Community scientist program provides bi-directional communication and co-learning between researchers and community members.

Community involvement in research is key to translating science into practice, and new approaches to engaging community members in research design and implementation are needed. The Community Scientist Program, established at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston in 2018 and expanded to two other Texas institutions in 2021, provides researchers with rapid feedback from community members on study feasibility and design, cultural appropriateness, participant recruitment, and research implementation. This paper aims to describe the Community Scientist Program and assess Community Scientists' and researchers' satisfaction with the program. We present the analysis of the data collected from 116 Community Scientists and 64 researchers who attended 100 feedback sessions, across three regions of Texas including Northeast Texas, Houston, and Rio Grande Valley between June 2018 and December 2022. Community Scientists stated that the feedback sessions increased their knowledge and changed their perception of research. All researchers (100%) were satisfied with the feedback and reported that it influenced their current and future research methods. Our evaluation demonstrates that the key features of the Community Scientist Program such as follow-up evaluations, effective bi-directional communication, and fair compensation transform how research is conducted and contribute to reducing health disparities.

COVID-19 Knowledge, Beliefs, and Intention to Get Vaccinated: A Brief Educational Intervention Among Black and Hispanic Populations.

We aimed to determine the effect of a brief educational intervention on COVID-19 vaccine knowledge, beliefs, and vaccination intention in Black and Hispanic communities in Houston, Texas. As part of the Community Engagement Alliance (CEAL) Against COVID-19 Disparities study (2020-2022), 1606 Black and Hispanic adults completed Web-based surveys before and after viewing COVID-19 educational materials. The intervention significantly improved health beliefs and vaccination intention. Disseminating short and ethnically appropriate educational materials is an effective strategy to decrease vaccine hesitancy in minority populations. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(S1):S82-S86. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307501).

Analysis and apportionment of organic carbon and fine particulate matter sources at multiple sites in the midwestern United States.

Speciated fine particulate matter (PM2.5) data collected as part of the Speciation Trends Network at four sites in the Midwest (Detroit, MI; Cincinnati, OH; Indianapolis, IN; and Northbrook, IL) and as part of the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments program at the rural Bondville, IL, site were analyzed to understand sources contributing to organic carbon (OC) and PM2.5 mass. Positive matrix factorization (PMF) was applied to available data collected from January 2002 through March 2005, and seven to nine factors were identified at each site. Common factors at all of the sites included mobile (gasoline)/secondary organic aerosols with high OC, diesel with a high elemental carbon/OC ratio (only at the urban sites), secondary sulfate, secondary nitrate, soil, and biomass burning. Identified industrial factors included copper smelting (Northbrook, Indianapolis, and Bondville), steel/manufacturing with iron (Northbrook), industrial zinc (Northbrook, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and Detroit), metal plating with chromium and nickel (Detroit, Indianapolis, and Bondville), mixed industrial with copper and iron (Cincinnati), and limestone with calcium and iron (Bondville). PMF results, on average, accounted for 96% of the measured PM2.5 mass at each site; residuals were consistently within tolerance (+/-3), and goodness-of-fit (Q) was acceptable. Potential source contribution function analysis helped identify regional and local impacts of the identified source types. Secondary sulfate and soil factors showed regional characteristics at each site, whereas industrial sources typically appeared to be locally influenced. These regional factors contributed approximately one third of the total PM2.5 mass, on average, whereas local mobile and industrial sources contributed to the remaining mass. Mobile sources were a major contributor (55-76% at the urban sites) to OC mass, generally with at least twice as much mass from nondiesel sources as from diesel. Regional OC associated with secondary sulfate and soil was generally low.