Prevention Research Centers & Community Participation

1. S A F E R H E A L T H I E R P E O P L E Prevention Research Centers & Community Participation Eduardo J. Simoes, MD, MSc, MPH, Director Prevention Research Centers Program Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

2. Program Characteristics • Authorized by Congress in 1984; 3 centers first funded in 1986 • Affiliated with schools of public health or medicine (with preventive medicine residency) • Selected through competitive peer review • Designed by public health leaders to conduct applied research in disease prevention for underserved groups • Allows for diverse research types and methodologic designs

3. University of Kentucky Prevention Research Centers University of Rochester University of Washington at Seattle University of State University of New York at Albany Minnesota University of Illinois at Chicago Oregon Health and Sciences University Universityof Michigan West Virginia Harvard University University Boston University Yale University University of Iowa Columbia University University of Pittsburgh University of The Johns Hopkins California University University of at Berkeley Colorado St. Louis University Universityof University of University California North Carolina at of San Diego State University University of at Los Angeles Chapel Hill Oklahoma New Mexico University of South Carolina University of Morehouse Arizona Texas A&M University School of Medicine University of Texas University of Health Science Center Tulane Alabama at Emory University at Houston University Birmingham University of South Florida

4. Current Program Status • 33 centers now funded in 26 states • Partnership with underserved community required • Core funding for center’s foundation and main research project • Funding from HHS and other agencies for special interest projects competed among PRCs only • Expertise attracts funding from additional sources • Total research portfolio of hundreds of projects each year • Research includes translation and dissemination projects • Structure allows for thematic networks

5. CTSA & PRC Similarities • Hosted by academic institutions • Concept of networking among members • Multidisciplinary research • Translation from research to community practice • Community engagement

6. PRC Novelty • Larger network • Wide distribution geographically • Work with diverse populations • Encompassing virtually every ethnic and sociodemographic group in the US • Access to a population of approximately 2.5 million • Premier proving ground for efficacy to effectiveness research

7. CTSA Focus “Enabling researchers to provide new treatments more efficiently and quickly to patients.” “…serve as a magnet that concentrates basic translational and clinical investigators, community clinicians, clinical practices, networks, professional societies, and industry to facilitate the development of new professional interactions, programs, and research projects.”

8. Examples of PRCs’ Communities • Senior citizens with minor depression receiving state social work care in Washington State • Spanish-speaking migrant workers in Florida’s citrus groves • Out-of-school youths seeking job training in Baltimore • Deaf and hard-of-hearing adults in Rochester, New York

9. Examples of PRCs’ Partners • Community-based organizations • Faith-based institutions • Businesses and work sites • Public school systems • Tribal associations • Community centers • Economic development agencies

10. Community Committees’ Responsibilities • Reflect local attitudes and beliefs • Contribute to setting research priorities • Help recruit research participants and partner organizations • Help deliver interventions and communicate results • Foster community support for research • Enhance community capacity for addressing health issues • Increase likelihood of interventions being adopted and sustained

11. http://www.cdc.gov/prc/partner-communities/trust-among-partners.htmhttp://www.cdc.gov/prc/partner-communities/trust-among-partners.htm

12. National Community Committees Selected Accomplishments • Empowered research communities as health advocates • Learned Evidence-Based Public Health • Developed a mini-grants program • Reviewed grant proposals • Partnered on development of a curriculum in community-based prevention research • Collaborated on community genomics education forums

13. http://www.cdc.gov/prc/program-material/index.htm

14. “How well do the CTSAs reach out to the community to increase health literacy and provide the opportunity to participate in the development and conduct of clinical trials?” Barbara Alving in theJune 2007 newsletter of the Association of American Medical Colleges

15. Challenges to Community EngagementSteering Committee • How do you help researchers learn about community engagement? • What are some models of doing community research? • What are some approaches to evaluating community programs? • How can researchers address the institutional obstructionism encountered in community engagement work?

16. Community EngagementSteering Committee Goal “…to effectively engage communities in the translational research process via bidirectional dialogues.”

17. Types of Translational Research T1: Bench to bedside T2: Bedside to practice T3: Practice to research T4: Research and practice to community, public health, and health policy

18. “…practitioners other than health care professionals also translate research into practice….practitioners’ …include patients, public health administrators, employers, school officials, regulators, product designers, the food industry, and other consumers of evidence. Trials that test the implementation of evidence in these settings can be just as vital as similar T2 work in clinical settings.” Woolf, Steven H. JAMA. 2007;297:523-526.

19. Selected PRC Research • Harvard University: Prevention Research Center on Nutrition and Physical Activity Clinical Intervention to Prevent Childhood Overweight • University of Kentucky: Prevention Research Center Prevention and Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer in Appalachian Kentucky • Oregon Health and Science University: Center for Healthy Native Communities Tribal Vision Impairment Prevention Project • Columbia University: Harlem Health Promotion Center Harlem Children’s Zone Asthma Initiative • University of Illinois at Chicago: Illinois Prevention Research Center Making the Connection: Healthy Living Program

20. CTSA Sites WA ME MT ND VT MN OR NH ID WI NY MA SD RI MI WY CT NJ IA PA NE NV OH DE IN IL UT MD CO WV VA KS MO CA KY NC TN AZ OK AR SC NM GA AL MS Indicates CTSA and PRC sites at same institution TX AK LA AK FL HI Participating Institutions Since 2006 Since 2007

21. Why play with us? • Unique infrastructure for Research Translation • Large and diverse communities fully engaged • > 20 years fostering and implementing CBPR • > 20 years of efficacy, effectiveness, translational and implementation research • Economy of scale • Potential complementarities to CTSAs • It’s built already

22. Questions • Do you see the potential for partnerships with the PRCs? • Can you suggest ways of fostering collaboration? • Do you have any interest in having selected PRCs and/or community representatives address CTSA groups? • Do you have an interest in having the PRCs and the National Community Committee organize training in community engagement for CTSA grantees? • Do you have questions about the PRC Program or the NCC?

23. www.cdc.gov/prc