Interdisciplinary, Translational, and Community-Based Participatory Research: Finding a Common Language to Improve Cancer Research

Preventing cancer, downstaging disease at diagnosis, and reducing mortality require that relevant research findings be translated across scientific disciplines and into clinical and public health practice. Interdisciplinary research focuses on using the languages of different scientific disciplines to share techniques and philosophical perspectives to enhance discovery and development of innovations; (i.e., from the “left end” of the research continuum). Community-based participatory research (CBPR), whose relevance often is relegated to the “right end” (i.e., delivery and dissemination) of the research continuum, represents an important means for understanding how many cancers are caused as well as for ensuring that basic science research findings affect cancer outcomes in materially important ways. Effective interdisciplinary research and CBPR both require an ability to communicate effectively across groups that often start out neither understanding each other’s worldviews nor even speaking the same language. Both demand an ability and willingness to treat individuals from other communities with respect and understanding. We describe the similarities between CBPR and both translational and interdisciplinary research, and then illustrate our points using squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus as an example of how to deepen understanding and increase relevance by applying techniques of CBPR and interdisciplinary engagement

Mentoring, Training, and Scholarly Productivity Experiences of Cancer-Related Health Disparities Research Trainees: Do Outcomes Differ for Underrepresented Scientists?

The study aims to explore variation in scholarly productivity outcomes by underrepresented status among a diverse sample of researchers in a community-engaged training program. We identified 141 trainees from a web-based survey of researchers in the National Cancer Institute-funded, Community Networks Program Centers (CNPCs) (2011-2016). We conducted a series of multiple logistic regression models to estimate the effect of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-defined underrepresented status on four, self-reported, scholarly productivity outcomes in the previous 5 years: number of publications (first-authored and total) and funded grants (NIH and any agency). Sixty-five percent (n = 92) indicated NIH underrepresented status. In final adjusted models, non-NIH underrepresented (vs. underrepresented) trainees reported an increased odds of having more than the median number of total publications (> 9) (OR = 3.14, 95% CI 1.21-8.65) and any grant funding (OR = 5.10, 95% CI 1.77-14.65). Reporting ≥ 1 mentors (vs. none) was also positively associated (p < 0.05) with these outcomes. The CNPC underrepresented trainees had similar success in first-authored publications and NIH funding as non-underrepresented trainees, but not total publications and grants. Examining trainees' mentoring experiences over time in relation to scholarly productivity outcomes is needed

Circadian Disruption, \u3cem\u3ePer3\u3c/em\u3e, and Human Cytokine Secretion

Circadian disruption has been linked with inflammation, an established cancer risk factor. Per3 clock gene polymorphisms have also been associated with circadian disruption and with increased cancer risk. Patients completed a questionnaire and provided a blood sample prior to undergoing a colonoscopy (n=70). Adjusted mean serum cytokine concentrations (IL-6, TNF-alpha, gamma-INF, IL-I ra, IL-I-beta, VEGF) were compared among patients with high and low scores for fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory), depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory II), or sleep disruption (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), or among patients with different Per3 clock gene variants. Poor sleep was associated with elevated VEGF, and fatigue-related reduced activity was associated with elevated TNF-alpha concentrations. Participants with the 4/5 or 5/5 Per3 variable tandem repeat sequence had elevated IL-6 concentrations compared to those with the 4/4 genotype. Biological processes linking circadian disruption with cancer remain to be elucidated. Increased inflammatory cytokine secretion may play a role

Fulfilling Ethical Responsibility: Moving Beyond the Minimal Standards of Protecting Human Subjects from Research Harm

PROBLEM: Rules for protecting human subjects, in place federally since 1974, have focused primarily on guarding against placing research subjects at social, physical, or psychological risk or violating their privacy and confidentiality. Nevertheless, high-risk communities are routinely subjected to “sins of omission,” which limit access to potentially significant research opportunities and result in the absence of studies that could confer high degree of community beneficence. PURPOSE OF ARTICLE: To describe “sins of omission” and provide examples from the Community Networks Program Centers (CNPC) to illustrate how community-based participatory research (CBPR) can prevent them. KEY POINTS: CBPR is an effective antidote to sins of omission. Activities undertaken by the CNPCs illustrate how adherence to CBPR principles can improve research access and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: By working with community members as partners, we expand the concept of beneficence to include “community beneficence,” thus reducing the probability of “sins of omission.

Fulfilling Ethical Responsibility: Moving Beyond the Minimal Standards of Protecting Human Subjects from Research Harm.

ProblemRules for protecting human subjects, in place federally since 1974, have focused primarily on guarding against placing research subjects at social, physical, or psychological risk or violating their privacy and confidentiality. Nevertheless, high-risk communities are routinely subjected to "sins of omission," which limit access to potentially significant research opportunities and result in the absence of studies that could confer high degree of community beneficence.Purpose of articleTo describe "sins of omission" and provide examples from the Community Networks Program Centers (CNPC) to illustrate how community-based participatory research (CBPR) can prevent them.Key pointsCBPR is an effective antidote to sins of omission. Activities undertaken by the CNPCs illustrate how adherence to CBPR principles can improve research access and outcomes.ConclusionsBy working with community members as partners, we expand the concept of beneficence to include "community beneficence," thus reducing the probability of "sins of omission.

Mentoring and Training of Cancer-Related Health Disparities Researchers Committed to Community-Based Participatory Research.

Background and objectiveThe National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Networks Program Centers (CNPCs) provide community-based participatory research (CBPR)-oriented mentoring and training to prepare early-stage/midcareer investigators and student trainees (trainees) in disparities reduction. This paper describes the academic, mentoring, training, and work-life balance experiences of CNPC-affiliated trainees.MethodsWe used a collaborative and iterative process to develop a 57-item, web-based questionnaire completed by trainees from the 23 CNPCs between August 2012 and February 2013. Their CNPC mentors completed a 47-item questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were calculated.ResultsThe final analytic sample included 189 of 269 individuals (70%) identified as active participants in CNPC research or training/mentoring. Mentors (n=45) were mostly non-Hispanic White (77.8%) and 48.9% were male. Mentors published a median of 6 (interquartile range [IQR], 3-12) first-authored and 15 (IQR, 6-25) senior authored manuscripts, and secured 15 (IQR, 11-29) grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other sources in the previous 5 years. Most trainees (n=144) were female (79.2%), 43.7% were underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities, and 36.8% were first-generation college graduates. Over the previous 5 years, trainees reported a median of 4 (IQR, 1-6) publications as first author and 4 (IQR, 2-8) as co-author; 27.1% reported having one or more NIH R01s. Trainees reported satisfaction with their CNPC mentor (79.1%) and confidence in demonstrating most CBPR competencies.ConclusionThe CNPC training program consists of a scientifically productive pool of mentors and trainees. Trainees reported rates of scholarly productivity comparable to other national training programs and provided insights into relationships with mentors, academic pressures, and professional-personal life balance

Mentoring and Training of Cancer-Related Health Disparities Researchers Committed to Community-Based Participatory Research

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Community Networks Program Centers (CNPCs) provide community-based participatory research (CBPR)-oriented mentoring and training to prepare early-stage/midcareer investigators and student trainees (trainees) in disparities reduction. This paper describes the academic, mentoring, training, and work–life balance experiences of CNPC-affiliated trainees. METHODS: We used a collaborative and iterative process to develop a 57-item, web-based questionnaire completed by trainees from the 23 CNPCs between August 2012 and February 2013. Their CNPC mentors completed a 47-item questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: The final analytic sample included 189 of 269 individuals (70%) identified as active participants in CNPC research or training/mentoring. Mentors (n = 45) were mostly non-Hispanic White (77.8%) and 48.9% were male. Mentors published a median of 6 (interquartile range [IQR], 3–12) first-authored and 15 (IQR, 6–25) senior authored manuscripts, and secured 15 (IQR, 11–29) grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other sources in the previous 5 years. Most trainees (n = 144) were female (79.2%), 43.7% were underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities, and 36.8% were first-generation college graduates. Over the previous 5 years, trainees reported a median of 4 (IQR, 1–6) publications as first author and 4 (IQR, 2–8) as co-author; 27.1% reported having one or more NIH R01s. Trainees reported satisfaction with their CNPC mentor (79.1%) and confidence in demonstrating most CBPR competencies. CONCLUSION: The CNPC training program consists of a scientifically productive pool of mentors and trainees. Trainees reported rates of scholarly productivity comparable to other national training programs and provided insights into relationships with mentors, academic pressures, and professional–personal life balance

Mentoring, Training, and Scholarly Productivity Experiences of Cancer-Related Health Disparities Research Trainees: Do Outcomes Differ for Underrepresented Scientists?

The study aims to explore variation in scholarly productivity outcomes by underrepresented status among a diverse sample of researchers in a community-engaged training program. We identified 141 trainees from a web-based survey of researchers in the National Cancer Institute-funded, Community Networks Program Centers (CNPCs) (2011-2016). We conducted a series of multiple logistic regression models to estimate the effect of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-defined underrepresented status on four, self-reported, scholarly productivity outcomes in the previous 5 years: number of publications (first-authored and total) and funded grants (NIH and any agency). Sixty-five percent (n = 92) indicated NIH underrepresented status. In final adjusted models, non-NIH underrepresented (vs. underrepresented) trainees reported an increased odds of having more than the median number of total publications (> 9) (OR = 3.14, 95% CI 1.21-8.65) and any grant funding (OR = 5.10, 95% CI 1.77-14.65). Reporting ≥ 1 mentors (vs. none) was also positively associated (p < 0.05) with these outcomes. The CNPC underrepresented trainees had similar success in first-authored publications and NIH funding as non-underrepresented trainees, but not total publications and grants. Examining trainees' mentoring experiences over time in relation to scholarly productivity outcomes is needed