Background: This study compares participant’ sretention in three phases of smoking cessation interventions, one provided in a health clinic and the subsequent two in community-based settings. Methods: Smoking cessation interventions were conducted in three phases from 2008 to 2015 in two underserved urban communities with low socioeconomic profiles and high rates of smoking (n = 951). Phase I was conducted in a clinic; Phases II and III were conducted in community venues. In Phases II and III, incremental changes were made based on lessons learned from the previous phases. Retention (attending six or more sessions) was the primary predictor of cessation and was analyzed while controlling for associated factors including age, gender, race, employment, education, and nicotine dependence. Results: Retention increased substantially over the three phases, with rates for attending six or more sessions of 13.8%, 51.9%, and 67.9% in Phases I, II, and III, respectively. Retention was significantly higher in community settings than in the clinic setting (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 6.7; 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 4.6, 9.8). In addition to the intervention in community venues, predictors of retention included age and unemployment. Higher retention was significantly associated with higher quit rates (adjusted OR = 2.4; 95% CI = 1.5, 3.8). Conclusions: Conducting the intervention in community settings using trained peer motivators rather than health-care providers resulted in significantly higher retention and smoking cessation rates. This was due in part to the ability to tailor cessation classes in the community for specific populations and improving the quality of the intervention based on feedback from participants and community partners.

This paper details U.S. Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) Community Engagement Cores (CECs): (1) unique and cross-cutting components, focus areas, specific aims, and target populations; and (2) approaches utilized to build or sustain trust towards community participation in research. A mixed-method data collection approach was employed for this cross-sectional study of current or previously funded RCMIs. A total of 18 of the 25 institutions spanning 13 U.S. states and territories participated. CEC specific aims were to support community engaged research (94%); to translate and disseminate research findings (88%); to develop partnerships (82%); and to build capacity around community research (71%). Four open-ended questions, qualitative analysis, and comparison of the categories led to the emergence of two supporting themes: (1) establishing trust between the community-academic collaborators and within the community and (2) building collaborative relationships. An overarching theme, building community together through trust and meaningful collaborations, emerged from the supporting themes and subthemes. The RCMI institutions and their CECs serve as models to circumvent the historical and current challenges to research in communities disproportionately affected by health disparities. Lessons learned from these cores may help other institutions who want to build community trust in and capacities for research that addresses community-related health concerns.

Undergraduate students who are interested in biomedical research typically work on a faculty member’s research project, conduct one distinct task (e.g., running gels), and, step by step, enhance their skills. This “apprenticeship” model has been helpful in training many distinguished scientists over the years, but it has several potential drawbacks. For example, the students have limited autonomy, and may not understand the big picture, which may result in students giving up on their goals for a research career. Also, the model is costly and may greatly depend on a single mentor. The NIH Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) Initiative has been established to fund innovative undergraduate research training programs and support institutional and faculty development of the recipient university. The training model at Morgan State University (MSU), namely “A Student-Centered Entrepreneurship Development training model” (ASCEND), is one of the 10 NIH BUILD-funded programs, and offers a novel, experimental “entrepreneurial” training approach. In the ASCEND training model, the students take the lead. They own the research, understand the big picture, and experience the entire scope of the research process, which we hypothesize will lead to a greater sense of self-efficacy and research competency, as well as an enhanced sense of science identity. They are also immersed in environments with substantial peer support, where they can exchange research ideas and share experiences. This is important for underrepresented minority students who might have fewer role models and less peer support in conducting research. In this article, we describe the MSU ASCEND entrepreneurial training model’s components, rationale, and history, and how it may enhance undergraduate training in biomedical research that may be of benefit to other institutions. We also discuss evaluation methods, possible sustainability solutions, and programmatic challenges that can affect all types of science training interventions.