Demonstrating impact in the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program is crucial to continue governmental, taxpayer, institutional, and donor support and investment. We present an innovative portfolio analysis to summarize the Scientific Achievement Translational Science Impact at the hub level. Additionally, a unique feature of the UCLA CTSA hub includes the many interorganizational collaborations with Los Angeles County (LAC). This is the first study to examine the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) impact on projects with CTSA hub-county interorganizational collaborations. A Framework for Evaluating Scientific Achievement Translational Science Impact (SATSI) was used to guide the analyses, with impact indicators derived from the TSBM: (i) clinical and medical, (ii) community and public health, (iii) economic, and (iv) policy and legislation. Two major data sources were used for the evaluation: (i) The CTSI’s Longitudinal Scientific Achievement and Impact survey (LSAS-I), and (ii) longitudinal interviews with principal investigators who reported high-impact projects in hub-county collaborations. We reported baseline data from 2 years of LSAS-I data showing n = 507 new CTSA-assisted grants and the associated demonstrated and potential impact using the hub portfolio analysis. Eighteen (n = 18) of these grants involved a hub-county interorganizational collaboration. Among these, we identified the highest impact projects and developed impact stories and vignettes describing improvements in health care delivery and population health. Our research offers a model for other CTSA hubs to summarize impact using the hub portfolio analysis, and to partner with local public health departments and governmental agencies to address health concerns in low-income and at-risk populations. This research directly addresses the mission of the UCLA hub, “to produce and implement innovations that impact the greatest health needs of Los Angeles and the nation.”

ABSTRACT IMPACT: By understanding Junior investigator characteristics and CTSA support services which strongly influence scientific productivity and impact, we will inform and improve research training and enhance the career development of future generations of clinical and translational science researchers. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: In the field of clinical and translational science, the career trajectory and definition of Junior Investigators (JIs) vary greatly. This study aims to investigate JI characteristics, training, and support that contribute to career development at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Clinical and Translation Science Institute (CTSI). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Every 18 months, the UCLA CTSI administers the Longitudinal Scientific Achievement Survey, which collects information on the predictors of scientific productivity and impact. In 2018, a special supplement was added to survey JIs who received CTSA support between 2011 and 2017 (n=305), including questions on knowledge, use, and effectiveness of CTSA specific support, barriers and facilitators of research, scientific productivity, and perceived scientific impact. A literary analysis was conducted to explore previous categorizations of JIs. The JIs in our sample conducted bench to bedside, population and policy research at our four partner sites. Bivariate and logistic regression analysis were conducted to examine the significant predictors of a new grant award attributed to the CTSA support/services. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The survey response rate was 82% (n=250). Respondents include core voucher co-investigators, enrollees in the Training Program in Translational Science, and K- and K-to-R workshop participants. Bivariate results showed new grant awardees significantly more likely to have the following characteristics: physician scientist with an MD and PhD (47%), pilot grant awardee (42%), core voucher awardee (49%), four or more types of CTSI support (48%), prior affiliation with an NIH institute/center other than NCATS (42%), and reported at least one impact in science, health, and/or the community (72%). Multivariate results showed that investigators with a prior core voucher award, a prior NIH affiliation, or reported one or more impacts were the strongest predictors of obtaining a new grant (each with OR>=4.0). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: The most successful investigators consulted with NIH program officers and received feedback on their research plans and methods. Sufficient funding is crucially important to research progression. In our CTSA hub, vouchers and grants to initiate new studies or offset costs of existing research are consistent predictors of new extramural funding.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We will investigate the influence of multisector partnerships in T3-T4 research associated with advances in delivery systems, patient/population outcomes and health policy and the translational processes linked to these improvements. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We are using both quantitative and qualitative data to measure and analyze partnership characteristics linked to successful translation into practice & policy. We aim to complete 100 surveys of investigators who have conducted CTSA-supported T3-T4 research to examine partnerships, conditions of collective impact, and quantifiable changes in delivery systems, health outcomes, and policy. Using rigorous criteria, we will select projects for more in-depth interviews to understand the practices of successful translation and roadblocks and barriers that challenge translation. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The anticipated research products include: (i) an analytic report on partnership structure and processes and the statistical associations to stages of change outcomes, (ii) a series of vignettes to describe the impact stories and translational processes, (iii) cross-project analysis of the data and vignettes to produce generalizable information to improve T3-T4 translation, and (iv) peer-reviewed manuscript(s) for publication. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The study will inform and improve researcher competencies and accelerate translation in CTSA hubs that emphasize T3-T4 research. We will develop novel definitions of the T3-T4 research impact. Ultimately, the results will inform research training to better address real-world priorities and needs.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS:. The study aims to understand the characteristics of junior investigators who are supported by the CTSI, their knowledge of CTSI services and resources, as well as the perceived effectiveness of CTSI research training and career development. The primary outcome is scientific productivity that enhances career development and promotion. The secondary outcome is to inform and improve CTSA research training and career development, not only for the UCLA CTSI hub but also for the CTSA Program nationally. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION:. The study sample includes post-doctoral and junior investigators who have received UCLA CTSI support between 2011 and 2017 (n=319). These junior investigators conduct research at our four partner sites (UCLA-Westwood, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, The Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science). The CTSI administered the LSAS and the Career Development module in 2018 using Qualtrics, a subscription software for collecting and analyzing survey data. In order to reduce the burden on the survey respondents, the survey team pre-populated their previously reported publication in the Qualtrics survey system. Qualtrics sends customized email invitations containing a link to start the LSAS survey and subsequently automated sequences of reminder messages for non-responders and partial completers. The survey team initiated telephone call-backs and engaged partner site leaders to achieve a high response rate. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS:. Preliminary results show a response rate of 83% (n=264). Respondents include K-to-R workshop participants (n=192), core voucher co-investigators (n=38), Training Program in Translational Science (TPTS) trainees (n=82), and junior investigators who participated in two or more of these activities (n=48). Trainee characteristics include degree, gender, and partner site location. The distribution of advanced degrees among the junior investigators include: PhD (29%), MD (55%), MD/PhD (13%), or other degree (3%). Forty-four percent (44%) respondents are male and 56% are female. Seventy-two percent (72%) have a primary appointment at UCLA-Westwood, while 28% have academic appointments at the partner institutions. Twenty-five percent (25%) received CTSI research training and 49% received CTSI career development support. Regarding scientific productivity, 58% reported having at least one peer-reviewed publication and 29% reported subsequent grant funding. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT:. We are in the process of identifying the predictors of scientific productivity and the characteristics of the junior investigators most significantly correlated with productivity using multiple logistic regression analysis. We will analyze qualitative responses to examine the facilitators and barriers to conducting research at the CTSI and explore ways to improve administrative and clinical research processes. The significance of this research is to inform research training and career development programs within our CTSA hub and the CTSA Program nationally.

In 2013, the University of California, Biomedical Research, Acceleration, Integration, and Development (UC BRAID) convened a regional network of contracting directors from the five University of California (UC) health campuses to: (i) increase collaboration, (ii) operationalize and measure common metrics as a basis for performance improvement efforts, and (iii) identify and implement best practices to maintain a competitive edge in the field of biomedical research. This article summarizes an 18-month examination of performance metrics across the five campuses, including methods for data collection and harmonization agreed upon by the UC contracting offices. Some of the most striking, and previously unmeasured, results demonstrate that master agreements are a highly effective and successful strategy for significantly shortening the average time to completion of contract terms. Interestingly, clinical research organizations (CROs) significantly increase the time required to negotiate a contract. Results also point to the intra- and inter-organizational dependencies affecting time to contract execution. Systematic and transparent data collection among UC stakeholders is necessary to continue improvements to the system. However, data collection is only one component of the larger need to develop shared technology both within and between institutions. This study demonstrates that collaboration and sharing of contract terms is an effective way to reduce study activation time, but the greatest improvements will be driven by the sharing of data and technology tools.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds training programs to increase the numbers and skills of scientists who obtain NIH research grants, but few programs have been rigorously evaluated. The sizeable recent NIH investment in developing programs to increase the diversity of the NIH-funded workforce, implemented through the Diversity Program Consortium (DPC), is unusual in that it also funds a Consortium-wide evaluation plan, which spans the activities of the 10 BUilding Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) awardees and the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN). The purpose of this article is to describe the evaluation design and innovations of the BUILD Program on students, faculty, and institutions of the 10 primarily undergraduate BUILD sites. KEY HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PROJECT:Our approach to this multi-methods quasi-experimental longitudinal evaluation emphasizes stakeholder participation and collaboration. The evaluation plan specifies the major evaluation questions and key short- to long-term outcome measures (or Hallmarks of Success). The Coordination and Evaluation Center (CEC) embarked on a comprehensive evaluation strategy by developing a set of logic models that incorporate the Hallmarks of Success and other outcomes that were collaboratively identified by the DPC. Data were collected from each BUILD site through national surveys from the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA (HERI), annual followup surveys that align with the HERI instruments, site visits and case studies, program encounter data ("tracker" data), and institutional data. The analytic approach involves comparing changes in Hallmarks (key outcomes) within institutions for biomedical students who participated versus those who did not participate in the BUILD program at each institution, as well as between institution patterns of biomedical students at the BUILD sites, and matched institutions that were not BUILD grantees. Case studies provide insights into the institutionalization of these new programs and help to explain the processes that lead to the observed outcomes. IMPLICATIONS:Ultimately, the results of the consortium-wide evaluation will be used to inform national policy in higher education and will provide relevant examples of institutional and educational programmatic changes required to diversify the biomedical workforce in the USA.

Introduction: Biosamples and associated clinical data accelerate translational and clinical research discoveries. A lack of high quality biosamples both stalls projects and limits research advances. In this study, we targeted a wide audience of University of California (UC) biobanking stakeholders who were either involved with the collection or the utilization of biosamples to assess the scope of their biobanking activities and their interest in virtual biobanking or cooperating in the formation of the UC-wide biorepository.Materials and Methods: Each institutional review board from the five UC medical campuses' provided a dataset of potential researchers involved with biobanking. Once identified, a brief six item web-based questionnaire was administered electronically to these researchers.Results: Most survey participants (80%) responded "yes'' (n = 348) that they were actively collecting biosamples for research, and 68% of participants indicated they would either definitely (30%, n = 131) or maybe (38%, n = 166) request biosample materials now or within the next year. An equal proportion of participants responded yes (42% or n = 184) and maybe (42% or n = 182) when asked if they would voluntarily contribute specimens to a UC-wide virtual biobank.Discussion: The results presented above show high levels of support among UC biobanking stakeholders for both requesting material from and contributing material to a UC-wide virtual biobank. In addition, a considerable number of individual researchers on our five UC medical campuses are conducting biospecimen research (i.e., well over n = 435 respondents).

PurposeTo identify and disseminate the organizational characteristics of top performing National Institute of Health (NIH) Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) institutions in regards to career development, using the number of new K awards received per year to rank institutions and comparing these with non-CTSA institutions.MethodsThe authors analyzed the organizational characteristics of all 61 CTSA institutions from 2006 to 2013 using the American Association of Medical Colleges Organizational Characteristics Database and K Award funding details using NIH RePORT.ResultsFive of the top 10 performing institutions are in the western region, and six out of the ten are public schools. Three of the top 10 performing institutions receive most of their K awards through two funding mechanismsthe K08 (mentored clinical scientist research award) and K23 (mentored patient-oriented research career development awards). Notably, these three institutions lack a KL2 program.ConclusionThe CTSA network of institutions is committed to developing the next generation of physician scientists in order to meet the pressing health needs of society. Educators and evaluators within this network may need to provide training to junior investigators beyond the traditional KL2 programs in order to advance their career development as physician scientists and clinical translational researchers.

BACKGROUND:This study investigated the role of key individual- and community-level determinants to explore persisting racial/ethnic disparities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis in California during 1990 and 2000.METHODS:We examined socio-demographic determinants and changes in breast cancer stage at diagnosis in California during 1990 and 2000. In situ, local, regional, and distant diagnoses were examined by individual (age, race/ethnicity, and marital status) and community (income and education by zip code) characteristics. Community variables were constructed using the California Cancer Registry 1990-2000 and the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census.RESULTS:From 1990 to 2000, there was an overall increase in the percent of in situ diagnoses and a significant decrease in regional and distant diagnoses. Among white and Asian/Pacific Islander women, a significant percent increase was observed for in situ diagnoses, and significant decreases in regional and distant diagnoses. Black women had a significant decrease in distant -stage diagnoses, and Hispanic women showed no significant changes in any diagnosis during this time period. The percent increase of in situ cases diagnosed between 1990 and 2000 was observed even among zip codes with low income and education levels. We also found a significant percent decrease in distant cases for the quartiles with the most poverty and least education.CONCLUSIONS:Hispanic women showed the least improvement in breast cancer stage at diagnosis from 1990 to 2000. Breast cancer screening and education programs that target under-served communities, such as the rapidly growing Hispanic population, are needed in California.

We investigated leadership competencies for developing senior and emerging leaders and the perceived effectiveness of leadership development programs in Health Research Organizations (HROs). A pilot study was conducted to interview HRO executives in Southern California. Respondents represented different organizational contexts to ensure a diverse overview of strategic issues, competencies, and development needs. We analyzed qualitative and quantitative data using an innovative framework for analyzing HRO leadership development. The National Center for Healthcare Leadership 'Health Leadership Competency Model' was used as the foundation of our competency research. Top strategic issues included economic downturn and external funding, the influence of governmental policies and regulations, operating in global markets, and forming strategic alliances. High priority NCHL leadership competencies required to successfully lead an HRO include talent development, collaboration, strategic orientation, and team leadership. Senior executives need financial skills and scientific achievement; emerging leaders need technical/scientific competence, information seeking, and a strong work ethic. About half of the respondents reported having no leadership development program (LDP). Almost all reported their organization encourages mentoring, but less than one-third reported an active formalized mentoring program. We conclude that uncertainties and challenges related to healthcare reform and the continued budget deficits will require HRO restructuring to contain costs, remove barriers to innovation, and show value-add in accelerating discovery to improve clinical care, patient outcomes, and community health. Successful leaders will need to become more strategic, entrepreneurial, and resourceful in developing research alliances, executing research operations, and continually improving performance at all levels of the HRO.

Altruistic dentists play a central role in treating minority populations, the poor, the uninsured, and those living in underserved communities. This study examines factors associated with graduating dental students' altruistic attitudes. We use a nationally representative dataset, the 2007 American Dental Education Association Survey of Dental School Seniors (n=3,841), and a comprehensive framework to investigate individual, school, and community characteristics that may influence altruism. Student characteristics were the most significant predictors: women, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and students with low socioeconomic status expressed greater altruism than their counterparts. These results inform dental educators and administrators to expand efforts to recruit underrepresented racial/ethnic and low-income students into dentistry. Additionally, we found that students with altruistic personalities attend schools where the social context is more accepting and respectful of diversity. This suggests that schools can promote altruism in their students by creating a positive culture and environment for diverse populations.

Since 1999, dozens of organizations and hundreds of initiatives have emerged to improve the quality and safety of patient care, yet insufficient progress has been made. Attention has turned toward improving senior leadership team effectiveness. The authors describe a national project that examined the role of the senior leadership team in 8 hospitals in promoting quality and safety, with particular focus on the role of the chief nurse officer in this process.

The USA dental education programmes are facing challenges similar to those confronting countries around the globe, particularly amongst the industrialised nations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the educational programmes of 15 USA dental schools to determine their impact on improving workforce diversity and oral health care access. The study investigates the predictors of public service plans of dental school seniors in Pipeline and non-Pipeline Program dental schools. We analysed baseline and post-intervention data collected in the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) Annual Survey of Dental School Seniors and a set of contextual variables. Public service plans (dependent variable) was predicted by four types of independent variables: intervention, contextual, community-based dental education (CBDE), and student characteristics. Findings from the study show that access to a state or federally sponsored loan repayment program was the most significant predictor of public service plans and that increasing educational debt was the most significant barrier. In the short-term we may be able to sustain the USA loan repayment programs to motivate senior dental students to provide public service to address the oral health care access crisis. However, in the long-term, a new workforce development initiative will be required to transform dental education and practice, modelled after the well-respected licensure programmes for Physician Assistants and/or Advanced Practice Registered Nurses, to expand oral health care access, particularly amongst vulnerable population subgroups, such as low-income children and families.

This article uses data from the 2007 American Dental Education Association survey of dental school seniors to assess their intentions to serve underserved populations according to the students' underrepresented minority (URM) and income status. Dental school recruitment and retention programs that concentrate exclusively on URM students will not benefit most low-income students since 83 percent of them are not URM. Recruiting URM students leads to more graduating students with intentions to serve minorities. Whether the income of URM students was high or low, about half in each income group stated that more than 25 percent of their patients would be underserved minorities, compared to 28 percent of the low-income non-URM students and 17 percent of the higher income non-URM students. However, our multivariable results suggest that recruitment of both low-income groups (URM and non-URM) rather than high income regardless of ethnicity might be especially helpful in producing graduates who choose public service. URM/income status was not significantly related to serving special care or rural populations.

Journal of Dental EducationVolume 73, Issue S2 p. S283-S296 Chapter 6.4 Practice Plans of Dental School Graduating Seniors: Effects of the Pipeline Program Pamela L. Davidson Ph.D., Corresponding Author Pamela L. Davidson Ph.D. Associate Professor and Co-Principal Investigator on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline program PDavidson@mednet.ucla.edu School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr. Pamela L. Davidson, UCLA School of Public Health, Box 951772, 31-269 CHS, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1668; 310-825-7188 phone; 310-825-3317 fax; PDavidson@mednet.ucla.edu.Search for more papers by this authorTerry T. Nakazono M.A., Terry T. Nakazono M.A. Senior Research Associate on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline programSearch for more papers by this authorDaisy C. Carreon M.P.H., Daisy C. Carreon M.P.H. Research Associate on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline programSearch for more papers by this authorJia Bai B.A., Jia Bai B.A. Research Coordinator on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline programSearch for more papers by this authorAbdelmonem Afifi Ph.D., Abdelmonem Afifi Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biostatistics and Biomathematics, former Dean of the School of Public Health and Senior Consultant for the evaluation of the Pipeline program University of California, Los AngelesSearch for more papers by this author Pamela L. Davidson Ph.D., Corresponding Author Pamela L. Davidson Ph.D. Associate Professor and Co-Principal Investigator on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline program PDavidson@mednet.ucla.edu School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr. Pamela L. Davidson, UCLA School of Public Health, Box 951772, 31-269 CHS, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1668; 310-825-7188 phone; 310-825-3317 fax; PDavidson@mednet.ucla.edu.Search for more papers by this authorTerry T. Nakazono M.A., Terry T. Nakazono M.A. Senior Research Associate on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline programSearch for more papers by this authorDaisy C. Carreon M.P.H., Daisy C. Carreon M.P.H. Research Associate on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline programSearch for more papers by this authorJia Bai B.A., Jia Bai B.A. Research Coordinator on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline programSearch for more papers by this authorAbdelmonem Afifi Ph.D., Abdelmonem Afifi Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biostatistics and Biomathematics, former Dean of the School of Public Health and Senior Consultant for the evaluation of the Pipeline program University of California, Los AngelesSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 February 2009 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2009.73.2_suppl.tb04689.xCitations: 16Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume73, IssueS2February 2009Pages S283-S296 RelatedInformation

Journal of Dental EducationVolume 73, Issue S2 p. S259-S268 Chapter 6.2 Revisions to Dental School Curricula: Effects of the Pipeline Program Edmond R. Hewlett D.D.S., Corresponding Author Edmond R. Hewlett D.D.S. Associate Professor and Vice-Chair, Co-Investigator on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline program ehewlett@ucla.edu Division of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of California, Los Angeles Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr. Edmond R. Hewlett, UCLA School of Dentistry, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, Box 951668, 23-088D CHS, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1668; 310-825-7097 phone; 310-206-5539 fax; ehewlett@ucla.edu.Search for more papers by this authorPamela L. Davidson Ph.D., Pamela L. Davidson Ph.D. Associate Professor, Project Director and Co-Principal Investigator on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline program School of Public Health, University of California, Los AngelesSearch for more papers by this authorTerry T. Nakazono M.A., Terry T. Nakazono M.A. Senior Research Associate on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline programSearch for more papers by this authorDaisy C. Carreon M.P.H., Daisy C. Carreon M.P.H. Research Associate on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline programSearch for more papers by this authorJohn J. Gutierrez B.A., John J. Gutierrez B.A. Project Manager on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline programSearch for more papers by this authorAbdelmonem Afifi Ph.D., Abdelmonem Afifi Ph.D. Biostatistics and Biomathematics, former Dean of the School of Public Health, Senior Consultant for the evaluation of the Pipeline program University of California, Los AngelesSearch for more papers by this author Edmond R. Hewlett D.D.S., Corresponding Author Edmond R. Hewlett D.D.S. Associate Professor and Vice-Chair, Co-Investigator on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline program ehewlett@ucla.edu Division of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of California, Los Angeles Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr. Edmond R. Hewlett, UCLA School of Dentistry, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, Box 951668, 23-088D CHS, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1668; 310-825-7097 phone; 310-206-5539 fax; ehewlett@ucla.edu.Search for more papers by this authorPamela L. Davidson Ph.D., Pamela L. Davidson Ph.D. Associate Professor, Project Director and Co-Principal Investigator on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline program School of Public Health, University of California, Los AngelesSearch for more papers by this authorTerry T. Nakazono M.A., Terry T. Nakazono M.A. Senior Research Associate on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline programSearch for more papers by this authorDaisy C. Carreon M.P.H., Daisy C. Carreon M.P.H. Research Associate on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline programSearch for more papers by this authorJohn J. Gutierrez B.A., John J. Gutierrez B.A. Project Manager on the National Evaluation Team for the Pipeline programSearch for more papers by this authorAbdelmonem Afifi Ph.D., Abdelmonem Afifi Ph.D. Biostatistics and Biomathematics, former Dean of the School of Public Health, Senior Consultant for the evaluation of the Pipeline program University of California, Los AngelesSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 February 2009 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2009.73.2_suppl.tb04687.xCitations: 9Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume73, IssueS2February 2009Pages S259-S268 RelatedInformation

This chapter presents an overview of the Pipeline, Profession, and Practice: Community-Based Dental Education program as it was conducted at Meharry Medical College School of Dentistry from 2002 to 2007. Pipeline programs, sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and The California Endowment