BACKGROUND: Injury is the leading cause of death in patients aged 1 to 45 years and contributes to a significant public health burden for individuals of all ages. To achieve zero preventable deaths and disability after injury, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine called for the development of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to improve outcomes for military and civilian trauma patients. Because rapid resuscitation and prompt identification and treatment of injuries are critical in achieving optimal outcomes, a panel of experts was convened to generate high-priority research questions in the areas of acute resuscitation, initial evaluation, imaging, and definitive management on injury. METHODS:Forty-three subject matter experts in trauma care and injury research were recruited to perform a gap analysis of current literature and prioritize unanswered research questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. Four Delphi rounds were conducted to generate research questions and prioritize them using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions were stratified as low, medium, or high priority, with consensus defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category. Research questions were coded using a taxonomy of 118 research concepts that were standard across all National Trauma Research Action Plan panels. RESULTS:There were 1,422 questions generated, of which 992 (69.8%) reached consensus. Of the questions reaching consensus, 327 (33.0%) were given high priority, 621 (62.6%) medium priority, and 44 (4.4%) low priority. Pharmaceutical intervention and fluid/blood product resuscitation were most frequently scored as high-priority intervention concepts. Research questions related to traumatic brain injury, vascular injury, pelvic fracture, and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis were highly prioritized. CONCLUSION: This research gap analysis identified more than 300 high-priority research questions within the broad category of Acute Resuscitation, Initial Evaluation, Imaging, and Definitive Management. Research funding should be prioritized to address these high-priority topics in the future. (J

The characteristics of a person's health status are often guided by how they live, grow, learn, their genetics, as well as their access to health care. Yet, all too often, studies examining the relationship between social determinants of health (behavioral, sociocultural, and physical environmental factors), the role of demographics, and health outcomes poorly represent these relationships, leading to misinterpretations, limited study reproducibility, and datasets with limited representativeness and secondary research use capacity. This is a profound hurdle in what questions can or cannot be rigorously studied about COVID‐19. In practice, gene–environment interactions studies have paved the way for including these factors into research. Similarly, our understanding of social determinants of health continues to expand with diverse data collection modalities as health systems, patients, and community health engagement aim to fill the knowledge gaps toward promoting health and wellness. Here, a conceptual framework is proposed, adapted from the population health framework, socioecological model, and causal modeling in gene–environment interaction studies to integrate the core constructs from each domain with practical considerations needed for multidisciplinary science.

Objective Information gaps that accompany hurricanes and floods limit researchers’ ability to determine the impact of disasters on population health. Defining key use cases for sharing complex disaster data with research communities and facilitators, and barriers to doing so are key to promoting population health research for disaster recovery. Materials and Methods We conducted a mixed-methods needs assessment with 15 population health researchers using interviews and card sorting. Interviews examined researchers’ information needs by soliciting barriers and facilitators in the context of their expertise and research practices. Card sorting ranked priority use cases for disaster preparedness. Results Seven barriers and 6 facilitators emerged from interviews. Barriers to collaborative research included process limitations, collaboration dynamics, and perception of research importance. Barriers to data and technology adoption included data gaps, limitations in information quality, transparency issues, and difficulty to learn. Facilitators to collaborative research included collaborative engagement and human resource processes. Facilitators to data and technology adoption included situation awareness, data quality considerations, adopting community standards, and attractive to learn. Card sorting prioritized 15 use cases and identified 30 additional information needs for population health research in disaster preparedness. Conclusions Population health researchers experience barriers to collaboration and adoption of data and technology that contribute to information gaps and limit disaster preparedness. The priority use cases we identified can help address information gaps by informing the design of supportive research tools and practices for disaster preparedness. Supportive tools should include information on data collection practices, quality assurance, and education resources usable during failures in electric or telecommunications systems.

Objectives: We asked whether age or injury severity drives blood use patterns in paediatric trauma.Background: Transfusion for paediatric trauma care is complicated by known developmental differences in coagulation and injury patterns.Methods/Materials: We linked 10 years of Trauma Registry and blood bank data, 2011-2020, for all acute trauma patients aged <18 treated at a large US Level 1 adult and paediatric trauma centre. We assessed age, injury severity and mechanism for association with any blood use, use within the first 4 h of care, and resuscitation balance, using grouped-age Chi-square and multivariable regression models.Results: Of 60 066 acute trauma arrivals at our centre in the study period, 7979 (13.3%) met inclusion criteria. Median age (IQR) was (7.6[2.4-14.5]); 6230(78.1%) were < 15years old; 590(7.4%) received any blood products; and 128(1.6%) died. Among the 5842 (73.2%) patients with impact-related injury, 2023(34.6%) met standards for severe injury (New Injury Severity Score [NISS] ≥ 16); 541(9.3%) were transfused, 171(31.6%) in the first 4 h and 72(13.3%) using ≥3 units of products in the first hour. Firearms injuries were the most severe, most likely to be transfused urgently, using balanced resuscitation, and to die (p < 0.001 for all). Multivariable logistic regression showed any blood use as strongly associated with NISS (Odds Ratio 1.124832; p < 0.0001; 95% CI 1.11-1.13) but not with age (OR 0.98; p = 0.07; 95% CI 0.96-1.00). Conclusion:Transfusion in the care of acute paediatric trauma is uncommon (<10% of injured minors in our cohorts received any blood products), and injury severity, particularly firearms injury-not age-drove transfusion.