A primary barrier to translation of clinical research discoveries into care delivery and population health is the lack of sustainable infrastructure bringing researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and communities together to reduce silos in knowledge and action. As National Institutes of Healthʼs (NIH) mechanism to advance translational research, Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) awardees are uniquely positioned to bridge this gap. Delivering on this promise requires sustained collaboration and alignment between research institutions and public health and healthcare programs and services. We describe the collaboration of seven CTSA hubs with city, county, and state healthcare and public health organizations striving to realize this vision together. Partnership representatives convened monthly to identify key components, common and unique themes, and barriers in academic–public collaborations. All partnerships aligned the activities of the CTSA programs with the needs of the city/county/state partners, by sharing resources, responding to real-time policy questions and training needs, promoting best practices, and advancing community-engaged research, and dissemination and implementation science to narrow the knowledge-to-practice gap. Barriers included competing priorities, differing timelines, bureaucratic hurdles, and unstable funding. Academic–public health/health system partnerships represent a unique and underutilized model with potential to enhance community and population health.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is challenging to research ethics committees (RECs). We reviewed the REC preparedness when reviewing CBPR projects. We searched the MEDLINE database and included qualitative studies of CBPR researchers or REC members about their experiences with RECs. The search yielded 107 studies, of which 10 met our criteria. Barriers were that the community is not prepared to conduct research, the reluctance of RECs to work outside the university, the difficulty RECs have understanding CBPR, and that REC forms evaluate individual rather than community risk. Facilitators were having a CBPR expert as an REC member and educating RECs. Therefore, RECs are not prepared to evaluate CBPR projects leading to unnecessary delays in the approval process.

Introduction: Prior to the COVID pandemic, many CTSAs employed face-to-face interactions to conduct most of their community engagement (CE) activities. During the COVID pandemic, such engagement had to be curtailed and alternatives needed to be formulated. In addition, Community Engaged Research (CEnR) teams refocused their efforts to address this public health crisis. Methods: To obtain a general understanding of how CTSAs have conducted CE and CEnR during the COVID pandemic, we invited seven CTSA CE leaders to provide brief field reports of their activities during the pandemic. This included how their approaches to CE and CEnR were modified during the COVID-19 pandemic and key lessons learned. Results: We found that despite numerous challenges, all seven CTSAs CE cores were able to successfully carry out CE and CEnR. We also found that the fundamental principles of meaningful and authentic stakeholder engagement were of paramount importance during the pandemic. Through virtual approaches, all sites had considerable success in maintaining CE in during the COVID pandemic. They also leveraged existing bi-directional community partnerships to carry out meaningful and impactful research. This included both new COVID CEnR and also innovative approaches to sustain prior non-COVID research. Conclusions: These findings suggest that academic-community partnerships must be fostered and sustained over the many years so that when such crises emerge, all partners can build on existing trust and mutual respect. The lessons learned and the new tools and approaches developed would be key in addressing any such future public health emergencies.

Underserved ethnic minority women experience significant disparities in cervical cancer incidence and mortality, mainly due to lack of cervical cancer screening. Barriers to Pap smear screening include lack of knowledge, lack of health insurance and access, and cultural beliefs regarding disease prevention. In our previous SUCCESS trial, we demonstrated that HPV self-sampling delivered by a community health worker (CHW) is efficacious in circumventing these barriers. This approach increased screening uptake relative to navigation to Pap smear screening. SUCCESS trial participants, as well as our community partners, provided feedback that women may prefer the HPV self-sampler to be delivered through the mail, such that they would not need to schedule an appointment with the CHW. Thus, our current trial aims to elucidate the efficacy of the HPV self-sampling method when delivered via mail. We are conducting a randomized controlled trial among 600 Haitian, Hispanic, and African-American women from the South Florida communities of Little Haiti, Hialeah, and South Dade. Women between the ages of 30 and 65 years who have not had a Pap smear within the past 3 years are eligible for the study. Women are recruited by CHWs and complete a structured interview to assess multilevel determinants of cervical cancer risk. Women are then randomized to receive HPV self-sampling delivered by either the CHW (group 1) or via mail (group 2). The primary outcome is completion of HPV self-sampling within 6 months post enrollment. Our trial is among the first to examine the efficacy of the mailed HPV self-sampling approach. If found to be efficacious, this approach may represent a cost-effective strategy for cervical cancer screening within underserved and underscreened minority groups. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02202109 . Registered on 9 July 2014.