Correction: Improving the Engagement of Underrepresented People in Health Research Through Equity-Centered Design Thinking: Qualitative Study and Process Evaluation for the Development of the Grounding Health Research in Design Toolkit.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/43101.].

Improving attitudes toward trauma-informed care in the neonatal intensive care unit through comprehensive multi-disciplinary education.

OBJECTIVE: This study measured staff understanding and integration of trauma-informed care following comprehensive education. STUDY DESIGN: This mixed method design used the validated Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) scale and open-ended survey questions via REDCap optional surveys. Trauma-informed care education was made available to staff members in a level IV NICU. Pre- and post-intervention ARTIC scores were compared and post-intervention REDCap surveys were analyzed. RESULT: There were 245 multi-disciplinary NICU team members who completed the ARTIC survey before and/or after the educational intervention; and 764 REDCap surveys were completed throughout the study time. ARTIC scores increased from pre- to post-training both for participants with data at both time points (0.5 SD mean increase) and among those with data at only one time point (0.4 SD mean increase). Content analysis of the REDCap survey corroborated the ARTIC results. CONCLUSION: System-wide trauma-informed education can achieve measurable effect in a NICU setting.

Improving the Engagement of Underrepresented People in Health Research Through Equity-Centered Design Thinking: Qualitative Study and Process Evaluation for the Development of the Grounding Health Research in Design Toolkit.

BACKGROUND: Health inequalities are rooted in historically unjust differences in economic opportunities, environment, access to health care services, and other social determinants. Owing to these health inequalities, the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected underserved populations, notably people of color, incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals, and those unable to physically distance themselves from others. However, people most strongly impacted by health disparities, and the pandemic, are not frequently engaged in research, either as researchers or as participants, resulting in slow progress toward improving health equity. Establishing ways to foster the engagement of historically excluded people is crucial to improving health equity through patient-centered health research. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the use of equity-centered design thinking (EDT) for engaging community members in research prioritization related to COVID-19. The co-design methods and subsequent production of a toolkit that can be used for engagement were assessed through process evaluation and qualitative methods. METHODS: Process evaluation and qualitative inquiry, using reflexive thematic analysis, were undertaken to examine the use of EDT. Patient community members and stakeholders remotely partnered with design and health researchers in a year-long digital process to cocreate capacity-building tools for setting agenda for research regarding the impact of COVID-19 on health outcomes. Through a series of 3 workshops, 5 community partners engaged in EDT activities to identify critical challenges for the health and well-being of their communities. The subsequent tools were tested with 10 health researchers who provided critical input over the course of 2 workshops. Interviews with co-designers, project materials, and feedback sessions were used in the process evaluation and finalization of an equity-centered toolkit for community engagement in research. Data from the co-design process, meetings, workshops, and interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis to identify salient themes. RESULTS: Process evaluation illustrated how the EDT co-design process offered an approach to engage patient partners and community stakeholders in health-related research around COVID-19. The participants expressed satisfaction with design thinking approaches, including creative activities and iterative co-design, as a means of working together. Thematic analysis identified 3 key themes: the value of authentic partnerships, building trust and empathy through design, and fostering candid dialogue around health and social issues impacting historically underrepresented and underinvested communities. CONCLUSIONS: The project addressed the need to test EDT strategies for fostering inclusive community engagement in health research agenda setting and provided an alternative to traditional top-down models. Despite the increasing use of human-centered design in health, few projects explicitly include equity in design thinking approaches. The use of methods and tools to intentionally engage underrepresented stakeholders in the process of research agenda setting and equitably sharing power between researchers and community members may improve health research, ultimately improving health equity.

Early Screening of Autism Spectrum Disorder: Recommendations for Practice and Research.

This article reviews current evidence for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) screening based on peer-reviewed articles published to December 2013. Screening provides a standardized process to ensure that children are systematically monitored for early signs of ASD to promote earlier diagnosis. The current review indicates that screening in children aged 18 to 24 months can assist in early detection, consistent with current American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendations. We identify ASD-specific and broadband screening tools that have been evaluated in large community samples which show particular promise in terms of accurate classification and clinical utility. We also suggest strategies to help overcome challenges to implementing ASD screening in community practice, as well as priorities for future research.

Early Identification of Autism Spectrum Disorder: Recommendations for Practice and Research.

Early identification of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is essential to ensure that children can access specialized evidence-based interventions that can help to optimize long-term outcomes. Early identification also helps shorten the stressful "diagnostic odyssey" that many families experience before diagnosis. There have been important advances in research into the early development of ASDs, incorporating prospective designs and new technologies aimed at more precisely delineating the early emergence of ASD. Thus, an updated review of the state of the science of early identification of ASD was needed to inform best practice. These issues were the focus of a multidisciplinary panel of clinical practitioners and researchers who completed a literature review and reached consensus on current evidence addressing the question "What are the earliest signs and symptoms of ASD in children aged ≤24 months that can be used for early identification?" Summary statements address current knowledge on early signs of ASD, potential contributions and limitations of prospective research with high-risk infants, and priorities for promoting the incorporation of this knowledge into clinical practice and future research.

Early Intervention for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder Under 3 Years of Age: Recommendations for Practice and Research.

This article reviews current evidence for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) interventions for children aged <3 years, based on peer-reviewed articles published up to December 2013. Several groups have adapted treatments initially designed for older, preschool-aged children with ASD, integrating best practice in behavioral teaching methods into a developmental framework based on current scientific understanding of how infants and toddlers learn. The central role of parents has been emphasized, and interventions are designed to incorporate learning opportunities into everyday activities, capitalize on "teachable moments," and facilitate the generalization of skills beyond the familiar home setting. Our review identified several comprehensive and targeted treatment models with evidence of clear benefits. Although some trials were limited to 8- to 12-week outcome data, enhanced outcomes associated with some interventions were evaluated over periods as long as 2 years. Based on this review, recommendations are proposed for clinical practice and future research.