The implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) tools into clinical spheres emphasizes the critical need for an AI-competent healthcare workforce that can interpret AI output and identify its limitations. Without comprehensive training, there is a risk of misapplication, mistrust, and underutilization. Workforce skill development events such as workshops and hackathons can increase AI competence and foster interdisciplinary collaboration to promote optimal patient care.

The University of Florida hosted the AI for Clinical Care (AICC) workshop in April 2024 to address the need for AI-competent healthcare professionals. The hybrid workshop featured a beginner and advanced track with interactive sessions, hands-on skill development, and networking opportunities led by experts. An anonymous, voluntary post-workshop survey asked participants to score their knowledge and skills before and after the AICC workshop. A second, follow-up survey was administered approximately nine months later.

Ninety participants attended the AICC workshop, forty-one attendees completed the post-workshop survey, and six attendees completed the follow-up survey. Paired T-tests of the post-workshop survey revealed statistically significant (P < .001) increases in self-reported knowledge gain across all six beginner track learning objectives and significant (P < .05) increases across all five advanced track objectives. Feedback indicated participants appreciated the interactive format, although communication and networking needed improvement.

The AICC workshop successfully advanced AI literacy among biomedical professionals and promoted collaborative peer networks. Continued efforts are recommended to enhance participant engagement and ensure equitable access to AI education in clinical settings.

Endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain (CPP) are complex conditions that significantly impact quality of life. Few tools systematically capture patient-reported outcomes in this population. This pilot study evaluated patients’ experiences and the perceived usability of an electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) tool to assess its feasibility in supporting a clinical data registry. Associations between demographic/clinical characteristics and ePRO usability were also explored.

This prospective observational study included patients enrolled at a tertiary endometriosis and CPP clinic who completed a REDCap-based ePRO survey remotely. The survey included demographic items and 13 validated instruments assessing pain, psychological distress, sensory processing, and quality of life. Usability was evaluated through an Online Questionnaire-Experiences Survey (OQES), covering accessibility, completion experience, redundancy, and content relevance. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, and Hedges’ g were used for analysis; open-ended responses were thematically reviewed.

Fourteen patients were invited; 11 (78.6%) completed the full ePRO. Most found it easy to access (90.9%) with stable internet (100%). While 63.6% reported some redundancy, none reported discomfort, and 90.9% agreed the survey captured relevant experiences. Participants with higher Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scores were more likely to complete all items (P = 0.042 and .047). Those who did not perceive redundancy scored significantly higher on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (P = .048) and Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (P = .016).

The ePRO tool showed high feasibility. Patients with higher symptom burden were more likely to find it useful. Future improvements should reduce redundancy and clarify survey instructions.

Research ethics consultation services (RECS) provide important ethical guidance to various entities, including investigators and Institutional Review Boards. Established in the late 1980s and influenced by funding requirements from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science, RECS have evolved to address ethical challenges in research. This study aimed to identify key barriers and facilitators affecting the success of RECS, particularly in light of changes in funding and institutional support.

From a comprehensive list of 55 Clinical and Translational Science Award programs, 20 RECS were purposively sampled for in-depth interviews. Interviews focused on primary functions, accomplishments, barriers, and facilitators of the service. We performed an abductive analysis on transcribed data.

Twenty-two research ethics consultants from 20 institutions participated. Respondents emphasized their services’ goal of facilitating ethical research, though many faced barriers such as underutilization and lack of awareness among researchers. Facilitators included institutional support and funding. Support often was contingent on institutional leadership facilitating the service into the university’s research enterprise. Participants reported accomplishments, including successful consultations and contributions to institutional policies.

Our findings indicate that RECS play a crucial role in supporting ethical research practices, though their effectiveness is often contingent on institutional relationships and funding. Key recommendations include tracking consults, defining consultation outcomes, and fostering the development of new consultants to sustain the field of research ethics.

Operational roadblocks and organizational delays in multicenter clinical trials have been evident for decades, with the start-up cycle being especially notorious for setbacks. To address these challenges and improve multicenter clinical trial execution, we developed an accelerated start-up (ASU) management strategy – a structured site onboarding approach based on lean management principles.

Three elements were integrated into the strategy: a standardized workflow, a dedicated site navigator (SN), and an electronic tracking system. We examined the range, central tendencies, and distribution of site activation times among differing combinations of these three elements. To determine how these combinations affected individual start-up milestones, we fit mixed models to compare percent achievement of predetermined milestone benchmarks and time to completion.

Thirteen consecutive trials (n = 308 site activations) employed three distinct combinations of the three ASU elements. Trials using all three elements (n = 6) had 160 total site activations in a median of 133 days. Three trials without the SN element had 52 total site activations in a median of 191 days. Four trials without the standardized workflow element had 96 total site activations in a median of 277 days. Significant differences between combinations included times to sIRB submission (p = 0.004), training/certificates completion (p = 0.03), and site activation (p = 0.003). Results suggest sites activated faster and achieved predetermined benchmarks for every milestone more often when three elements were employed.

This sample trial start-up data supports that sites can meet ambitious timelines, underscoring the strategy’s potential to streamline workflows and improve site team performance.

To provide insights into the motivations, challenges, and preferred methods of contact that influence the recruitment and retention of young adults (YAs) in health research.

We designed, collected, and analyzed two surveys targeting YAs aged 18–39 years through the Amazon MTurk platform, to assess factors influencing recruitment and retention in health studies. The recruitment survey (n = 477) examined initial engagement motivations, while the retention survey (n = 473) explored factors that sustain long-term participation. Descriptive analyses were stratified by age group and sex.

The recruitment survey indicated that 88% of YAs were willing to participate in health studies, with a preference for online formats (78%). Social media, particularly Facebook (53%), was endorsed as the most common platform for discovering research opportunities. Monetary incentives were reported as the top motivator across all age groups, especially for those aged 35–39 years, with gift cards endorsed as the most appealing to participants aged 18–34. Retention survey results indicated that email (100%) was the most preferred method for maintaining engagement, followed by text messages (78.9%) and social media (62.2%). Text messages (65%), regular updates (56%) and sharing of study results (54%) were identified as key factors for maintaining participant engagement.

Our findings identify that YA participation is driven by a mix of altruistic motivations, such as contributing to the community and research, and personal motivations, including personal health benefits and financial incentives, emphasizing the need for strategies that address both aspects of recruitment and retention motivations.

Historically US-based academic organizations dedicated limited resources, including policies, personnel to ensuring compliance with clinical trials registration and results reporting requirements. A recent follow-up survey finds that 6-years after an initial survey, there is increased attention and dedication of resources to improve compliance rates for clinical trials registration and results reporting.

Internet-based online survey using Qualtrics between 20 April 2023 and 30 September 2023 distributed to Protocol Registration and Results Reporting (PRS) Administrators at US-based academic organizations with ClinicalTrials.gov organizational accounts. The survey focused on the 249 respondents of the original 2016–2017 survey published in 2018. The overall response rate was 162/249 (65.06%) with 100% participation from National Cancer Center (NCI) Designated Cancer Centers and hubs of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA).

Results indicated a marked increase of academic organizations with policies in place for registration (43 to 74%) and results reporting (35 to 68%). The median number of Full-time Equivalent (FTE) staff at responding academic organizations increased (from 0.08 to 0.5) with statistically significant difference between the number of organizational records and FTEs supporting registration and results reporting. Larger gains are seen with NCI-Designated Cancer Centers and/or CTSA hubs.

It appears academic organizations are more equipped to comply with requirements, and demonstrate a trend towards appropriate staffing. In the 6 years since the original survey, US-based academic organizations have significantly increased attention to compliance with clinical trials registration and results reporting requirements, indicated by an increase in institutional policies and dedicated personnel.

Community health centers (CHCs) and those most burdened by disease are important partners in setting research agendas to address the needs of people who are medically underserved.

Identify and prioritize health equity-focused research priorities using a collaborative approach to community engagement of key informants.

We used five stepwise phases from January 2021 to February 2023 to formulate and prioritize a set of health equity-focused research topics among CHC staff (leaders, clinicians), their key advisors (patients and community members), and researchers from academic medical centers in California. Phases included: (1) community advisory board formation, (2) key informant identification, (3) individual/small group interview guide development and administration, (4) initial health equity-focused topic categorization, and (5) in-person meeting with community advisors for final topic prioritization using nominal group technique.

Twenty individual or small group interviews were completed with 44 diverse participants, along with engagement from our community advisory board, which resulted in an initial list of 11 health equity-focused research topics. Ninety advisors including diverse community members, CHC staff/leaders, and researchers prioritized six overarching research topics. Final prioritized health-equity focused research topics include addressing mental health challenges, improving public’s trust in healthcare and science, healthcare delivery models to increase access and utilization, build and sustain an anti-racist healthcare system, strategies and interventions to address health misinformation, and continuing and sustaining polices based on lessons learned from COVID-19.

Results offer future direction for community-engaged research agendas to advance health equity among medically underserved and vulnerable patient populations.

Community engagement (CE) is essential in Clinical and Translational Science (CTS), yet its evaluation remains inconsistent and often lacks standardization. The RE-AIM framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) offers a promising structure for evaluating CE efforts, but its application in dynamic, community-based contexts is often limited by data variability and implementation complexity.

We developed and applied a seven-step, structured, and replicable approach to operationalizing RE-AIM for program evaluation. This method includes the use of tailored RE-AIM subdomains, standardized scoring systems, and visual analytics through Net Effects Diagrams.

We applied this framework to our community-based health education workshops delivered in English and Spanish across Los Angeles, using participant surveys and facilitator feedback data. The operationalized framework enabled consistent assessment and comparison between language groups. Spanish-language workshops outperformed English-language workshops (ELWs) in measures of attendance, participant satisfaction, and short-term effectiveness. Visualizations using Net Effects Diagrams facilitated collaboration among stakeholders to interpret program outputs and outcomes, supporting actionable insights for program adaptation. Differences between workshop groups will inform changes to recruitment and content delivery strategies in ELWs.

This approach offers a transparent, scalable, and context-sensitive method for assessing CE programs. It supports data-driven decision-making, continuous program improvement, and stakeholder engagement. While developed for CE initiatives, the method is broadly adaptable to other community and public health programs. Future efforts will include expanded outcome tracking, integration into dashboards, and dissemination as a toolkit for broader adoption within and beyond the CTS Award network.

Acute rhinosinusitis is one of the most common conditions seen in primary care. One in seven adults are diagnosed with ARS annually, resulting in one in five of all antibiotic prescriptions. Yet there has been limited research comparing the effectiveness of widely used treatments such as antibiotics and nasal steroids. Conducting such a trial in the context of decades of established practice poses unique challenges.

A feasibility phase was conducted with continuing feedback to provide refinement and guidance regarding the design of a large-scale, pragmatic randomized controlled trial. The pilot trial assessed the ability to enroll, retain, and evaluate adherence to the intervention and assessment protocols.

The feasibility phase allowed us to seek input from patients and experts. This resulted in changes pre and post pilot that will impact the full study. A priori enrollment targets for the pilot were achieved, and with high adherence rates. In total, 373 patients were pre-screened and 140 patients were enrolled participants. Adherence to data collection via the daily diary was 93% throughout the study, with 95% completing their diary on the day of the primary outcome, 3 post-randomization.

Expert panels and a patient advisory committee recommended critical changes to our study design. Stakeholder engagement is a key component of this funding source and was widely used throughout the 18-months. An achieved primary goal of the feasibility phase was to evaluate recruitment and study methods prior to implementing a large clinical trial that requires significant resources.

Distinguishing viral versus bacterial lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) is challenging. We previously developed a rapid, host response-based test (Biomeme HR-B/V assay) using peripheral blood samples to identify viral versus bacterial infection. We assessed the performance of this assay when using nasopharyngeal (NP) samples.

Patients with LRTI were enrolled, and a NP swab sample was run using the HR-B/V assay (assessing 24 gene targets) on the FranklinTM platform. The performance of the prior classifier at identifying viral versus bacterial infection was assessed. A novel predictive model was generated for NP samples using the same 24 targets. Results were validated using external datasets with nasal/NP RNA sequence data.

Nineteen patients (median age 62 years, 52.1% male) were included. When using the prior HR-B/V classifier on NP samples of 19 patients with LRTI (12 viral, 7 bacterial), the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) for viral versus bacterial infection was 0.786 (0.524–1), with accuracy 0.79 (95% CI 0.57–0.91), positive percent agreement (PPA) 0.43 (95% CI 0.16–0.75), and negative percent agreement (NPA) 1.00 (95% CI 0.76–1). The novel model had AUC 0.881 (95% CI 0.726–1), accuracy 0.84 (95% CI 0.62–0.94), PPA 0.86 (95% CI 0.49–0.97), and NPA 0.83 (95% CI 0.55–0.95) for bacterial infection. Validation in two external datasets showed AUC of 0.932 (95% CI 0.90–0.96) and 0.915 (95% CI 0.88–0.95).

We show that host response in the nasopharynx can distinguish viral versus bacterial LRTI. These findings need to be replicated in larger cohorts with diverse LRTI etiologies.