The US South is the epicenter of the epidemic of mass incarceration. Prisons have experienced substantial challenges in preventing COVID-19. Incarcerated individuals and prison staff are at a high risk for infection due to minimal available preventive measures. Prisons are not closed systems and many staff come from communities in close proximity to the facility. Characteristics of the communities immediately surrounding prisons are an overlooked but critical factor to better understand the role prisons play in pandemics.

We used facility-level COVID-19 data from the COVID Prison Project to identify the number of unique outbreaks between May 2019 and May 2020. We used a county-level composite indicator of economic distress (DCI score) to identify the environment surrounding each prison (2015–2019). We modeled the number of outbreaks to DCI scores using negative binomial regression, adjusting for race/ethnicity (African American and Latino/Hispanic), age (65 and older), and rurality level.

Our sample included 570 prisons in 368 counties across 13 Southern states. We found that score was positively and significantly associated with prison COVID-19 outbreaks (aRR, 1.012; p < 0.0001), and rurality was potentially a stronger surrogate measure of economic distress (aRR, 1.35; p, 0.02). Economic stability is a key precursor to physical health. Poorer communities have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, and we found that prisons located in these communities were more susceptible to recurring outbreaks. Prison-based disease prevention interventions should consider the impact that the outside world has on the health of incarcerated individuals.

Research is an important aspect of many medical students’ training. However, many medical students are not required to complete a scholarly project, and formal research training is often fragmented across the medical school curriculum. Thus, we developed an online, structured, asynchronous set of modules to introduce trainees to multiple topics relevant to the conduct of research.

Research 101 was piloted by 27 first-year medical students at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. Students’ knowledge, confidence, and satisfaction were assessed using a final quiz and pre- and post-module surveys with five-point Likert-scaled questions and open-ended text responses.

Pre-module survey results showed that learners felt most confident in Conducting a literature search and least confident in Submitting an Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol at UC. Post-module mean scores were significantly increased compared to pre-module results for all modules and questions (P < 0.05). The response to “The content of this module met my needs” was high across all modules with 236 (84.0%) “yes” responses. Thematic analysis of open-ended text responses from post-module surveys identified several improvements to individual modules and to the overall structure of Research 101. A final quiz of 25 multiple choice questions covering content from all required modules was required. The median score was 21.

Comparison of post-module to pre-module survey scores provided clear evidence of improved learning across all topics. The modules developed were responsive to the students’ needs, and students provided additional improvements for subsequent iterations of Research 101.

The field of dissemination and implementation science has the potential to narrow the translational research-to-practice gap and improve the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) within community-based settings. Yet, foundational research related to dissemination efforts, such as understanding researcher attitudes, practices, and the determinants to sharing research findings, is lacking within extant literature.

A sequential explanatory (QUAN $$ \to $$ qual) mixed methods design was used to examine 85 academic researchers’ perspectives and self-reported dissemination methods used to share research outcomes with community stakeholders to better understand researcher’s usual dissemination practices (referred to as dissemination-as-usual). Quantitative surveys collected researcher demographic data, attitudes toward dissemination efforts, and dissemination strategy use.

Multiple linear regression examined predictors of the quantity of dissemination strategies utilized by researchers, finding that years since earning their degree, time spent disseminating, and the number of reasons for engaging in dissemination efforts predicted greater numbers of dissemination strategies utilized by researchers. Individual, semi-structured interviews with a subset of researchers (n = 18) expanded upon quantitative findings, identifying barriers and facilitators to their dissemination efforts. Data strands were integrated using a joint display, and the Dissemination of Research model guided data interpretation. More established researchers experienced fewer barriers and more facilitators to support their use of a variety of dissemination strategies to share findings with community stakeholders. However, researchers reported needing specific training, institutional support, and/or dedicated time to plan and enact dissemination strategies.

The necessary first step in research translation is the dissemination of research evidence, and understanding dissemination-as-usual can identify areas of need to advance translational science.

Justice system-involved women with opioid use disorder (OUD) experience layered health risks and stigma, yet peer navigation services during reentry may support positive outcomes. This manuscript offers a program description of a women’s peer navigation intervention delivered pre- and post-release from jail to remove barriers to women’s access to OUD treatment, including medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).

All data were collected as part of a NIH/NIDA-funded national cooperative, the Justice Community Opioid Innovation Network (JCOIN) project. Through the larger study’s intervention, women in jail with OUD are connected via videoconference to a peer navigator, who provides an initial reentry recovery assessment and 12+ weeks of recovery support sessions post-release. Qualitative analyses examined peers’ notes from initial sessions with women (N = 50) and in-depth interviews with peers (N = 3).

Peers’ notes from initial sessions suggest that women anticipate challenges to successful recovery and community reentry. More than half of women (51.9%) chose OUD treatment as their primary goal, while others selected more basic needs (e.g. housing, transportation). In qualitative interviews, peers described women’s transitions to the community as unpredictable, creating difficulties for reentry planning, particularly for rural women. Peers also described challenges with stigma against MOUD and establishing relationships via telehealth, but ultimately believed their role was valuable in providing resource referrals, support, and hope for recovery.

For women with OUD, peer navigation can offer critical linkages to services at release from jail, in addition to hope, encouragement, and solidarity. Findings provide important insights for future peer-based interventions.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in clinical and translational science (CTS) are paramount to driving innovation and increasing health equity. One important area for improving diversity is among trainees in CTS programs. This paper reports on findings from a special session at the November 2020 Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) national program meeting that focused on advancing diversity and inclusion within CTS training programs.

Using qualitative content analysis, we identified approaches brought forth to increase DEI in KL2 career development and other training programs aimed at early-stage CTS investigators, beyond the six strategies put forth to guide the breakout session (prioritizing representation, building partnerships, making it personal, designing program structure, improving through feedback, and winning endorsement). We used an inductive qualitative content analysis approach to identify themes from a transcript of the panel of KL2 program leaders centered on DEI in training programs.

We identified four themes for advancing DEI within CTS training programs: 1) institutional buy-in; 2) proactive recruitment efforts; 3) an equitable application process; and 4) high-quality, diverse mentorship.

Implementing these strategies in CTS and other training programs will be an important step for advancing DEI. However, processes need to be established to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of these strategies through continuous quality improvement, a key component of the CTSA program. Training programs within the CTSA are well-positioned to be leaders in this critical effort to increase the diversity of the scientific workforce.

Social unrest tied to racism negatively impacted half of NIH-funded extramural researchers underrepresented (UR) in science. UR early-career scientists encounter more challenges in their research careers, but the impact of social unrest due to systemic racism in this group is unclear. We used mixed methods to describe the impact of social unrest due to systemic racism on mentoring relationships, research, and psychological well-being in UR post-doctoral fellows and early-career faculty.

This is a cross-sectional analysis of data collected in September 2021–January 2022 from 144 UR early-career researchers from 25 academic medical centers in the Building Up Trial. The primary outcomes were agreement on five-point Likert scales with social unrest impact statements (e.g., “I experienced psychological distress due to events of social unrest regarding systemic racism”). Thematic analysis was conducted on responses to one open-ended question assessing how social unrest regarding systemic racism affected participants.

Most participants were female (80%), non-Hispanic Black (35%), or Hispanic (40%). Over half of participants (57%) experienced psychological distress as a result of social unrest due to systemic racism. Participants described direct and indirect discrimination and isolation from other persons of color at their institutions. Twice as many participants felt their mentoring relationships were positively (21%) versus negatively (11%) impacted by social unrest due to systemic racism.

Experiences with racial bias and discrimination impact the career and well-being of UR early-career researchers. Mentoring relationships and institutional support play an important role in buffering the negative impact of racial injustice for this population.

Pilot projects (“pilots”) are important for testing hypotheses in advance of investing more funds for full research studies. For some programs, such as Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) supported by the National Center for Translational Sciences, pilots also make up a significant proportion of the research projects conducted with direct CTSA support. Unfortunately, administrative data on pilots are not typically captured in accessible databases. Though data on pilots are included in Research Performance Progress Reports, it is often difficult to extract, especially for large programs like the CTSAs where more than 600 pilots may be reported across all awardees annually. Data extraction challenges preclude analyses that could provide valuable information about pilots to researchers and administrators.

To address those challenges, we describe a script that partially automates extraction of pilot data from CTSA research progress reports. After extraction of the pilot data, we use an established machine learning (ML) model to determine the scientific content of pilots for subsequent analysis. Analysis of ML-assigned scientific categories reveals the scientific diversity of the CTSA pilot portfolio and relationships among individual pilots and institutions.

The CTSA pilots are widely distributed across a number of scientific areas. Content analysis identifies similar projects and the degree of overlap for scientific interests among hubs.

Our results demonstrate that pilot data remain challenging to extract but can provide useful information for communicating with stakeholders, administering pilot portfolios, and facilitating collaboration among researchers and hubs.

The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program aims to enhance the quality, efficiency, and impact of translation from discovery to interventions that improve human health. CTSA program hubs at medical research institutions across the United States develop and test innovative tools, methods, and processes, offering core resources and training for the clinical and translational research (CTR) workforce. Hubs have developed services across different domains, such as informatics and pilot studies, to provide ad hoc expertise and staffing for local research teams. Although these services can provide efficient, cost-effective ways to cover skills gaps and implement rigorous studies, three CTSAs of varying size found the majority of investigators were single domain service users, likely missing opportunities to further enhance their work.

Through interviews with CTSA service users and a survey of CTSA service managers, this exploratory study aims to identify barriers to using services from multiple modules and solutions to overcome those barriers.

Barriers include challenges in finding information about services, unclear or unknown user needs, and users’ lack of funding to engage in services. More issues were identified for the largest CTSA.

Although this study represents a small subset of CTSA hubs, we anticipate that our findings and proposed solutions will be relevant to the broader CTSA community. This study provides foundational information can use in their own efforts to increase service utilization and methods that can be used for more comprehensive studies that focus on explaining the relationship between CTSA features and rates of single versus cross-module service use.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, our research group initiated a pediatric practice-based randomized trial for the treatment of childhood obesity in rural communities. Approximately 6 weeks into the originally planned 10-week enrollment period, the trial was forced to pause all study activity due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This pause necessitated a substantial revision in recruitment, enrollment, and other study methods in order to complete the trial using virtual procedures. This descriptive paper outlines methods used to recruit, enroll, and manage clinical trial participants with technology to obtain informed consent, obtain height and weight measurements by video, and maintain participant engagement throughout the duration of the trial.

The study team reviewed the IRB records, protocol team meeting minutes and records, and surveyed the site teams to document the impact of the COVID-19 shift to virtual procedures on the study. The IRB approved study changes allowed for flexibility between clinical sites given variations in site resources, which was key to success of the implementation.

All study sites faced a variety of logistical challenges unique to their location yet successfully recruited the required number of patients for the trial. Ultimately, virtual procedures enhanced our ability to establish relationships with participants who were previously beyond our reach, but presented several challenges and required additional resources.

Lessons learned from this study can assist other study groups in navigating challenges, especially when recruiting and implementing studies with rural and underserved populations or during challenging events like the pandemic.

Integration of clinical skills during graduate training in dual-degree programs remains a challenge. The present study investigated the availability and self-perceived efficacy of clinical continuity strategies for dual-degree trainees preparing for clinical training.

Survey participants were MD/DO-PhD students enrolled in dual-degree-granting institutions in the USA. The response rate was 95% of 73 unique institutions surveyed, representing 56% of the 124 MD-PhD and 7 DO-PhD recognized training programs. Respondents were asked to indicate the availability and self-perceived efficacy of each strategy.

Reported available clinical continuity strategies included clinical volunteering (95.6%), medical grand rounds (86.9%), mentored clinical experiences (84.2%), standardized patients/ practice Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) (70.3%), clinical case reviews (45.9%), clinical journal clubs (38.3%), and preclinical courses/review sessions (37.2%). Trainees rated standardized patients (µ = 6.98 ± 0.356), mentored clinical experiences (µ = 6.94 ± 0.301), clinical skills review sessions (µ = 6.89 ± 0.384), preclinical courses/review sessions (µ = 6.74 ± 0.482), and clinical volunteering (µ = 6.60 ± 0.369), significantly (p < 0.050) higher than clinical case review (µ = 5.34 ± 0.412), clinical journal club (µ = 4.75 ± 0.498), and medicine grand rounds (µ = 4.45 ± 0.377). Further, 84.4% of respondents stated they would be willing to devote at least 0.5–1 hour per week to clinical continuity opportunities during graduate training.

Less than half of the institutions surveyed offered strategies perceived as the most efficacious in preparing trainees for clinical reentry, such as clinical skills review sessions. Broader implementation of these strategies could help better prepare dual-degree students for their return to clinical training.

Physician-scientist training programs expect applicants to have had extensive research experience prior to applying. Even at the best of times, this leaves individuals from underserved and underrepresented backgrounds at a competitive disadvantage, especially those remote from major academic centers. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated that disadvantage by closing research laboratories and suspending summer research opportunities.

The Virtual Summer Research Program (VSRP) was designed to combat this shortfall by helping participating students become better informed and better prepared for applying to MD/DO–PhD programs. 156 participants were recruited from historically black colleges and universities and from national organizations for underrepresented trainees. Participants were paired with medical school faculty members and current MD/DO–PhD students from 35 participating institutions. The program lasted for at least 4 weeks and included a short research project, interactive sessions, journal clubs, social events, and attendance at a regional American Physician Scientists Association conference.

In follow-up surveys, participants reported improvements in their science-related skills and in their confidence in becoming a physician-scientist, applying to training programs, and navigating mentorship relationships. A follow-up study completed one year later indicated that participants felt they had benefited from an enhanced skill set, long-term relationships with their mentors, and connections to the physician-scientist community at large.

The results suggest that VSRP met its primary goals, which were to provide a diverse group of trainees with mentors, provide skills and resources for MD/DO–PhD application and matriculation and to support the development of longitudinal relationships between VSRP mentees and APSA. VSRP provides an approach that can be applied at an even larger scale when the constraints caused by a global pandemic have lifted.