Dissemination of results to research participants is largely missing from the practices of most researchers. Few resources exist that describe best practices for disseminating information to this important stakeholder group.

Four focus groups were conducted with a diverse group of individuals. All participants were part of a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded survey study. Focus groups aimed to identify participants’ preferences about receiving research results and their reactions to three different dissemination platforms.

Four focus groups with 37 participants were conducted, including: (1) adults with one comorbidity, at least a college education, and high socioeconomic status (SES); (2) adults with one comorbidity, less than a college education, and lower SES; (3) adults with low health literacy and/or numeracy; and (4) Black or African American adults. Participants discussed their preferences for research results delivery and how each of the platforms met those preferences. This included information needs as they relate to content and scope, including a desire to receive both individual and aggregate results, and study summaries. Email, paper, and website were all popular avenues of presentation. Some desired a written summary, and others preferred videos or visual graphics. Importantly, participants emphasized the desire for having a choice in the timing, frequency, and types of results.

Research participants prefer to receive research results, including study impact and key findings, disseminated to them in an engaging format that allows choice of when and how the information is presented. The results encourage new standards whereby research participants are considered a critical stakeholder group.

The implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) tools into clinical spheres emphasizes the critical need for an AI-competent healthcare workforce that can interpret AI output and identify its limitations. Without comprehensive training, there is a risk of misapplication, mistrust, and underutilization. Workforce skill development events such as workshops and hackathons can increase AI competence and foster interdisciplinary collaboration to promote optimal patient care.

The University of Florida hosted the AI for Clinical Care (AICC) workshop in April 2024 to address the need for AI-competent healthcare professionals. The hybrid workshop featured a beginner and advanced track with interactive sessions, hands-on skill development, and networking opportunities led by experts. An anonymous, voluntary post-workshop survey asked participants to score their knowledge and skills before and after the AICC workshop. A second, follow-up survey was administered approximately nine months later.

Ninety participants attended the AICC workshop, forty-one attendees completed the post-workshop survey, and six attendees completed the follow-up survey. Paired T-tests of the post-workshop survey revealed statistically significant (P < .001) increases in self-reported knowledge gain across all six beginner track learning objectives and significant (P < .05) increases across all five advanced track objectives. Feedback indicated participants appreciated the interactive format, although communication and networking needed improvement.

The AICC workshop successfully advanced AI literacy among biomedical professionals and promoted collaborative peer networks. Continued efforts are recommended to enhance participant engagement and ensure equitable access to AI education in clinical settings.

Despite the critical role that quantitative scientists play in biomedical research, graduate programs in quantitative fields often focus on technical and methodological skills, not on collaborative and leadership skills. In this study, we evaluate the importance of team science skills among collaborative biostatisticians for the purpose of identifying training opportunities to build a skilled workforce of quantitative team scientists.

Our workgroup described 16 essential skills for collaborative biostatisticians. Collaborative biostatisticians were surveyed to assess the relative importance of these skills in their current work. The importance of each skill is summarized overall and compared across career stages, highest degrees earned, and job sectors.

Survey respondents were 343 collaborative biostatisticians spanning career stages (early: 24.2%, mid: 33.8%, late: 42.0%) and job sectors (academia: 69.4%, industry: 22.2%, government: 4.4%, self-employed: 4.1%). All 16 skills were rated as at least somewhat important by > 89.0% of respondents. Significant heterogeneity in importance by career stage and by highest degree earned was identified for several skills. Two skills (“regulatory requirements” and “databases, data sources, and data collection tools”) were more likely to be rated as absolutely essential by those working in industry (36.5%, 65.8%, respectively) than by those in academia (19.6%, 51.3%, respectively). Three additional skills were identified as important by survey respondents, for a total of 19 collaborative skills.

We identified 19 team science skills that are important to the work of collaborative biostatisticians, laying the groundwork for enhancing graduate programs and establishing effective on-the-job training initiatives to meet workforce needs.

Advancing understanding of human health promotion and disease prevention and treatment often requires teamwork. To evaluate academic medical institutions’ support for team science in the context of researchers’ career development, we measured the value placed on team science and specificity of guidance provided for documenting team science contributions in the promotion and tenure (P&T) documents of Colleges/Schools of Medicine (CoMs) in the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences’ Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program.

We reviewed complete P&T documents from 57 of 63 CTSA CoMs to identify career paths defined by three dimensions: academic rank (associate versus full professor), tenure eligibility (tenure track versus not), and role (research, clinical, education, and administrative), and we rated team science value and documentation guidance for each path. Multilevel models were estimated to compare team science value and documentation guidance as a function of the three career path dimensions while accounting for the clustered data (N = 357 career paths within 57 CoMs).

Team science value was greater for associate than full professors, non-tenure-eligible versus tenure-eligible positions, and roles prioritizing clinical, education, and administrative responsibilities versus those prioritizing research. Guidance for documenting team science achievements was more explicit for roles that prioritized research.

Although P&T policies at most CTSA institutions express value for team science, inconsistent within-institutional patterns of recognition and reward across career paths may have implications for researchers’ involvement in team science. We discuss the implications of our findings for research and for P&T policies that promote team science.

Routine patient care data are increasingly used for biomedical research, but such “secondary use” data have known limitations, including their quality. When leveraging routine care data for observational research, developing audit protocols that can maximize informational return and minimize costs is paramount.

For more than a decade, the Latin America and East Africa regions of the International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium have been auditing the observational data drawn from participating human immunodeficiency virus clinics. Since our earliest audits, where external auditors used paper forms to record audit findings from paper medical records, we have streamlined our protocols to obtain more efficient and informative audits that keep up with advancing technology while reducing travel obligations and associated costs.

We present five key lessons learned from conducting data audits of secondary-use data from resource-limited settings for more than 10 years and share eight recommendations for other consortia looking to implement data quality initiatives.

After completing multiple audit cycles in both the Latin America and East Africa regions of the IeDEA consortium, we have established a rich reference for data quality in our cohorts, as well as large, audited analytical datasets that can be used to answer important clinical questions with confidence. By sharing our audit processes and how they have been adapted over time, we hope that others can develop protocols informed by our lessons learned from more than a decade of experience in these large, diverse cohorts.

Endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain (CPP) are complex conditions that significantly impact quality of life. Few tools systematically capture patient-reported outcomes in this population. This pilot study evaluated patients’ experiences and the perceived usability of an electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) tool to assess its feasibility in supporting a clinical data registry. Associations between demographic/clinical characteristics and ePRO usability were also explored.

This prospective observational study included patients enrolled at a tertiary endometriosis and CPP clinic who completed a REDCap-based ePRO survey remotely. The survey included demographic items and 13 validated instruments assessing pain, psychological distress, sensory processing, and quality of life. Usability was evaluated through an Online Questionnaire-Experiences Survey (OQES), covering accessibility, completion experience, redundancy, and content relevance. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, and Hedges’ g were used for analysis; open-ended responses were thematically reviewed.

Fourteen patients were invited; 11 (78.6%) completed the full ePRO. Most found it easy to access (90.9%) with stable internet (100%). While 63.6% reported some redundancy, none reported discomfort, and 90.9% agreed the survey captured relevant experiences. Participants with higher Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scores were more likely to complete all items (P = 0.042 and .047). Those who did not perceive redundancy scored significantly higher on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (P = .048) and Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (P = .016).

The ePRO tool showed high feasibility. Patients with higher symptom burden were more likely to find it useful. Future improvements should reduce redundancy and clarify survey instructions.

Research ethics consultation services (RECS) provide important ethical guidance to various entities, including investigators and Institutional Review Boards. Established in the late 1980s and influenced by funding requirements from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science, RECS have evolved to address ethical challenges in research. This study aimed to identify key barriers and facilitators affecting the success of RECS, particularly in light of changes in funding and institutional support.

From a comprehensive list of 55 Clinical and Translational Science Award programs, 20 RECS were purposively sampled for in-depth interviews. Interviews focused on primary functions, accomplishments, barriers, and facilitators of the service. We performed an abductive analysis on transcribed data.

Twenty-two research ethics consultants from 20 institutions participated. Respondents emphasized their services’ goal of facilitating ethical research, though many faced barriers such as underutilization and lack of awareness among researchers. Facilitators included institutional support and funding. Support often was contingent on institutional leadership facilitating the service into the university’s research enterprise. Participants reported accomplishments, including successful consultations and contributions to institutional policies.

Our findings indicate that RECS play a crucial role in supporting ethical research practices, though their effectiveness is often contingent on institutional relationships and funding. Key recommendations include tracking consults, defining consultation outcomes, and fostering the development of new consultants to sustain the field of research ethics.