Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center Research Articles

An Evaluation Framework of a Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center for Health Equity Research

Over the last few decades, there has been an increase in the number of large federally funded transdisciplinary programs and initiatives. Scholars have identified a need to develop frameworks, methodologies, and tools to evaluate the effectiveness of these large collaborative initiatives, providing precise ways to understand and assess the operations, community and academic partner collaboration, scientific and community research dissemination, and cost-effectiveness. Unfortunately, there has been limited research on methodologies and frameworks that can be used to evaluate large initiatives. This study presents a framework for evaluating the Flint Center for Health Equity Solutions (FCHES), a National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD)-funded Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center (TCC) for health disparities research. This report presents a summary of the FCHES evaluation framework and evaluation questions as well as findings from the Year-2 evaluation of the Center and lessons learned.

An NIH investment in health equity - the economic impact of the Flint Center for Health Equity Solutions

BackgroundHealth disparities are pervasive and are linked to economic losses in the United States of up to $135 billion per year. The Flint Center for Health Equity Solutions (FCHES) is a Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center for health disparities research funded by the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD). The purpose of this study was to estimate the economic impact of the 5-year investment in FCHES in Genesee County, Michigan.MethodsThe estimated impacts of FCHES were calculated using a U.S.-specific input/output (I/O) model, IMPLAN, from IMPLAN Group, LLC., which provides a software system to access geographic specific data regarding economic sector interactions from a variety of sources. This allowed us to model the cross-sector economic activity that occurred throughout Genesee County, Michigan, as a result of the FCHES investment. The overall economic impacts were estimated as the sum of three impact types: 1. Direct (the specific expenditures impact of FCHES and the Scientific Research and Development Services sector); 2. Indirect (the impact on suppliers to FCHES and the Scientific Research and Development Services sector); and 3. Induced (the additional economic impact of the spending of these suppliers and employees in the county economy).ResultsThe total FCHES investment amounted to approximately $11 million between 2016 and 2020. Overall, combined direct, indirect, and induced impacts of the total FCHES federal investment in Genesee County included over 161 job-years, over $7.6 million in personal income, and more than $19.2 million in economic output. In addition, this combined economic activity generated close to $2.3 million in state/local and federal tax revenue. The impact multipliers show the ripple effect of the FCHES investment. For example, the overall output of over $19.2 million led to an impact multiplier of 1.75 – every $1 of federal FCHES investment led to an additional $.75 of economic output in Genesee County.ConclusionsThe FCHES research funding yields significant direct economic impacts above and beyond the direct NIH investment of $11 million. The economic impact estimation method may be relevant and generalizable to other large research centers such as FCHES.

Strengthening System and Implementation Research Capacity for Child Mental Health and Family Well-being in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Children in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) experience high rates of mental health problems, and the region has limited access to mental health resources and research capacity to address the needs. Despite the success of numerous evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and emerging methodology from the field of implementation science for addressing child mental health needs, most EBIs and implementation science methodology have not been applied in SSA contexts. The SMART-Africa Center aims to address these child welfare, mental health, services, and EBI implementation research gaps by establishing a regional trans-disciplinary collaborative center and studying strategies to strengthening mental health system and implementation research capacity. Our paper describes the overall framework and strategies that SMART-Africa team developed to strengthen capacity in three SSA countries (Ghana, Kenya, and Uganda) while focusing on its contextualization for the Kenyan school-community mental health settings. Methods to document the progress and impacts are also described. The design of the system and research strengthening activities is guided by a SMART-Africa Capacity Building framework. Two areas of capacity are focused. Mental health system capacity focuses on building political wills, leadership, transdisciplinary partnership, and stakeholders' global competency in evidence child mental health policy, intervention, and service implementation research. Implementation research capacity building focuses on building researchers' implementation research competency by carrying out an EBI implementation research (using a Hybrid Type II effectiveness-implementation). For illustration purpose, we describe how the system strengthening strategies has been applied in Kenya, and how the mixed methods design applied to assess the value and impacts of the capacity building activities. Feedback data and evaluation data collection using qualitative and quantitative methods for both areas of capacity building are still ongoing. Data will be analyzed and compared across countries in 2020-2021. Our work has shown some feasibility of applying the theory-guided system strengthening model in improving child mental health service system and research capacity in one of the three SMART-Africa partnering countries. Our mental health landscape and resource mapping in Kenya also illustrated that capacity building in SSA countries involved complex dynamic, history, and some overlap efforts with multiple partnerships, and these are critical to consider in training activity and evaluation design.

Lessons Learned from the Medical University of South Carolina Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center (TCC) in Precision Medicine and Minority Men's Health.

The Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center (TCC) in Precision Medicine for Minority Men’s Health was established at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) in 2015 to address disparities in the translation of precision medicine approaches among racial minority groups. This regional consortium focuses on three primary areas: (1) the development of a consortium of regional and national partners, (2) conducting transdisciplinary research examining synergistic effects of biological, social, physiological, and clinical determinants of chronic disease risks and outcomes, and (3) dissemination and implementation of precision medicine approaches, with an emphasis on reducing disparities in health care and outcomes among minority men. Given consistent calls to better translate precision medicine approaches and the focus of this consortium on addressing disparities among minority men, we provide an overview of our experience in developing the MUSC TCC, including barriers and facilitators to conducting translational research on minority men’s health issues in the context of precision medicine. Lessons learned and areas for improvement include providing enough time to create consistent partnerships and community engagement to improve recruitment and retention, identifying unique ways to engage diverse partners from across the region and nation, and better approaches to dissemination and communication for large partnerships focusing on precision medicine.

Applying a Health Equity Lens to Evaluate and Inform Policy

Health disparities have persisted despite decades of efforts to eliminate them at the national, regional, state and local levels. Policies have been a driving force in creating and exacerbating health disparities, but they can also play a major role in eliminating disparities. Research evidence and input from affected community-level stakeholders are critical components of evidence-based health policy that will advance health equity. The Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center (TCC) for Health Disparities Research at Morehouse School of Medicine consists of five subprojects focused on studying and informing health equity policy related to maternal-child health, mental health, health information technology, diabetes, and leadership/workforce development. This article describes a "health equity lens" as defined, operationalized and applied by the TCC to inform health policy development, implementation, and analysis. Prioritizing health equity in laws and organizational policies provides an upstream foundation for ensuring that the laws are implemented at the midstream and downstream levels to advance health equity.

Health Policy Engagement Strategy for the Health Information Technology Policy Project of the Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center for Health Disparities Research.

Rulemaking is one of the most important ways the federal government makes public policy. It frequently has significant impact on individuals, communities, and organizations. Yet, few of those directly affected are familiar with the rulemaking process, and even fewer understand how it works. This article describes a case study of the Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center for Health Disparities Research Health Information Technology (TCC HIT) Policy Project's approach to health-policy engagement using: 1) social media; and 2) a webinar to educate stakeholders on the rulemaking process and increase their level of meaningful engagement with the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) proposed rule public comment submission. The webinar "Paying for Quality: What Is the Impact on Health Equity" was promoted through Twitter and held in June 2016. In total, we posted 19 tweets using two distinct hashtags (#MACRA4Equity, #MACRA2Equity) to raise awareness of the upcoming MACRA proposed rule and its possible effects on health equity. Overall, 252 individuals registered for the webinar, and more than half participated (n=133). Most (67%) registrants reported that health policy was not the primary focus of their current position. Based on information provided in the webinar, 95% agreed that their understanding of the topic improved. By the end of the webinar, 44% of participants indicated that they planned to submit public comments for MACRA, a 12% increase compared with those who planned to submit at the time of registration. The TCC health-policy engagement strategy demonstrates the feasibility of engaging a diverse audience around health policy issues, particularly those who are not typically engaged in policy work.

A Participatory Evaluation Framework for the Implementation of a Transdisciplinary Center for Health Disparities Research.

This article describes the participatory evaluation framework for the Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center for Health Disparities Research (TCC) funded by the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities. In collaboration with TCC stakeholders, logic models, the McKinlay model, and process and outcome evaluation plans, including quantitative and qualitative methods, have been developed and used to document the impact of the TCC. The McKinlay model, a widely used comprehensive health model for eliminating health disparities, was also tailored to document the outcomes of the TCC. The process and outcome evaluation plans for the TCC guide continuous improvement and the achievement of its specific aims. The evaluation of the TCC occurred between 2012 and 2019 and involved key stakeholders in TCC research and programming. Several challenges exist for implementing an evaluation plan of a health equity-focused policy research center. However, we learned several lessons that will ensure progress toward specific aims and will help the TCC serve as a model for similar programs and centers.

First person profile: Chanita Hughes-Halbert, PhD: In bridging the gap between biology and the behavioral world, this psychologist is pushing research on cancer disparities in new directions.

First person profile: Chanita Hughes-Halbert, PhD: In bridging the gap between biology and the behavioral world, this psychologist is pushing research on cancer disparities in new directions.

The ACCOuNT Consortium: A Model for the Discovery, Translation, and Implementation of Precision Medicine in African Americans.

The majority of pharmacogenomic (PGx) studies have been conducted on European ancestry populations, thereby excluding minority populations and impeding the discovery and translation of African American–specific genetic variation into precision medicine. Without accounting for variants found in African Americans, clinical recommendations based solely on genetic biomarkers found in European populations could result in misclassification of drug response in African American patients. To address these challenges, we formed the Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center (TCC), African American Cardiovascular Pharmacogenetic Consortium (ACCOuNT), to discover novel genetic variants in African Americans related to clinically actionable cardiovascular phenotypes and to incorporate African American–specific sequence variations into clinical recommendations at the point of care. The TCC consists of two research projects focused on discovery and translation of genetic findings and four cores that support the projects. In addition, the largest repository of PGx information on African Americans is being established as well as lasting infrastructure that can be utilized to spur continued research in this understudied population.

Abstract IA32: Building and sustaining partnerships in cancer health disparities research

Abstract Partnerships between academic institutions, public health agencies, and community-based organizations are critical to addressing racial and ethnic disparities in cancer outcomes. However, developing and sustaining these partnerships may be challenging because of differences in organizational missions, priorities, and infrastructure for conducting research. While these issues can be addressed by establishing a shared vision and mission for the partnership using principles of community-based participatory research, it is also critical to establish an effective administrative structure that centralizes and integrates activities across research and outreach efforts. This presentation will use two case examples of building and sustaining partnerships for cancer health disparities research. The first example is the process that was used to develop and manage the West Philadelphia Consortium to Address Disparities that was established to address minority health and health disparities in chronic diseases among African Americans in the Philadelphia, PA metropolitan area. The second example will focus on describing the Consortium Core that is a component of the Medical University of South Carolina Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center in Precision Medicine and Minority Men's Health. Citation Format: Chanita Hughes Halbert. Building and sustaining partnerships in cancer health disparities research [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Tenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2017 Sep 25-28; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2018;27(7 Suppl):Abstract nr IA32.

The Social Determinants of Health Core: Taking a Place-Based Approach.

There is growing recognition that health disparities research needs to incorporate social determinants in the local environment into explanatory models. In the transdisciplinary setting of the Mid-South Transdisciplinary Collaborative Center (TCC), the Social Determinants of Health (SDH) Core developed an approach to incorporating SDH across a variety of studies. This place-based approach, which is geographically based, transdisciplinary, and inherently multilevel, is discussed. From 2014 through 2016, the SDH Core consulted on a variety of Mid-South TCC research studies with the goal of incorporating social determinants into their research designs. The approach used geospatial methods (e.g., geocoding) to link individual data files with measures of the physical and social environment in the SDH Core database. Once linked, the method permitted various types of analysis (e.g., multilevel analysis) to determine if racial disparities could be explained in terms of social determinants in the local environment. The SDH Core consulted on five Mid-South TCC research projects. In resulting analyses for all the studies, a significant portion of the variance in one or more outcomes was partially explained by a social determinant from the SDH Core database. The SDH Core approach to addressing health disparities by linking neighborhood social and physical environment measures to an individual-level data file proved to be a successful approach across Mid-South TCC research projects.