Dataset Information

An Academia-Industry Partnership for Planning and Executing a Community-Based Feeding Study.

ABSTRACT: A research team from Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School conducted a community-based feeding study in collaboration with Framingham State University (FSU) and Sodexo, the food service contractor at FSU. The study was a randomized controlled trial, implemented on the FSU campus. For the final year of the study, a satellite feeding site was established at Assabet Valley Regional Technical High School. The purpose of the study was to assess the biological effects of different macronutrient diets. An academia-industry partnership was developed to overcome common challenges associated with hospital-based feeding studies. Benefits included the following: a study site outside of Boston (reducing inconvenience for participants), access to a large commercial kitchen and study-specific kiosk (promoting efficiency), collaboration with Sodexo chefs (ensuring palatability of meals), and opportunity to procure food from contracted vendors. The research (academia) and food service (industry) teams worked together to design, plan, and execute intervention protocols using an integrated approach. During execution, the research team was primarily responsible for overseeing treatment fidelity, whereas the food service team provided culinary expertise, with a strong focus on hospitality and food quality. The study was conducted in 3 cohorts between August 2014 and May 2017. Participants received all of their food for ?30 wk, totaling >160,000 meals. For all 3 cohorts combined, 234 participants provided informed consent, 229 started a standard run-in weight-loss diet, 164 lost a mean ± SD 12% ± 2% of baseline body weight and were randomly assigned to different macronutrient diets for weight-loss maintenance, and 148 completed the study. During the final and largest cohort, as many as 114 participants received daily meals concurrently. The daily cost per participant for preparation and service of weighed meals and snacks was ?$65. This academia-industry partnership provides a model for controlled feeding protocols in nutrition research, potentially with enhanced cost-effectiveness, practicality, and generalizability. This trial was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02068885.

SUBMITTER: Wong JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6163108 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An Academia-Industry Partnership for Planning and Executing a Community-Based Feeding Study.

Wong Julia Mw JM Bielak Lisa L Eddy Ralph G RG Stone Lauren L Lakin Paul R PR Sandman Megan M Devlin Courtenay C Seger-Shippee Linda L Wiroll Dina D Luoto Patricia K PK Klein Gloria L GL Ludwig David S DS Ebbeling Cara B CB

Current developments in nutrition 20180705 9

A research team from Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School conducted a community-based feeding study in collaboration with Framingham State University (FSU) and Sodexo, the food service contractor at FSU. The study was a randomized controlled trial, implemented on the FSU campus. For the final year of the study, a satellite feeding site was established at Assabet Valley Regional Technical High School. The purpose of the study was to assess the biological effects of different macr ...[more]

PMID: 30283914

Similar Datasets

Project description:Collaboration between academia and industry is a growing phenomenon within the chemistry community. These sectors have long held strong ties since academia traditionally trains the future scientists of the corporate world, but the recent drastic decrease of public funding is motivating the academic world to seek more private grants. This concept of industrial "sponsoring" is not new, and in the past, some companies granted substantial amounts of money per annum to various academic institutions in exchange for prime access to all their scientific discoveries and inventions. However, academic and industrial interests were not always aligned, and therefore the investment has become increasingly difficult to justify from industry's point of view. With fluctuating macroeconomic factors, this type of unrestricted grant has become more rare and has been largely replaced by smaller and more focused partnerships. In our view, forging a partnership with industry can be a golden opportunity for both parties and can represent a true symbiosis. This type of project-specific collaboration is engendered by industry's desire to access very specific academic expertise that is required for the development of new technologies at the forefront of science. Since financial pressures do not allow companies to spend the time to acquire this expertise and even less to explore fundamental research, partnering with an academic laboratory whose research is related to the problem gives them a viable alternative. From an academic standpoint, it represents the perfect occasion to apply "pure science" research concepts to solve problems that benefit humanity. Moreover, it offers a unique opportunity for students to face challenges from the "real world" at an early stage of their career. Although not every problem in industry can be solved by research developments in academia, we argue that there is significant scientific overlap between these two seemingly disparate groups, thereby presenting an opportunity for a symbiosis. This type of partnership is challenging but can be a win-win situation if both parties agree on some general guidelines, including clearly defined goals and deliverables, biweekly meetings to track research progress, and quarterly or annual meetings to recognize overarching, common objectives. This Account summarizes our personal experience concerning collaborations with various industrial groups and the way it impacted the research programs for both sides in a symbiotic fashion.

Project description:BackgroundDengue virus (and Chikungunya and Zika viruses) is transmitted by Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes and causes considerable human morbidity and mortality. As there is currently no vaccine or chemoprophylaxis to protect people from dengue virus infection, vector control is the only viable option for disease prevention. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the design and placement process for an attractive lethal ovitrap to reduce vector populations and to describe lessons learned in the development of the trap.MethodsThis study was conducted in 2010 in Iquitos, Peru and Lopburi Province, Thailand and used an iterative community-based participatory approach to adjust design specifications of the trap, based on community members' perceptions and feedback, entomological findings in the lab, and design and research team observations. Multiple focus group discussions (FGD) were held over a 6 month period, stratified by age, sex and motherhood status, to inform the design process. Trap testing transitioned from the lab to within households.ResultsThrough an iterative process of working with specifications from the research team, findings from the laboratory testing, and feedback from FGD, the design team narrowed trap design options from 22 to 6. Comments from the FGD centered on safety for children and pets interacting with traps, durability, maintenance issues, and aesthetics. Testing in the laboratory involved releasing groups of 50 gravid Ae. aegypti in walk-in rooms and assessing what percentage were caught in traps of different colors, with different trap cover sizes, and placed under lighter or darker locations. Two final trap models were mocked up and tested in homes for a week; one model was the top choice in both Iquitos and Lopburi.DiscussionThe community-based participatory process was essential for the development of novel traps that provided effective vector control, but also met the needs and concerns of community members.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about publication agreements between industry and academic investigators in trial protocols and the consistency of these agreements with corresponding statements in publications. We aimed to investigate (i) the existence and types of publication agreements in trial protocols, (ii) the completeness and consistency of the reporting of these agreements in subsequent publications, and (iii) the frequency of co-authorship by industry employees.Methods and findingsWe used a retrospective cohort of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) based on archived protocols approved by six research ethics committees between 13 January 2000 and 25 November 2003. Only RCTs with industry involvement were eligible. We investigated the documentation of publication agreements in RCT protocols and statements in corresponding journal publications. Of 647 eligible RCT protocols, 456 (70.5%) mentioned an agreement regarding publication of results. Of these 456, 393 (86.2%) documented an industry partner's right to disapprove or at least review proposed manuscripts; 39 (8.6%) agreements were without constraints of publication. The remaining 24 (5.3%) protocols referred to separate agreement documents not accessible to us. Of those 432 protocols with an accessible publication agreement, 268 (62.0%) trials were published. Most agreements documented in the protocol were not reported in the subsequent publication (197/268 [73.5%]). Of 71 agreements reported in publications, 52 (73.2%) were concordant with those documented in the protocol. In 14 of 37 (37.8%) publications in which statements suggested unrestricted publication rights, at least one co-author was an industry employee. In 25 protocol-publication pairs, author statements in publications suggested no constraints, but 18 corresponding protocols documented restricting agreements.ConclusionsPublication agreements constraining academic authors' independence are common. Journal articles seldom report on publication agreements, and, if they do, statements can be discrepant with the trial protocol.

Project description:BackgroundNumerous models, frameworks, and theories exist for specific aspects of implementation research, including for determinants, strategies, and outcomes. However, implementation research projects often fail to provide a coherent rationale or justification for how these aspects are selected and tested in relation to one another. Despite this need to better specify the conceptual linkages between the core elements involved in projects, few tools or methods have been developed to aid in this task. The Implementation Research Logic Model (IRLM) was created for this purpose and to enhance the rigor and transparency of describing the often-complex processes of improving the adoption of evidence-based interventions in healthcare delivery systems.MethodsThe IRLM structure and guiding principles were developed through a series of preliminary activities with multiple investigators representing diverse implementation research projects in terms of contexts, research designs, and implementation strategies being evaluated. The utility of the IRLM was evaluated in the course of a 2-day training to over 130 implementation researchers and healthcare delivery system partners.ResultsPreliminary work with the IRLM produced a core structure and multiple variations for common implementation research designs and situations, as well as guiding principles and suggestions for use. Results of the survey indicated a high utility of the IRLM for multiple purposes, such as improving rigor and reproducibility of projects; serving as a "roadmap" for how the project is to be carried out; clearly reporting and specifying how the project is to be conducted; and understanding the connections between determinants, strategies, mechanisms, and outcomes for their project.ConclusionsThe IRLM is a semi-structured, principle-guided tool designed to improve the specification, rigor, reproducibility, and testable causal pathways involved in implementation research projects. The IRLM can also aid implementation researchers and implementation partners in the planning and execution of practice change initiatives. Adaptation and refinement of the IRLM are ongoing, as is the development of resources for use and applications to diverse projects, to address the challenges of this complex scientific field.

Dataset Information

An Academia-Industry Partnership for Planning and Executing a Community-Based Feeding Study.

Publications

An Academia-Industry Partnership for Planning and Executing a Community-Based Feeding Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets