Advancing Workforce Development and Evidence-Based Practice in US Territories: An Evaluation of the Public Health Disaster Research Award Program

Abstract

Context:

Many people living in the 5 inhabited US territories experience high rates of natural hazard exposure and social vulnerability to disaster impacts. Public health workforce development and evidence-based, culturally competent approaches to disaster preparedness, response, and recovery are needed in these regions.

Program:

In 2020, the Natural Hazards Center established the Public Health Disaster Research Award Program with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The program’s goal is to advance public health disaster research and practice by funding, training, mentoring, and connecting researchers, students, and practitioners in historically underserved areas with high natural hazard risk. Between 2020 and 2022, 26 research teams received up to $50 000 each to investigate public health disasters in 1 or more US territories. The program also supported awardees by providing individual consultations, online trainings, feedback on report drafts, and a virtual group workshop on the public health implications of research. Awardees authored final reports and presented at a public webinar.

Evaluation:

In 2023, the Natural Hazards Center developed and distributed an online survey to all principal investigators. The survey evaluated how awardees advanced knowledge about public health disasters in the US territories; what skills, resources, and connections they acquired; and how they translated their research into public health applications and otherwise disseminated their findings.

Discussion:

Our evaluation showed that the program is advancing knowledge of understudied hazard contexts and socially vulnerable populations in the US territories and supports awardees in sharing their findings with academics, policymakers, and practitioners. Moreover, it expanded the public health disaster workforce by bringing professionals from a diverse range of disciplines and institutions into the field, and by investing in students, early career scholars, and investigators based in US territories. Researchers are working with local partners to apply their findings to practice.

Context

The 5 inhabited US territories–which include the islands of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands in the Pacific Ocean and Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands in the Caribbean Sea—are exposed to some of the most complex natural hazards in the nation.1 Hurricanes, flooding, heat waves, drought, sea level rise, wildfire earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions all impact the islands. Sociodemographic indicators suggest that the 3.6 million people living in the US territories are disproportionately vulnerable to these hazards due to high poverty rates and high numbers of people with disabilities, older adults, and children in their populations. As Table 1 shows, 40% of territory residents live in poverty, 23% have a disability, 22% are over age 65, and 13% are under age 15.2,3 Research has shown that these sociodemographic characteristics are among those most associated with social vulnerability to disasters. Here, social vulnerability refers to the physical, social, economic, and environmental factors that increase a population’s susceptibility to adverse disaster outcomes and capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from disaster events.4

TABLE 1.

Population Size and Proportion Belonging to Select Socially Vulnerable Groups in the 5 Inhabited US Territories and the United States

US Territory	Population	Poverty Ratea	People With Disabilityb	Adults Over Age 65	Children Under Age 15
American Samoa	49 710	55%	9%	6%	30%
Guam	153 836	20%	13%	11%	22%
Northern Mariana Islands	47 329	38%	10%	6%	24%
Puerto Rico	3 285 874	42%	25%	24%	13%
US Virgin Islands	87 146	23%	12%	21%	16%
All inhabited US territories	3 623 895	40%	23%	22%	13%
All United States	331 449 281	13%	13%	17%	18%

Note. Table constructed with data from the US Census Bureau’s 2020 Island Areas Censuses Data Products2 and Puerto Rico Profile.3

^aPercent of individuals living below the 2019 federal poverty line. Excludes military households in Guam.

^bThe US Census Bureau defines a person with a disability as having any one of the following 6 disability types: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.

A major aim of social vulnerability research has been to move beyond demographic associations and identify the social structures and institutional conditions that make it more difficult for vulnerable groups to prepare for natural hazard risks, take protective action during emergencies, access relief services, and rebuild their lives and livelihoods. These sociohistorical contexts are different in the US territories when compared to the US mainland. The unique colonial history of each territory, for example, has structured their economies and land settlement patterns, including which groups have been pushed to marginal areas highly exposed to hazards.5 The islands also have many distinct cultural practices, languages, and governance structures that require tailored services.6 Furthermore, territorial governments are ineligible for some federal funding opportunities.7 The territories are also excluded from several federal data collection programs that are critical to public health and emergency planning,7-9 including the Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI)10 which only extends to Puerto Rico and does not offer data for the other territories.

Comprehensive and timely research in the US territories is needed to identify holistic approaches to disaster preparedness, response, and recovery that take into account unique territorial contexts. In recent years, the federal government has increased funding for disaster planning in the US territories through programs such as the CDC’s Public Health Emergency Preparedness Cooperative Agreements11 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund.12 Nevertheless, funding for public health disaster research in the islands remains limited and there is a shortage of public health professionals with the expertise needed to lead these investigations.7

In 2020, the Natural Hazards Center (NHC) partnered with the CDC to create the Public Health Disaster Research Award Program to address the need for evidence-based, culturally informed disaster preparedness, response, and recovery in the US territories. The program aims to advance public health disaster research and workforce development by supporting and training students, early career scholars, and investigators based in the islands or with strong ties to them. This paper describes our 2023 evaluation of the program.

Program

The Public Health Disaster Research Award Program13 (hereafter, “program”) was designed to fund novel public health disaster research projects in the US territories. Specifically, the program was established with 2 primary objectives:

1. To advance hazards and disasters research with clear applications for public health policy and practice in US territories.

2. To build a diverse public health disaster research workforce by supporting investigators from multiple disciplines and institutions, as well as students, early career scholars,* and professionals who reside or work in US territories.

Because disasters damage built, natural, and social environments simultaneously, the program adopted and encouraged a convergence research approach.14 Convergence research is defined by Peek et al15^(p1) as involving 3 essential commitments: First, to focus the investigation on a specific problem; second, to use research to generate evidence-based solutions; and third, to engage a demographically and functionally diverse research team whose members transcend boundaries. These commitments, which require bringing together investigators from multiple disciplines and practitioners working in affected communities, ensure research is informed and conducted by the people who need and use it.15,16

The program’s first funding call invited research in the US territories on the impacts of recent disasters on institutions essential to population health and recovery, including housing, hospitals, and schools. The second funding call prioritized investigations of community resilience and disaster preparedness. Both calls sought proposals from convergent research teams with ties to local public health practitioners in their study sites.

Together the 2 calls drew 58 proposal submissions. After a rigorous proposal review process, 26 research teams were awarded up to $50 000 each for field research; investigators also received training, mentorship, and support for publishing and publicly presenting results. During the 10-month award period, research teams were required to complete fieldwork, write a 20-page report, and share their findings at an internal and a public webinar.

Because awardees included those from outside public health, students, and early career researchers, the NHC supported investigators in designing, conducting, and reporting on public health disaster research. To begin, all applicants received detailed feedback on their proposal from 3 or more reviewers with public health and social science disaster research expertise. After award approval, funded teams consulted with an NHC researcher with a doctorate in public health to discuss their research design.^† Awardees were also encouraged to complete the CONVERGE Training Modules—a series of free online trainings that cover an array of topics in hazards and disaster research, including sessions focused on social vulnerability, perishable data collection, reciprocity, and research ethics.17 NHC developed an additional training module during the second call—Public Health Implications of Hazards and Disaster Research14—to help investigators conceptualize research with strong applications for public health policy and practice.^‡

After awardees completed data collection, NHC mentored them as they wrote their 20-page report so that they would be prepared at the close of the award to disseminate their results in academic articles, books, or book chapters. First, NHC had 2 scholars with disaster research expertise peer review each team’s draft report. Next, awardees participated in a virtual group workshop to develop public health implications of their research with CDC scientists and NHC researchers. Awardees used feedback from peer reviews and the group meeting to revise and resubmit their reports, which were then copyedited and published on the NHC website. At the end of the award, researchers gave formal presentations at an NHC-hosted public webinar. In addition to helping awardees hone their academic writing and presenting skills, these forums gave awardees opportunities to connect with other public health disaster professionals and colleagues from the US territories.

NHC also strongly encouraged awardees to disseminate their findings to community partners and public health practitioners. From the outset, NHC prioritized funding applicants who explained in their proposals how they would partner with local groups during their investigations and return results to affected communities. NHC also required awardees to explain in reports and presentations how they formed these partnerships, shared results, and planned for further collaboration.

Evaluation

In 2023, NHC designed an evaluation to assess whether the program was meeting its objectives to advance knowledge about public health disasters in the US territories and build a workforce capable of doing this research. The NHC team identified evaluation measures (see Supplemental Digital Content Table, available at http://links.lww.com/JPHMP/B525, for a full list) and developed an online survey for the 26 principal investigators. The survey—which is published and freely available online18—included 23 closed- or open-ended questions about the skills, experience, and connections the research team gained during the award and how the team has advanced the project in the years since the award closed. We submitted our research protocol to the University of Colorado Boulder Institutional Review Board (IRB) who determined that this program evaluation research project did not require IRB review.

Upon IRB exemption, we sent a recruitment email to principal investigators that described the purpose of the evaluation, how to access the online survey, and the types of questions that were included. Over the 21 days that the survey was open, we sent 2 additional targeted follow-up emails encouraging principal investigators to complete the survey. Of the 26 research projects, 23 lead investigators submitted responses (88.5% response rate). We also analyzed administrative data—including proposal submission forms, reports, and meeting notes—for information on researchers’ backgrounds and topics of investigation.

Discussion

Our evaluation showed that the program is achieving its 2 primary objectives, as detailed below.

Advancing public health disaster research with applications in US territories

Advancing knowledge of hazard impacts on vulnerable populations in understudied US territories

As displayed in Table 2, the 26 funded projects focused on all 5 inhabited US territories and diverse hazard contexts. Puerto Rico, the most populous territory, had the highest number of projects with 15 followed by the US Virgin Islands with 6. These projects largely studied 2017 Hurricane Maria and how that devastating event affected public health or shaped preparedness and response to subsequent disasters, such as the 2019 to 2020 earthquake sequence in Puerto Rico and the COVID-19 pandemic. Two projects based in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, respectively, examined public health preparedness for all hazards. Three investigations based in multiple US territories also investigated preparedness using comparative analyses to identify shared challenges. All projects focused, fully or in part, on the needs of socially vulnerable populations at increased risk to natural hazards. Several concentrated explicitly on specific groups—including older adults,19 students,20,21 public housing residents,22 or people with disabilities23,24—revealing how territorial contexts shaped people’s ability to prepare for or recover from disaster.

TABLE 2.

Number of Public Health Disaster Research Awards by Study Location and Hazard Type, 2020-2022

Hazard Type	Puerto Rico	US Virgin Islands	Guam	Northern Mariana Islands	American Samoaa	Multiple US Territoriesb	Total
Hurricane	5	2	0	0	0	1	8
Earthquake	2	0	0	0	0	0	2
Cumulative disasters	8	1	0	0	0	0	9
All-hazards preparedness	0	3	1	1	0	2	7
Total	15	6	1	1	0	3	26

^aAlthough no project was based solely in American Samoa, 2 projects located in multiple US territories included American Samoa in their research.

^bOf the 3 projects based in multiple US territories, 2 were located in all 5 territories and were focused on all-hazards preparedness. The other was based in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands and was focused on hurricanes.

Researchers explained that the awards provided opportunities for them to address needs that have long hampered the ability of territorial governments and their partners to holistically prepare and respond to disasters. Two projects provide illustrative cases: Paulino et al25 and Guannel et al26 led separate teams in constructing the first-ever SVIs for Guam and the US Virgin Islands, respectively. Their projects showed how SVIs could be adapted and used to map their islands’ socially vulnerable populations. They also revealed how SVI measures originally designed for the US mainland needed to be adjusted to the territories’ distinct physical infrastructure and geographic and social contexts. For example, the Guam SVI added variables related to housing type, wireless connection, and other ethnic minority indicators specific to the island. Public health officials can now use these contextually adjusted datasets to more comprehensively plan for emergency response, including, for example, understanding communication needs or estimating how much emergency shelter space may be required. Impressively, according to an employee of CDC’s Office of Readiness and Response, Paulino and colleagues’ research was used by the CDC to plan their response to 2023 Hurricane Mawar in Guam (email, May 24, 2023). Moreover, Guannel explained on the survey that the US Virgin Islands’ territorial government is also using their research output to plan for climate disasters.

Other awardees investigated issues that have frequently been studied in US states, but rarely been explored in the US territories. These projects took care to illustrate how territorial contexts shaped their findings and policy recommendations. For example, 2 projects examining mass evacuation and shelter planning,27,28 identified opportunities to develop trusted messengers who could share evacuation and shelter information in island communities. Another pair of projects—each focused on the topic of critical infrastructure during disasters—demonstrated how Puerto Rico’s weak transportation29 and electric power24 systems increased the vulnerability of older adults and people with disabilities in rural areas and provided public health officials with specific recommendations for protecting these populations in emergencies. A set of projects on the mobilization of community organizations in disaster response and recovery in Puerto Rico identified these organizations’ unique strengths and weaknesses in meeting population health needs and recommended ways to strengthen their capacities.22,30–32

By focusing attention on understudied people, places, and topics, the funded projects advanced knowledge of public health needs in the US territories. They also produced policy recommendations tailored to the islands that identified opportunities to strengthen how territorial governments and their local partners collect public health data, plan for disaster, provide response and relief services, and implement recovery programs. As an awardee stated, the program has brought “recognition that the needs and interests of the territories are different.”

Disseminating findings through academic and local channels

Figure 1 shows that awardees disseminated their research through academic and local channels post-award, with 96% preparing scholarly publications or presentations and 83% sharing results with community partners.

FIGURE 1.

Post-Award Research Dissemination Activities by Public Health Disaster Research Award Recipients. Note. ^aDissemination through academic channels was defined as meeting one or both of the following conditions: (1) publishing a journal article, book, book chapter, and/or scholarly report, or (2) presenting at an academic conference or webinar. ^bDissemination through local channels was defined as sharing research results with local groups or institutions in the study site. ^cCommunity groups were defined on the survey as either groups of community members or community-based organizations.

Regarding academic dissemination, 19 teams (83%) produced 33 new scholarly publications based on their project findings, including 1 book, 5 peer-reviewed journal articles, 6 book chapters, and 15 reports. Additionally, 14 groups had 17 journal articles in preparation and 18 teams had presented at academic conferences or webinars. These numbers showcase the productivity of the teams, especially given that the survey was administered only 19 months after the first award had closed and 7 months after the second had done so.

Awardees also reported sharing their results with a range of local groups. Eighteen had shared findings with local universities in US territories, 17 with community members or community-based organizations, and 8 with local public health departments. Some awardees published items for the public, including 5 newspaper op-eds, 1 blog post, 1 study website, and 1 infographic.

Awardees’ progress disseminating through both academic and local channels is a promising step toward guiding evidence-based actions.15 Academic dissemination allows the scientific community to scrutinize results, build consensus, and inform best practices. But changes in preparedness, response, and recovery can also come from the ground up when groups affected by disasters are able to organize and advocate for their needs; ensuring investigators return their results to the community makes this latter aim possible. Moreover, by supporting local researchers and others with strong ties to the territories, the likelihood that they will be perceived as trusted messengers is increased.

Building community partnerships to translate research into practice

Awardees worked to build and sustain research collaborations with community partners and apply their findings to practice. Nineteen teams (83%) co-developed their research design with community groups by meeting with partners to establish research priorities, creating survey instruments, or drafting interview guides. After the close of the award, 57% of research teams were working with partners in the territories to apply their findings to practice.

Three projects illustrate how awardees are transforming and translating research in ways that are informed by communities and responsive to their needs. A team led by Roque et al32 employed community-based participatory research methods to investigate how food, energy, and water security in rural Puerto Rico are threatened by natural hazards. They are now co-developing an assessment tool for communities that can be used to identify their risks and plan resilience measures.33

Fagundo-Ojeda’s team investigated the post-disaster needs of breast cancer patients in Puerto Rico. Because their research participants’ health made them physically and emotionally vulnerable, the research team trained breast cancer patients to survey and interview other women with breast cancer.23 The project produced rich, ethically grounded data that Fagundo Ojeda and his nonprofit collaborators later used to develop disaster preparedness training modules for doctors and other healthcare providers treating breast cancer patients.

Miner’s team led an evaluation of a disaster first aid training course intended to teach residents of the Northern Mariana Islands how to respond to medical emergencies during disasters.34 Their evaluation showed that the course was effective at teaching first aid skills but was not accessible to women and young people. Miner and colleagues later developed a new curriculum and training approach that ensures these groups can access the course.35

Building a diverse next-generation public health disaster workforce

Bringing professionals from diverse disciplinary and institutional backgrounds to public health disaster research

According to the survey, the 23 research projects enlisted a total of 139 core researchers, which included the lead investigator, coinvestigators, and students. As Figure 2 shows, these investigators came from diverse disciplinary and institutional backgrounds. Only 12% of awardees identified as public health researchers. Nearly half were social scientists (48%) from disciplines including anthropology, sociology, economics, and geography. Others came from emergency management (14%), the formal or natural sciences (10%), education (7%), and engineering (4%). While 84% of awardees worked primarily in academia, nearly 10% were employed at nonprofit organizations and 6% worked in government.

FIGURE 2.

Disciplinary and Institutional Diversity of Public Health Disaster Research Award Teams. Note. ^aPanel 1 depicts the percentage of awardees by their disciplinary background and was obtained from a survey question that asked principal investigators to identify how many team members belonged to each of the categories listed in the figure. For the 4 largest disciplinary categories—engineering, the formal sciences, the natural sciences, and social sciences—the survey listed examples of specific disciplines within that category as follows: engineering (eg, civil, environmental, geotechnical, mechanical), formal Sciences (eg, computer science, mathematics, statistics), and the social sciences (eg, anthropology, geography, political science, psychology, sociology, urban planning, etc.). ^bIn Panel 2, interdisciplinary teams are defined as having members from at least 2 of the 7 academic backgrounds listed in the Panel 1. Teams with practitioners are defined as having at least 1 member from a government agency or nonprofit. ^cThe “other” category in Panel 1 includes researchers from business, the humanities, law, medicine, or nursing.

The second panel in Figure 2 shows how awardees formed interdisciplinary, convergence-based teams. Nineteen teams (83%) had members from 2 or more academic backgrounds and 12 (52%) had at least 1 practitioner from a government agency or nonprofit. All teams met at least 1 condition—meaning they either were interdisciplinary or had a practitioner from a government agency or nonprofit—and 35% met both.

The program also supported professionals based at 58 different institutions. Most institutions were universities or research centers (67%), but several were government agencies (14%) or nonprofits (14%). More than half were located in the US territories (n = 31).

Prioritizing diverse research teams gave rise to projects that had novel perspectives on public health problems and solutions. A funded project developed by Alvarado, Carrasquillo, Gallardo, and Chopel in 2022 provides an excellent example. All 4 team members live in Puerto Rico; Alvarado and Gallardo are trained as lawyers, Carrasquillo is a geographer, and Chopel is a public health scholar. Prior to the project, Alvarado and Gallardo had founded a nonprofit to address the proliferation of abandoned homes, buildings, and open lots in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. They saw abandoned properties endangering their communities’ health, but they needed research skills to document what was happening. They collaborated with Carrasquillo and Chopel to develop an exploration of how post-Maria abandoned spaces were associated with several environmental health risks, including higher levels of contaminated water, soil, and air; an increase in mosquitos and other disease vectors; public illicit drug activity; and other unwanted activities that threaten public health and safety.31 These findings have implications for housing policy in Puerto Rico, with the authors recommending greater municipal code enforcement to mitigate the health impacts of post-disaster building abandonment.

Expanding the workforce by investing in researchers based in US territories, students, and early career scholars

The second way that the program grew the public health disaster research workforce was by supporting researchers based in the US territories, students, and early career scholars. As Figure 3 shows, 82 investigators—62%—were based in the islands and nearly half (46%) were junior professionals, including 55 students and 13 early career scholars.

FIGURE 3.

Investigators Based in US Territories, Students, or Early Career Scholars Supported by a Public Health Disaster Research Award. Note. ^aThe “other” category includes academics who are more than 3 years post-degree and other practitioners or professionals who work outside of academia.

Investigators based in US territories led 11 projects (42%). These principal investigators used their institutional knowledge and ties to community partners to research public health issues that have received little scholarly attention. Two awards—1 led by Segarra-Alméstica et al20 in Puerto Rico and the other led by Francis36 in the US Virgin Islands—provide illustrative examples. Segarra’s team worked with partners in the Ministry of Education to investigate how school closures caused by multiple recent disasters were impacting children’s mental health and academic achievement. Francis led the first-ever investigation of burnout among frontline government workers who participated in disaster response during successive hurricanes and the COVID-19 pandemic in the US Virgin Islands.

The opportunity to lead and participate in these projects was often transformative for scholars based in US territories. As an awardee based in Puerto Rico stated:

This research was the most significant investigation I have done in my life. I’m now preparing communities to participate in planning and preparing for disasters and hazards, and this work has its base in the trainings and certificates I took from NHC and CDC and the research I did. The relationships with NHC impacted me and gave me the tools I needed to achieve the research goals.

Junior scholars were also active in project leadership, with 4 PhD students and 4 early career scholars serving as principal investigators for 8 projects (31%). These junior scholars described how the opportunity to develop their own projects launched their careers, giving them much-needed skills, self-confidence, and professional connections. As an early career scholar said, “This was my first grant as a Principal Investigator, and it really opened the doors [for me] as a young researcher… I gained so much insight and much more energy to continue to do research in this field.” A student added:

This award allowed me as an early career disaster researcher during my Ph.D. studies to develop my own research project, write a grant, and get funded to do a lot of interesting work that I am still presenting and writing about. I don’t know if I would have had the opportunity to do this type of work through a different funding mechanism with my minimal experience, so I am incredibly grateful to the award for trusting early career researchers to do this work.

Fifteen projects (58%) were led by investigators based at institutions on the US mainland. During proposal selection, these projects were funded because they demonstrated a commitment to working with researchers and practitioners in the islands. Indeed, 11 of the 15 had territory-based coinvestigators and 4 were led by researchers with deep personal or professional ties to the islands. Our review of administrative data showed that mainland investigators took care to involve territory partners directly in data collection and analysis as well as trainings, presentations, publications, and networking events. It also suggested that these projects provide opportunities for territory-based investigators to take leadership roles in developing new research grant proposals and application projects.

The award funding also allowed more senior investigators to train and support students and early career scholars at their institutions. Three-quarters of lead investigators, for example, used awards to train students in research methods. More than one-third created new academic courses or training materials from project findings. And 13% developed student research assistantships or hired postdocs to work on the project. The survey also showed that students used project data to write at least 5 doctoral dissertations and 1 master’s thesis—foundational pieces for advancing careers.

In addition to supporting junior professionals and researchers based in US territories, many awardees belonged to underrepresented groups in science.15 According to administrative data, all 26 funded projects included at least 1 person of color, woman, or person with a disability.

Fostering skills and connections to extend research projects

The program aimed to give awardees foundational knowledge, skills, and connections that they could use to extend their research projects into longitudinal studies and future grant proposals. Survey results showed awardees experienced these benefits. All principal investigators agreed, for example, that the training, consultations, and research experience that they gained as part of the program increased their ability to do research with implications for public health, with 78% endorsing “strongly agree.” All principal investigators also said it had done the same for other core team members, with 70% endorsing “strongly agree.”

Awards also facilitated connections between researchers and practitioners across disciplinary and institutional boundaries, building foundations for future, convergence-based studies. Post-award, most interdisciplinary teams (87%) have continued to work together and more than half (57%) have formed new research partnerships with other investigators whom they met during the award. Additionally, 48% have formed new research collaborations with community organizations or public health agencies. Overall, nearly two-thirds of the teams are using knowledge, skills, and connections forged during the award to extend their research. As an awardee said:

During the project’s fieldwork, I was able to connect with several organizations… Through these connections, we were able to reconnect and work with additional communities … and [secure new funding] to study… critical infrastructure… failures after Hurricane Fiona.

Implications for Policy & Practice

• Research award programs targeting underserved areas, such as the US territories, can help inform evidence-based, culturally informed practice and policy that improve public health readiness and protect populations at increased risk to disaster.

• Research award programs that prioritize, train, and mentor a diverse next generation of researchers and practitioners can help strengthen the public health workforce.

• The Public Health Disaster Research Award Program, which paired funding with training and mentorship, can be used by other academic institutions or public health agencies as a model for advancing workforce development and evidence-based practice and policy in underserved areas.

• The publicly available evaluation survey18 can be replicated to assess the strength of other research award programs with similar objectives.

Conclusion

Previous literature has suggested that quick-response research award programs can advance major research priorities in disaster contexts. They are well-suited, for example, to rapidly bring researchers into the field to identify population needs and evidence-based solutions16 and to support next-generation researchers.37 This evaluation has shown systematically that award programs that pair funding with training and mentorship can also achieve major milestones in public health, including growing the public health research workforce in underserved areas. Moreover, they are well positioned to produce the rich, culturally informed research findings that are needed to improve public health policy and practice in understudied hazard contexts.