter time to generate one hypothesis (e.g., among inexperienced clinical researchers, 258 s versus 379 s, p = 0.046, power = 0.437, ICC = 0.15). The VIADS group received significantly lower ratings than the control group on feasibility and the combination rating of validity, significance, and feasibility.

The role of VIADS in hypothesis generation seems inconclusive. The VIADS group took a significantly shorter time to generate each hypothesis. However, the combined validity, significance, and feasibility ratings of their hypotheses were significantly lower. Further characterization of hypotheses, including specifics on how they might be improved, could guide future tool development.

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.