Collaboration across the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium is essential for advancing translational science, yet institutional silos often hinder data-sharing and benchmarking efforts. This study examines the viability of a voluntary, multi-hub analysis of the CTSA education common metric on trainee and scholar engagement across five New York City-based sites or “hubs.” Using a structured framework for collaboration and field-tested operational guidelines, a team of evaluators dubbed “The Gotham Group” pooled de-identified common education data to assess post-training research engagement and demographic representation. Their primary objective was to establish a sustainable model for independent data-sharing without national mandates or technical support. A secondary goal was to reassess the metric’s usefulness as an impact benchmark. Results showed that NYC education engagement percentages remained stable despite institutional differences, suggesting the metric’s viability for regional comparison. More importantly, the collaboration itself proved as valuable as its outcomes, fostering professional relationships, facilitating knowledge exchange, and strengthening evaluation capacity within and across the hubs. This study highlights the potential of voluntary data-sharing partnerships to overcome data silos and to create valuable networks driving continuous improvement in translational science.

The Collaborating Network of Networks for Evaluating COVID-19 and Therapeutic Strategies (CONNECTS) was a novel network of networks created in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This program brought together a large matrix of clinical research networks to swiftly design and/or implement concurrent clinical studies. Successful coordination of this large-scale collaboration required innovative solutions for timely and transparent centralized operations reporting. As the Administrative Coordinating Center (ACC) for CONNECTS, RTI International developed and maintained a web-based infrastructure that served as the central communication and reporting hub. This single-platform approach provided a robust collection of key topics to support daily operational oversight (e.g., enrollment and retention, site coverage, study milestones, financial tracking). Underlying data acquisition, harmonization, and portal reporting methods aimed to address nuances of the network of networks (e.g., disparate data sources, diverse user needs) while providing the necessary speed and agility to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. The resulting system was well received, readily adapted to changes, and successfully supported three years of early COVID-19 research. Although the CONNECTS central reporting methods arose from necessity during an urgent and dynamic public health emergency, they are a model for efficient and effective centralized operational reporting for any large-scale public health research effort.

Research participants should be informed of genetic test results that could impact their health, particularly when they have expressed interest in receiving such information. Furthermore, the return of genetic test results is essential to improve trust, transparency, and health equity. However, investigators often encounter barriers in returning genetic test results to research participants. We examined genomic research at a large, research-intensive medical school and found less than 6% of protocols included plans to return results to participants. This study describes our development of protocols for returning primary and secondary genetic test results and implementation of a Genomic Return of Results (gROR) service. This arose through a collaboration with experts in community engagement, genetics, and pathology to consider consent adequacy, analytical/clinical validity, and clinical utility when returning results. The gROR service reduces investigator burden and provides participants with genetic information and guidance to address any potential health risks. Genetic results are returned by a genetic counselor at no cost to participants or their family. Investigator costs are subsidized to incentivize the delivery of actionable genetic test results to research participants. Our approach prioritizes transparency, accessibility, and informed decision-making, thereby promoting equitable sharing of genetic knowledge and personalized healthcare interventions.

Rural primary care providers report increasing rates of professional burnout, which can further exacerbate rural provider shortages and health disparities. From 2023 to 2025, the Project ECHO team at Penn State University developed and delivered an educational rural health telementoring program, collaboratively with stakeholders, to disseminate guideline-concordant care to rural primary care clinicians. The program focused on key rural topics and created a professional learning community aimed at decreasing participant burnout. Self-reported results of the pilot program’s participants (n = 106) demonstrate increased knowledge (p < .001) and reduced professional isolation. Future programing will expand data collection to explore longer-term impact.

Acquiring the skills to obtain extramural funding is a major challenge for early- and mid-career investigators. The Professional Development Core (PDC) of the NIH-funded Mountain West Clinical and Translational Research Infrastructure Network (MW CTR-IN) aims to support early-stage and mid-career investigators pursuing independent careers in clinical and translational science research. Since 2018, the PDC’s Grant Writing Workshops (GWWs) have provided CTR investigators with didactic content and interactive feedback on their NIH grant applications, helping them reach this key career milestone. Four one-day GWWs were offered in person, and two half-day GWWs were offered virtually across two days during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evaluation data for each cohort revealed that participants’ knowledge and confidence in the relevant sections of NIH R-series grants consistently improved following GWW attendance and resulted in notable enhancements in participants’ feelings of positivity toward grant writing, regardless of delivery mode (virtual vs. in-person). Follow-up data showed that 12 GWW participants acquired external funding with a 21% success rate and $12,584,938 in total funding. This manuscript provides a roadmap for planning and implementing a successful virtual or in-person GWW that positively impacts the careers of early-stage and mid-career investigators.

The quality by design (QbD) framework holds promise for improving success rates for completion of clinical studies, which often fail to complete on time. Initially used in manufacturing, the framework is now frequently applied to clinical trials to anticipate risks and avoid challenges that impact study completion or the credibility of results. The Southern California Clinical and Translational Science Institute created and implemented a program based on QbD to increase the success of research studies, including clinical trials and other study designs, being conducted by scholars in our Mentored Career Development Program and awardees in our Pilot Grant Programs. The program’s three components are QbD Design Studios, project management, and team science support. The overall goal is to increase study quality and efficiency, thereby improving study completion success rates and, ultimately, driving innovations in healthcare and public health. The current article describes QbD program elements in detail, along with preliminary results from initial implementation, approaches for evaluating the program’s implementation and impact on study success, and plans to disseminate the program widely.