A dramatically increased interest in dissemination and implementation (D&I) science, with relatively few training programs for D&I scientists, highlights the need for innovative ways to deliver educational materials, training, and resources. We described nine interactive, web-based D&I science resources appropriate for trainees and Clinical and Translational Science Awards. We used audience feedback and design thinking to develop resources iteratively. Primary target users are T3–T4 researchers, although T2 researchers can benefit from “designing for dissemination” resources. Workforce development resources were used in D&I science workshops, as stand-alone, self-directed resources, and for consultations and trainings. We assessed resource design (purpose, functionality), usage, user experience and engagement. Educational resources addressed included: D&I science basics, pragmatic trials, getting proposals funded, designing for dissemination, and D&I science theory selection. We reviewed the purpose, functionality, status, and usage of these interactive resources. All resources engaged users; provided interactive feedback for learners; and linked users to additional learning resources. Online resources can be valuable for preparing clinical and translational mentees for research consultations, as follow-up training activities, and as D&I workforce development resources. The resources described are publicly available and we encourage their use, further development, and evaluation by Clinical and Translational Science Awards and other programs.

A robust biomedical informatics infrastructure is essential for academic health centers engaged in translational research. There are no templates for what such an infrastructure encompasses or how it is funded. An informatics workgroup within the Clinical and Translational Science Awards network conducted an analysis to identify the scope, governance, and funding of this infrastructure. After we identified the essential components of an informatics infrastructure, we surveyed informatics leaders at network institutions about the governance and sustainability of the different components. Results from 42 survey respondents showed significant variations in governance and sustainability; however, some trends also emerged. Core informatics components such as electronic data capture systems, electronic health records data repositories, and related tools had mixed models of funding including, fee-for-service, extramural grants, and institutional support. Several key components such as regulatory systems (e.g., electronic Institutional Review Board [IRB] systems, grants, and contracts), security systems, data warehouses, and clinical trials management systems were overwhelmingly supported as institutional infrastructure. The findings highlighted in this report are worth noting for academic health centers and funding agencies involved in planning current and future informatics infrastructure, which provides the foundation for a robust, data-driven clinical and translational research program.

Clinical and translational science is vitally dependent on the nation’s underlying health-care policies and programs. In a reciprocal fashion, data generated by clinical and translational research can inform both health policy and health-care delivery. It is important, therefore, to rate health reform proposals comprehensively on a set of criteria that reflect the broad goals of reform, including the potential impact on clinical and translational science and medical education. I propose that the criteria include achieving universal coverage, reducing administrative costs, retaining one’s chosen primary care physician, encouraging care coordination, empowering physicians, freeing industry from choosing and administering health plans, providing choice of specialists and hospitals, providing patient education, preventing patient overuse of services, rationalizing resource allocation, encouraging competition, limiting government’s role, supporting medical education, training, and research, and freeing industry to make personnel decisions based on business criteria rather than the impact on health-care costs to the company. I discuss the rationale for each element and offer a rating of current proposals relative to a proposal previously made.

Partnered research may help bridge the gap between research and practice. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) supports collaboration between scientific researchers and community members that is designed to improve capacity, enhance trust, and address health disparities. Systems science aims to understand the complex ways human-ecological coupled systems interact and apply knowledge to management practices. Although CBPR and systems science display complementary principles, only a few articles describe synergies between these 2 approaches. In this article, we explore opportunities to utilize concepts from systems science to understand the development, evolution, and sustainability of 1 CBPR partnership: The Community Health Advocacy and Research Alliance (CHARA). Systems science tools may help CHARA and other CBPR partnerships sustain their core identities while co-evolving in conjunction with individual members, community priorities, and a changing healthcare landscape. Our goal is to highlight CHARA as a case for applying the complementary approaches of CBPR and systems science to (1) improve academic/community partnership functioning and sustainability, (2) ensure that research addresses the priorities and needs of end users, and (3) support more timely application of scientific discoveries into routine practice.

Building on the recent advances in next-generation sequencing, the integration of genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and other approaches hold tremendous promise for precision medicine. The approval and adoption of these rapidly advancing technologies and methods presents several regulatory science considerations that need to be addressed. To better understand and address these regulatory science issues, a Clinical and Translational Science Award Working Group convened the Regulatory Science to Advance Precision Medicine Forum. The Forum identified an initial set of regulatory science gaps. The final set of key findings and recommendations provided here address issues related to the lack of standardization of complex tests, preclinical issues, establishing clinical validity and utility, pharmacogenomics considerations, and knowledge gaps.

This paper proposes the creation and application of maturity models to guide institutional strategic investment in research informatics and information technology (research IT) and to provide the ability to measure readiness for clinical and research infrastructure as well as sustainability of expertise. Conducting effective and efficient research in health science increasingly relies upon robust research IT systems and capabilities. Academic health centers are increasing investments in health IT systems to address operational pressures, including rapidly growing data, technological advances, and increasing security and regulatory challenges associated with data access requirements. Current approaches for planning and investment in research IT infrastructure vary across institutions and lack comparable guidance for evaluating investments, resulting in inconsistent approaches to research IT implementation across peer academic health centers as well as uncertainty in linking research IT investments to institutional goals. Maturity models address these issues through coupling the assessment of current organizational state with readiness for deployment of potential research IT investment, which can inform leadership strategy. Pilot work in maturity model development has ranged from using them as a catalyst for engaging medical school IT leaders in planning at a single institution to developing initial maturity indices that have been applied and refined across peer medical schools.

Rapidly advancing technology often pulls the regulatory field along as it evolves to incorporate new concepts, better tools, and more finely honed equipment. When the area impacted by the technological advancement is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a gap develops between the technology and the guidelines that govern its application. Subsequently, there are challenges in determining appropriate regulatory pathways for evolving products at the initial research and developmental stages. Myriad factors necessitate several rounds of iterative review and the involvement of multiple divisions within the FDA. To better understand the regulatory science issues roiling around the area of additive manufacturing of medical products, a group of experts, led by a Clinical and Translational Science Award working group, convened the Regulatory Science to Advance Precision Medicine at the Fall Forum to discuss some of the current regulatory science roadblocks.

Introduction: Early team experiences can influence the professional trajectories of early-career investigators profoundly, yet they remain underexplored in the team science literature, which has focused primarily on large, multisite teams led by established researchers. To better understand the unique challenges of teams led by early-career investigators, we conducted a qualitative pilot study.

Methods: Interviews were conducted with the principal investigator and members of 5 teams led by KL2 and K12 scholars at the University of Pittsburgh. A code book was developed and thematic analysis was conducted.

Results: Seven distinct themes emerged. Interview subjects reported a high level of trust and strong communication patterns on their teams; however, the data also suggested underlying tensions that have the potential to escalate into larger problems if unaddressed.

Conclusions: This study yields a deeper understanding of teams led by early-career investigators, which can help us provide appropriately targeted training and support.