The effectiveness of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships to address health inequities is well documented. CBPR integrates knowledge and perspectives of diverse communities throughout the research process, following principles that emphasize trust, power sharing, co-learning, and mutual benefits. However, institutions and funders seldom provide the time and resources needed for the critical stage of equitable partnership formation and development.

Since 2011, the Detroit Urban Research Center, collaborating with other entities, has promoted the development of new community–academic research partnerships through two grant programs that combine seed funding with capacity building support from community and academic instructors/mentors experienced in CBPR. Process and outcomes were evaluated using mixed methods.

From 2011 to 2021, 50 partnerships received grants ranging from $2,500 to $30,000, totaling $605,000. Outcomes included equitable partnership infrastructure and processes, innovative pilot research, translation of findings to interventions and policy change, dissemination to multiple audiences, new proposals and projects, and sustained community–academic research partnerships. All partnerships continued beyond the program; over half secured additional funding.

Keys to success included participation as community–academic teams, dedicated time for partnership/relationship development, workshops to develop equity-based skills, relationships, and projects, expert community–academic instructor guidance, and connection to additional resources. Findings demonstrate that small amounts of seed funding for newly forming community–academic partnerships, paired with capacity building support, can provide essential time and resources needed to develop diverse, inclusive, equity-focused CBPR partnerships. Building such support into funding initiatives and through academic institutions can enhance impact and sustainability of translational research toward advancing health equity.

Head and neck (HN) radiotherapy (RT) is complex, involving multiple target and organ at risk (OAR) structures delineated by the radiation oncologist. Site-agnostic peer review after RT plan completion is often inadequate for thorough review of these structures. In-depth review of RT contours is critical to maintain high-quality RT and optimal patient outcomes.

In August 2020, the HN RT Quality Assurance Conference, a weekly teleconference that included at least one radiation oncology HN specialist, was activated at our institution. Targets and OARs were reviewed in detail prior to RT plan creation. A parallel implementation study recorded patient factors and outcomes of these reviews. A major change was any modification to the high-dose planning target volume (PTV) or the prescription dose/fractionation; a minor change was modification to the intermediate-dose PTV, low-dose PTV, or any OAR. We analysed the results of consecutive RT contour review in the first 20 months since its initiation.

A total of 208 patients treated by 8 providers were reviewed: 86·5% from the primary tertiary care hospital and 13·5% from regional practices. A major change was recommended in 14·4% and implemented in 25 of 30 cases (83·3%). A minor change was recommended in 17·3% and implemented in 32 of 36 cases (88·9%). A survey of participants found that all (n = 11) strongly agreed or agreed that the conference was useful.

Dedicated review of RT targets/OARs with a HN subspecialist is associated with substantial rates of suggested and implemented modifications to the contours.

Right ventricular outflow tract intervention spans transcatheter, surgical, or hybrid pulmonary valve replacement methodologies. Standardised pre-procedure workup includes cardiac MRI to identify an intended valve site (landing zone). Our institutional practice includes measurement of the right ventricular outflow tract perimeter (circumference) of this site in end-systole. Our primary aim was to compare patients by their perimeter values to the palliative interventions performed (transcatheter versus surgical/hybrid methodologies).

Retrospective review of patients undergoing pulmonary valve replacement from January 2017 to 2021. We performed perimeter measurements at the intended valve site on advanced imaging; the outcomes of interventions were outlined via descriptive and statistical analyses.

A total of 37 patients underwent pulmonary valve replacement that met study criteria – 21 transcatheter, 7 surgical, and 9 hybrid. Median age at intervention was 26 years (range 8–70). The mean end-systolic perimeter of the transcatheter cohort was 88.9 ± 8.7 mm and in the surgical/hybrid cohort measured 106.6 ± 7.5 mm. For the transcatheter cohort, the median “circularised” diameter derived from the perimeter measurement (divided by π) was 27.7 mm (range 24.3–32.4). Notably, this correlated (r = 0.93, p < 0.01) with the median diameter of the narrowest region during actual transcatheter right ventricular outflow tract balloon sizing (lateral imaging) of 27.1 mm (range 23.2–30.1).

Right ventricular outflow tract perimeter measurement to determine circularised diameter is useful in planning pulmonary valve replacement in terms of candidacy of transcatheter versus the need for a surgical/hybrid approach. The circularised diameter correlates with transcatheter right ventricular outflow tract balloon sizing.

Despite its potential scalability, little is known about the outcomes of internet-based cognitive behaviour therapy (iCBT) for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when it is provided with minimal guidance from a clinician.

To evaluate the outcomes of minimally guided iCBT for PTSD in a randomised control trial (RCT, Study 1) and in an open trial in routine community care (Study 2).

A RCT compared the iCBT course (n=21) to a waitlist control (WLC, n=19) among participants diagnosed with PTSD. The iCBT group was followed up 3 months post-treatment. In Study 2, treatment outcomes were evaluated among 117 adults in routine community care. PTSD symptom severity was the primary outcome in both studies, with psychological distress and co-morbid anxiety and depressive symptoms providing secondary outcomes.

iCBT participants in both studies experienced significant reductions in PTSD symptom severity from pre- to post-treatment treatment (within-group Hedges’ g=.72–1.02), with RCT findings showing maintenance of gains at 3-month follow-up. The WLC group in the RCT also significantly improved, but Study 1 was under-powered and the medium between-group effect favouring iCBT did not reach significance (g=0.64; 95% CI, –0.10–1.38).

This research provides preliminary support for the utility of iCBT for PTSD when provided with minimal clinician guidance. Future studies are needed to clarify the effect of differing levels of clinician support on PTSD iCBT outcomes, as well as exploring how best to integrate iCBT into large-scale, routine clinical care of PTSD.