Background: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Prevention Research Centers (PRC) Program supports community engagement and partnerships to translate health evidence into practice. Translation is dependent on the quality of partnerships. However, questions remain about the necessary characteristics to develop and maintain translation partnerships. Aim: To identify the characteristics that influence community-university partnerships and examine alignment with the Knowledge to Action (K2A) Framework. Methods: Final Progress Reports (N = 37) from PRCs funded from September 2009 to September 2014 were reviewed in 2016-2017 to determine eligibility. Eligible PRCs included those that translated an innovation following the applied research phase (2009-2014) of the PRC award (n = 12). The PRCs and the adopters (i.e., community organizations) were recruited and participated in qualitative interviews in 2017. Results: Ten PRCs (83.3% response rate) and four adopters participated. Twelve codes (i.e., elements) were found that impacted partnerships along the translation continuum (e.g., adequate communication, technical assistance). Each element aligned with the K2A Framework at multiple steps within the translation phase. The intersection between the element and step in the translation phase is termed a "characteristic." Using interview data, fifty-two unique partnership characteristics for translation were found. Discussion and Conclusion: The results suggest multiple characteristics that impact translation partnerships. The inclusion of these partnership characteristics in policies and practices that seek to move practice-based or research-based evidence into widespread use may impact the receptivity by partners and evidence uptake by communities. Using the K2A Framework to assess translation partnerships was helpful and could be considered in process evaluations to inform translation partnership improvement.

OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Prevention Research Centers (PRCs) collaborate on public health activities with community agencies and organizations. We evaluated these collaborations by studying the relationships between co-authors from the PRCs and community agencies that published at least 1 article together in the first year of the program. METHODS: We identified all the authors of articles published by PRCs and collaborating members in peer-reviewed journals between September 2014 and September 2015 and constructed a network showing the links between and among all the authors. We characterized the network with 4 measures of social structure (network components, network density, average clustering coefficient, average distance) and 3 measures of individual author performances (degree-, betweenness-, and closeness-centrality). RESULTS: The 413 articles had 1804 individual authors and 7995 co-authorship relationships (links) in 212 peer-reviewed journals. These authors and co-authors formed 44 separate, nonoverlapping groups (components). The largest "giant" component containing most of the links involved 66.3% (n = 1196) of the authors and 73.7% (n = 5889) of the links. We identified 136 "information brokers" (authors with high closeness centrality: those who have the shortest links to the most authors). Two authors with high betweenness centrality (who had the highest number of co-authors; 104 and 107) had the greatest ability to mediate co-authorships. Network density was low; only 0.5% of all potential co-authorships were realized (7995 actual co-authorship/1 628 110 potential co-authorships). CONCLUSION: Information brokers and co-authorship mediators should be encouraged to communicate more with each other to increase the number of collaborations between network members and, hence, the number of co-authorships.

The 2014-2019 Prevention Research Centers (PRC) Program Funding Opportunity Announcement stated that "all applicants will be expected to collaborate with CDC to collect data to be able to perform cost analysis." For the first time in the 30-year history of the PRC Program, a cost indicator was included in the PRC Program Evaluation and a cost analysis (CA) instrument developed. The PRC-CA instrument systematically collects data on the cost of the PRC core research project to eventually answer the CDC PRC Program Evaluation question: "To what extent do investments in PRCs support the scalability, sustainability, and effectiveness of the outcomes resulting from community-engaged efforts to improve public health?" The objective of this article is to briefly describe the development of the PRC-CA instrument. Data obtained from the PRC-CA instrument can be used to generate cost summaries to inform decision making within the PRC Program and each individual PRC.

The Prevention Research Centers (PRC) Program began in 1984, when Congress authorized the DHHS to create a network of academic health centers to conduct applied public health prevention research.1 In 1986, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was selected to provide leadership, technical assistance, and oversight for this network of PRCs. | The PRCs are university-based research centers that undertake research-to-practice projects in health promotion and disease prevention. Their work demonstrates the use of new and innovative research in public health approaches that improve the health of the population, particularly those experiencing health disparities. PRCs partner with local, state, and national organizations on a variety of topics, including obesity, diabetes, heart attack and stroke, cancer, physical activity, nutrition, injury prevention, adolescent health, disability prevention among older Americans, and HIV/AIDS. PRCs tap into the expertise of diverse disciplines across their universities and beyond to address health issues and employ diverse methods appropriate to their research questions. A timeline of significant PRC milestones is depicted in the Appendix (available online) and PRC funding appropriations are depicted in Figure 1.