The COVID-19 pandemic presented a challenge to established seed grant funding mechanisms aimed at fostering collaboration in child health research between investigators at the University of Minnesota (UMN) and Children’s Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota (Children’s MN). We created a “rapid response,” small grant program to catalyze collaborations in child health COVID-19 research. In this paper, we describe the projects funded by this mechanism and metrics of their success.

Using seed funds from the UMN Clinical and Translational Science Institute, the UMN Medical School Department of Pediatrics, and the Children’s Minnesota Research Institute, a rapid response request for applications (RFAs) was issued based on the stipulations that the proposal had to: 1) consist of a clear, synergistic partnership between co-PIs from the academic and community settings; and 2) that the proposal addressed an area of knowledge deficit relevant to child health engendered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Grant applications submitted in response to this RFA segregated into three categories: family fragility and disruption exacerbated by COVID-19; knowledge gaps about COVID-19 disease in children; and optimizing pediatric care in the setting of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. A series of virtual workshops presented research results to the pediatric community. Several manuscripts and extramural funding awards underscored the success of the program.

A “rapid response” seed funding mechanism enabled nascent academic-community research partnerships during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the context of the rapidly evolving landscape of COVID-19, flexible seed grant programs can be useful in addressing unmet needs in pediatric health.

Our objective was to pilot collaborations between two urban farms with two corner stores to increase access to fresh produce in low-income neighbourhoods.

We conducted a pre–post evaluation of two farm–store collaborations using quantitative distribution and sales data. Using semi-structured interviews, we qualitatively assessed feasibility of implementation and collaboration acceptability to farmers and storeowners.

Low-income urban neighbourhoods in Baltimore, MD, USA in 2012.

Pair #1 included a 0·25 acre (0·1 ha) urban farm with a store serving local residents and was promoted by the neighbourhood association. Pair #2 included a 2 acre (0·8 ha) urban farm with a store serving bus commuters.

Produce was delivered all nine intervention weeks in both pairs. Pair #1 produced a significant increase in the mean number of produce varieties carried in the store by 11·3 (P<0·01) and sold 86 % of all items delivered. Pair #2 resulted in a non-significant increase in the number of produce varieties carried by 2·2 (P=0·44) and sold 63 % of all items delivered.

Our case study suggests that pairing urban farms with corner stores for produce distribution may be feasible and could be a new model to increase access to fruits and vegetables among low-income urban neighbourhoods. For future programmes to be successful, strong community backing may be vital to support produce sales.

You've probably heard of patient and public involvement by now. You may even have ‘involved’ people in your research. But why involve patients, carers and members of the public at all? Is it just another hoop to jump through when preparing a research funding application for submission, or could it actually add something to your research? Could involving patients and members of the public even help you to design and deliver better research, with outcomes focused directly on the needs of your patient group?

This article aims to answer some of these questions. It considers the theory underpinning patient and public involvement. This is followed by practical suggestions and advice to help you develop (or further develop if you already involve people!) patient and public involvement within your own research. There is also a case study to illustrate some of the main points, and extracts written by members of Research Design Service North East Consumer Panels.

Objective – To discuss the difficulties encountered in providing rehabilitation to multi-problematic clients, and possible remedies. Method – The principles of psychiatric rehabilitation are outlined in the frame of the bio-psycho-social model and in the light of long-term follow-up studies. The limits of professional services and the importance of natural networks for successful rehabilitation and social adjustment are highlighted. Results – Worker cooperatives and consumer self-help associations seem to successfully complement health and social services in meeting the complex needs of this population. Conclusions – The integration of formal and informal networks of care is a major challenge and a relatively neglected, but important area of interest in contemporary psychiatric rehabilitation.

Declaration of Interest: no conflict of interests.