Partnerships for environmental and occupational justice: contributions to research, capacity and public health.

In 1994, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) initiated a program to address communication gaps between community residents, researchers and health care providers in the context of disproportionate environmental exposures. Over 13 years, together with the Environmental Protection Agency and National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety, NIEHS funded 54 environmental justice projects. Here we examine the methods used and outcomes produced based on data gathered from summaries submitted for annual grantees' meetings. Data highlight how projects fulfilled program objectives of improving community awareness and capacity and the positive public health and public policy outcomes achieved. Our findings underscore the importance of community participation in developing effective, culturally sensitive interventions and emphasize the importance of systematic program planning and evaluation.

Toward the assessment of scientific and public health impacts of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Extramural Asthma Research Program using available data.

BACKGROUND: In the past 15 years, asthma prevalence has increased and is disproportionately distributed among children, minorities, and low-income persons. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Division of Extramural Research and Training developed a framework to measure the scientific and health impacts of its extramural asthma research to improve the scientific basis for reducing the health effects of asthma. OBJECTIVES: Here we apply the framework to characterize the NIEHS asthma portfolio's impact in terms of publications, clinical applications of findings, community interventions, and technology developments. METHODS: A logic model was tailored to inputs, outputs, and outcomes of the NIEHS asthma portfolio. Data from existing National Institutes of Health (NIH) databases are used, along with publicly available bibliometric data and structured elicitation of expert judgment. RESULTS: NIEHS is the third largest source of asthma-related research grant funding within the NIH between 1975 and 2005, after the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Much of NIEHS-funded asthma research focuses on basic research, but results are often published in journals focused on clinical investigation, increasing the likelihood that the work is moved into practice along the "bench to bedside" continuum. NIEHS support has led to key breakthroughs in scientific research concerning susceptibility to asthma, environmental conditions that heighten asthma symptoms, and cellular mechanisms that may be involved in treating asthma. CONCLUSIONS: If gaps and limitations in publicly available data receive adequate attention, further linkages can be demonstrated between research activities and public health improvements. This logic model approach to research impact assessment demonstrates that it is possible to conceptualize program components, mine existing databases, and begin to show longer-term impacts of program results. The next challenges will be to modify current data structures, improve the linkages among relevant databases, incorporate as much electronically available data as possible, and determine how to improve the quality and health impact of the science that we support.

Conceptual model of comprehensive research metrics for improved human health and environment: [review] / Modelo conceitual de indicadores de desempenho abrangentes para a melhoria da saúde humana e do meio ambiente: [revisão]

Performance measurement predominantly consisted of near-term outputs measured through bibliometrics, but the recent focus is on accountability for investment based on long-term outcomes. Our objective is to build a logic model and associated metrics through which to measure the contribution of environmental health research programs to improvements in human health, the environment, and the economy. We developed a logic model that defines the components and linkages between extramural environmental health research grant programs and the outputs and outcomes related to health and social welfare, environmental quality and sustainability, economics, and quality of life, focusing on the environmental health research portfolio of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Division of Extramural Research and Training and delineates pathways for contributions by five types of institutional partners in the research process. The model is being applied to specific NIEHS research applications and the broader research community. We briefly discuss two examples and discuss the strengths and limits of outcome- based evaluation of research programs.

A avaliação de desempenho compreendia predominantemente resultados de curto prazo avaliados através de bibliometria, mas recentemente a ênfase voltou-se à prestação de contas dos investimentos com base em resultados a longo prazo. Nosso objetivo é criar um modelo lógico e métricas associadas através dos quais possamos avaliar a contribuição de programas de pesquisa em saúde ambiental para melhorar a saúde humana, o meio ambiente e a economia. Desenvolvemos um modelo lógico que define os componentes e elos entre os programas de pesquisa em saúde ambiental extramuros subsidiados e os resultados relacionados à saúde e ao bem-estar social, qualidade ambiental e sustentabilidade, economia e qualidade de vida, com ênfase no portfólio de pesquisa em saúde ambiental do National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), divisão de pesquisa e treinamento extramuros, delineando caminhos para as contribuições de cinco tipos de parceiros institucionais no processo de pesquisa. O modelo está sendo usado em aplicações específicas do NIEHS e na comunidade de pesquisa como um todo. Analisamos brevemente dois exemplos e os pontos fortes e limitações da avaliação baseada em resultados dos programas de pesquisa.

Conceptual model of comprehensive research metrics for improved human health and environment.

Performance measurement predominantly consisted of near-term outputs measured through bibliometrics, but the recent focus is on accountability for investment based on long-term outcomes. Our objective is to build a logic model and associated metrics through which to measure the contribution of environmental health research programs to improvements in human health, the environment, and the economy. We developed a logic model that defines the components and linkages between extramural environmental health research grant programs and the outputs and outcomes related to health and social welfare, environmental quality and sustainability, economics, and quality of life, focusing on the environmental health research portfolio of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Division of Extramural Research and Training and delineates pathways for contributions by five types of institutional partners in the research process. The model is being applied to specific NIEHS research applications and the broader research community. We briefly discuss two examples and discuss the strengths and limits of outcome- based evaluation of research programs.

Scientific and Public Health Impacts of the NIEHS Extramural Asthma Research Program - Insights from Primary Data.

A conceptual model was developed to guide evaluation of the long-term impacts of research grant programs at the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The model was then applied to the extramural asthma research portfolio in two stages: (1) the first used extant data sources, (2) the second involved primary data collection with asthma researchers and individuals in positions to use asthma research in development of programs, policies, and practices. Reporting on the second stage, this article describes how we sought to broaden the perspectives included in the assessment and obtain a more nuanced picture of research impacts by engaging those involved in conducting or using the research.

Conceptual model of comprehensive research metrics for improved human health and environment.

OBJECTIVE: Federal, state, and private research agencies and organizations have faced increasing administrative and public demand for performance measurement. Historically, performance measurement predominantly consisted of near-term outputs measured through bibliometrics. The recent focus is on accountability for investment based on long-term outcomes. Developing measurable outcome-based metrics for research programs has been particularly challenging, because of difficulty linking research results to spatially and temporally distant outcomes. Our objective in this review is to build a logic model and associated metrics through which to measure the contribution of environmental health research programs to improvements in human health, the environment, and the economy. DATA SOURCES: We used expert input and literature research on research impact assessment. DATA EXTRACTION: With these sources, we developed a logic model that defines the components and linkages between extramural environmental health research grant programs and the outputs and outcomes related to health and social welfare, environmental quality and sustainability, economics, and quality of life. DATA SYNTHESIS: The logic model focuses on the environmental health research portfolio of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Division of Extramural Research and Training. The model delineates pathways for contributions by five types of institutional partners in the research process: NIEHS, other government (federal, state, and local) agencies, grantee institutions, business and industry, and community partners. CONCLUSIONS: The model is being applied to specific NIEHS research applications and the broader research community. We briefly discuss two examples and discuss the strengths and limits of outcome-based evaluation of research programs.

NIEHS extramural global environmental health portfolio: opportunities for collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Global environmental health has emerged as a critical topic for environmental health researchers and practitioners. Estimates of the environmental contribution of total worldwide disease burden range from 25 to 33%. OBJECTIVE: We reviewed grants funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) during 2005-2007 to evaluate the costs and scientific composition of the global environmental health portfolio, with the ultimate aim of strengthening global environmental health research partnerships. METHODS/RESULTS: We examined NIEHS grant research databases to identify the global environmental health portfolio. In the past 3 fiscal years (2005-2007), the NIEHS funded 57 scientific research projects in 37 countries, at an estimated cost of $30 million. Metals such as arsenic, methylmercury, and lead are the most frequently studied toxic agents, but a wide range of stressors, routes of exposure, and agents are addressed in the portfolio. CONCLUSIONS: The portfolio analysis indicates that there is a firm foundation of research activities upon which additional global environmental health partnerships could be encouraged. Current data structures could be strengthened to support more automated analysis of grantee information.

May 2006 NEIHS News.

Short articles on the following topics: *NIEHS Strategic Plan: New Frontiers in Environmental Sciences and Human Health; Beyond the Bench: Environmental Health Nursing: Putting Knowledge into Practice; Headliners: Inhibition of RLIP76 Causes Complete Regression of Melanoma in Mice.

The PsychoedPlusMed approach to erectile dysfunction treatment: the impact of combining a psychoeducational intervention with sildenafil.

We investigated the effect of adding a psychoeducational intervention to oral sildenafil (PsychoedPlusMed) in the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED). Overall treatment satisfaction, as measured by the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS; Althof & Seftel, 1995), was significantly higher in the PsychoedPlusMed patients than in the sildenafil-only patients at 12 weeks and at 24 weeks. PsychoedPlusMed participants reported higher satisfaction with treatment onset, treatment duration, and sexual confidence. PsychoePlusMed participants also reported an increase in communication about sex with their partner. A brief psychoeducational intervention can improve treatment satisfaction with sildenafil therapy for ED.