Research Translation Activities Research Articles

Research Synthesis, HIV Prevention Response, and Public Health: CDC's HIV/AIDS Prevention Research Synthesis Project.

Research synthesis, through qualitative or quantitative systematic reviews, allows for integrating results of primary research to improve public health. We examined more than 2 decades of work in HIV prevention by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) HIV/AIDS Prevention Research Synthesis (PRS) Project. We describe the context and contributions of research synthesis, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses, through the experience of the PRS Project. We reviewed PRS Project publications and products and summarized PRS contributions from 1996 to July 2020 in 4 areas: synthesis of interventions and epidemiologic studies, synthesis methods, prevention programs, and prevention policy. PRS Project publications summarized risk behaviors and effects of prevention interventions (eg, changing one's perception of risk, teaching condom negotiation skills) across populations at risk for HIV infection and intervention approaches (eg, one-on-one or group meetings) as the HIV/AIDS epidemic and science evolved. We used the PRS Project cumulative database and intervention efficacy reviews to contribute to prevention programs and policies through identification of evidence-based interventions and development of program guidance. Subject matter experts and scientific evidence informed PRS Project products and contributions, which were implemented through strategic programmatic partnerships. The contributions of the PRS Project to HIV prevention and public health efforts in the United States can be credited to CDC's long-standing support of the project and its context within a federal prevention agency, where HIV programs and policies were developed and implemented. The effect of the PRS Project was likely facilitated by opportunities to directly influence program and policy because of connections with other research translation activities and program and policy decision making within CDC.

Sex workers as peer researchers – a qualitative investigation of the benefits and challenges

Best practice in sex work research advocates for a ‘nothing about us without us’ methodology. This study employed sex workers as peer researchers to assist in evaluating the sexual health outcomes and well-being of sex workers in Western Australia. All eight peer researchers were invited to reflect on their experiences as peer researchers through semi-structured interviews, and seven peer researchers participated. Giving sex workers a voice and the opportunity to facilitate change for their peers was the primary driver for participation. Some peer researchers from English speaking backgrounds experienced challenges engaging and communicating with study participants for whom English was not their first language. Others experienced role conflict on hearing viewpoints contrary to their own beliefs. Access to support from the project team and other peer researchers was a key enabler for undertaking the peer researcher role. The majority of peer researchers were motivated to participate in the research by the possibility of future changes to sex work-related legislation, and support for sex workers based on the research findings. Research partnerships with peer researchers that offer employment throughout the research process, including co-authorship of journal articles, opportunities for leadership roles and collaboration in research translation activities can increase research impact.

Reporting health research translation and impact in the curriculum vitae: a survey

BackgroundIncreasingly, health researchers must demonstrate the impact and real-life applications of their research. We investigated how health researchers with expertise in knowledge translation report research translation activities and impact on their curriculum vitae (CV).MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of health researchers with expertise in knowledge translation as we anticipated best practices in CV reporting from this specialized group. Our survey asked participants about their reporting of research translation and impact activities on their CVs, intention to report, and barriers and facilitators to reporting such activities on their CVs. We calculated univariate descriptive statistics for all quantitative data. Linear regression models determined predictors of researchers’ intention to report research translation and impact activities on their CVs. We analyzed open-ended qualitative responses using content analysis.ResultsOne hundred and fifty-three health researchers responded to the survey (response rate = 29%). Most respondents were Canadian, were female, and had a doctoral degree. Eighty-two percent indicated they reported at least one research translation and/or impact indicator on their CVs. Of those, health researchers commonly reported the following: advisory/regulatory committee membership related to research program (83%), research translation award(s) (61%), and academic performance assessments (59%). Researchers least commonly indicated the following: citation metric scores (31%), summaries of impact (21%), and requests to use research materials and/or products (19%). Fewer than half of the health researchers intended to report knowledge translation (43%) and impact (33%) on their CVs. Strong beliefs about capabilities and consequences of reporting research translation and/or impact were significant predictors of intention. Main barriers were as follows: CV templates do not include research translation and impact activities, participants perceived employers do not value research translation and impact activities, and lack of metrics to evaluate research translation and impact. Ninety-six percent were unaware of a CV template formatted to include research translation and/or impact reporting.ConclusionsKnowledge translation and impact indicators on the CV are inconsistently reported by our sample of health researchers. Modifiable barriers should be addressed to support more consistent reporting of such activities, including providing a CV template that includes research translation and impact as well as clear metrics to quantify them.

Barriers and opportunities for breast cancer organizations to focus on environmental health and disease prevention: a mixed-methods approach using website analyses, interviews, and focus groups

BackgroundBreast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women worldwide and most cases are not due to high risk inherited genes. In response, breast cancer activists successfully advocated for innovative research on environmental chemical exposures as a possible cause. Since then, new evidence supports hypotheses that common industrial and consumer chemicals are linked to the disease, and expert panels recommend reducing exposures. We evaluated whether these research results and recommendations are translated back into the work of breast cancer organizations and what barriers and opportunities influence their ability to focus on environmental factors.MethodsWe used a Python script to evaluate the frequency of environmental terms on the websites of 81 breast cancer organizations (> 14,000 associated URLs) and conducted two focus groups and 20 interviews with leaders of breast cancer organizations. We also analyzed the frequency of terms on two trusted, national cancer websites.Results40% of organizations include information on environmental chemicals on their websites, but references are infrequent and rarely cite specific chemicals of concern. Most organizations (82%) discuss other risk factors such as exercise, diet, family history, or genetics. From interviews and focus groups, we identified four types of barriers to addressing environmental chemicals: 1) time and resource constraints, 2) limited knowledge of the state of the research and lack of access to experts, 3) difficulties with messaging, including concern that cultural and economic factors make it difficult for individuals to reduce their exposures, and 4) institutional obstacles, such as the downplaying of environmental risks by industry interests. Participants expressed the desire for easy-to-adopt educational programs and increased federal funding for scientist-advocate research partnerships.ConclusionOur research underscores the need for environmental breast cancer experts and trusted cancer organizations to increase research translation activities so that breast cancer organizations can communicate new science on environmental factors in their online and in-person work. Moreover, our research highlights how most groups are focusing on providing resources to diagnosed women, including addressing problems with healthcare access, which displaces their ability to work on breast cancer prevention.

The characteristics and reporting quality of research impact case studies: A systematic review

Despite the growing expectation that researchers report the impact of their research using a case study approach, systematic reviews of research impact have focused on frameworks, indicators, methods of data collection and assessment rather than impact case studies. Our aim is to provide an overview of the characteristics of published research impact case studies, including translation activities, and their reporting quality. We searched for peer-reviewed impact studies published between 2000 and 2018 using a case study approach and selected 25 suitable papers. We applied descriptive statistics to study characteristics, conducted thematic analysis of research translation activities and assessed reporting quality using the 10-point ISRIA statement. 24 papers reported intermediate impacts, such as advocacy, or the development of statements, tools, or technology. 4 reported on longer-term societal impacts, such as health outcomes and economic return on investment. 7 reported on translation activities. Papers scored well against the ISRIA statement on 5 domains of reporting quality. Weakest scores centred around identification of stakeholder needs and stakeholder involvement, and ethics and conflict of interest. We identified the need for more consistency in reporting through a case study approach, more systematic reporting of translation pathways and greater transparency concerning estimated costs and benefits of the research and its translation and impact assessment.

Addiction Research Centres and the Nurturing of Creativity

ABSTRACTThe Alcohol and Drug Abuse Research Unit (ADARU) was established at the South African Medical Research Council (MRC) at the beginning of 2001, although its origins lie in the activities of the Centre for Epidemiological Research in Southern Africa and other MRC entities. Initial challenges included attracting external funding, recruiting new staff, developing the skills of junior staff, publishing in international journals and building national and international collaborative networks. ADARU currently comprises a core staff of 33 members who work on 22 projects spanning substance use epidemiology and associated consequences, intervention studies with at‐risk populations and services research. A large component of this portfolio focuses on the link between alcohol and other drug use and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk behaviour, with funding from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Junior staff members are encouraged to develop independent research interests and pursue PhD studies. Research outputs, such as the 20 papers that were published in 2010 and the 35 conference presentations from that year, form an important part of the unit's research translation activities. We engage actively with policy processes at the local, provincial, national and international levels, and have given particular attention to alcohol policy in recent years. The paper includes an analysis of major challenges currently facing the unit and how we are attempting to address them. It ends with some thoughts on what the unit intends doing to enhance the quality of its research, the capacity of its staff and its international standing.