Donna J. Keyser

Local efforts to redesign systems of care offer fertile ground for community-based participatory research approaches to take hold and flourish. Drawing on the experiences of a learning collaborative of maternal and child healthcare stakeholders in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, this article describes 8 action steps for operationalizing key community-based participatory research principles in the context of local systems change. Highlights of the subsequent evolution of the collaborative and its work are provided, as well as comments regarding the generalizability and usefulness of this approach for other public health and community stakeholders who are interested in mobilizing collaborative action for systems change.

This column summarizes findings of a study that examined the usefulness of the quadrant model for improving service delivery for persons with co-occurring disorders. The authors discuss treatment recommendations, goals and barriers related to delivering care, policy recommendations for implementing evidence-based interventions, and strengths and limitations of the model. They conclude that although the quadrant model is useful for conceptualizing systems-level factors for improving delivery, its further development is unlikely to result in improved care at the clinical level. They call for research to develop and implement evidence-based practices targeted to specific populations of persons with co-occurring disorders.

The purpose of this article is to assist institutions in advancing their efforts to support research mentorship. The authors begin by describing how institutions can shape the key domains of research mentorship: (1) the criteria for selecting mentors, (2) incentives for motivating faculty to serve effectively as mentors, (3) factors that facilitate the mentor–mentee relationship, (4) factors that strengthen a mentee's ability to conduct research responsibly, and (5) factors that contribute to the professional development of both mentees and mentors. On the basis of a conceptual analysis of these domains as currently documented in the literature, as well as their collective experience examining mentoring programs at a range of academic medicine institutions and departments, the authors provide a framework that leaders of institutions and/or departments can adapt for use as a tool to document and monitor policies for guiding the mentorship process, the programs/activities through which these policies are implemented, and the structures that are responsible for maintaining policies and implementing programs. The authors provide an example of how one hypothetical institution might use the self-assessment tool to track its policies, programs, and structures across the key domains of research mentorship and, on the basis of this information, identify a range of potential actions to strengthen its research mentoring efforts. The authors conclude with a brief discussion of the limitations of the self-assessment tool, the potential drawbacks and benefits of the overall approach, and proposed next steps for research in this area.