Community advisory boards (CABs) are an established approach to ensuring research reflects community priorities. This paper examines two CABs that are part of the HEALing Communities Study which aims to reduce overdose mortality. This analysis aimed to understand CAB members’ expectations, experiences, and perspectives on CAB structure, communication, facilitation, and effectiveness during the first year of an almost fully remote CAB implementation. Current literature exploring these perspectives is limited.
We collected qualitative and survey data simultaneously from members (n = 53) of two sites’ CABs in the first 9 months of CAB development. The survey assessed trust, communication, and relations; we also conducted 32 semi-structured interviews. We analyzed the survey results descriptively. The qualitative data were analyzed using a deductive codebook based on the RE-AIM PRISM framework. Themes were drawn from the combined qualitative data and triangulated with survey results to further enrich the findings.
CAB members expressed strong commitment to overall study goals and valued the representation of occupational sectors. The qualitative data described a dissonance between CAB members’ commitment to the mission and unmet expectations for influencing the study within an advisory role. Survey results indicated lower satisfaction with the research teams’ ability to create a mutually beneficial process, clear communication, and sharing of power.
Building a CAB on a remote platform, within a study utilizing a community engagement strategy, still presents challenges to fully realizing the potential of a CAB. These findings can inform more effective operationalizing of community-engaged research through enhanced CAB engagement.
Purposeful training and ongoing career support are necessary to meet the evolving and expanding roles of clinical research professionals (CRP). To address the training and employment needs of clinical research coordinators (CRCs), one of the largest sectors of the CRP workforce, we designed, developed, and implemented an online career navigation system, eMPACTTM (eMpowering Purposeful Advancement of Careers and Training).
A design-based research method was employed as an overarching approach that frames iterative design, development, and implementation of educational interventions. The five major phases of this project – conceptualization, task analysis for measurement development, algorithms development, algorithms validation, and system evaluation – presented specific goals and relevant methods.
The results reported how the eMPACTTM system was conceptualized, developed, and validated. The system allowed CRCs to navigate tailored training and job opportunities by completing their task competencies and career goals. The data sets could, in turn, support employees’ and training coordinators’ informed decisions about organizational training needs and recruitment. The early dissemination results showed steady growth in registered CRCs and diversity in users’ ethnicity and job levels.
The eMPACTTM service showed the possibility of supporting CRCs’ individual career advancement and organizational workforce enhancement and diversity. Long-term research is needed to evaluate its impact on CRC workforce development, explore key factors influencing workforce sustainability, and expand eMPACTTM service to other CRP sectors.
Bayesian statistical approaches are extensively used in new statistical methods but have not been adopted at the same rate in clinical and translational (C&T) research. The goal of this paper is to accelerate the transition of new methods into practice by improving the C&T researcher’s ability to gain confidence in interpreting and implementing Bayesian analyses.
We developed a Bayesian data analysis plan and implemented that plan for a two-arm clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of a new opioid in reducing time to discharge from the post-operative anesthesia unit and nerve block usage in surgery. Through this application, we offer a brief tutorial on Bayesian methods and exhibit how to apply four Bayesian statistical packages from STATA, SAS, and RStan to conduct linear and logistic regression analyses in clinical research.
The analysis results in our application were robust to statistical package and consistent across a wide range of prior distributions. STATA was the most approachable package for linear regression but was more limited in the models that could be fitted and easily summarized. SAS and R offered more straightforward documentation and data management for the posteriors. They also offered direct programming of the likelihood making them more easily extendable to complex problems.
Bayesian analysis is now accessible to a broad range of data analysts and should be considered in more C&T research analyses. This will allow C&T research teams the ability to adopt and interpret Bayesian methodology in more complex problems where Bayesian approaches are often needed.
The institutions (i.e., hubs) making up the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded network of Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) share a mission to turn observations into interventions to improve public health. Recently, the focus of the CTSAs has turned increasingly from translational research (TR) to translational science (TS). The current NIH Funding Opportunity Announcement (PAR-21-293) for CTSAs stipulates that pilot studies funded through the CTSAs must be “focused on understanding a scientific or operational principle underlying a step of the translational process with the goal of developing generalizable solutions to accelerate translational research.” This new directive places Pilot Program administrators in the position of arbiters with the task of distinguishing between TR and TS projects. The purpose of this study was to explore the utility of a set of TS principles set forth by NCATS for distinguishing between TR and TS.
Twelve CTSA hubs collaborated to generate a list of Translational Science Principles questions. Twenty-nine Pilot Program administrators used these questions to evaluate 26 CTSA-funded pilot studies.
Factor analysis yielded three factors: Generalizability/Efficiency, Disruptive Innovation, and Team Science. The Generalizability/Efficiency factor explained the largest amount of variance in the questions and was significantly able to distinguish between projects that were verified as TS or TR (t = 6.92, p < .001) by an expert panel.
The seven questions in this factor may be useful for informing deliberations regarding whether a study addresses a question that aligns with NCATS’ vision of TS.
This study aimed to map the maturity of precision oncology as an example of a Learning Health System by understanding the current state of practice, tools and informatics, and barriers and facilitators of maturity.
We conducted semi-structured interviews with 34 professionals (e.g., clinicians, pathologists, and program managers) involved in Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs). Interviewees were recruited through outreach at 3 large academic medical centers (AMCs) (n = 16) and a Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) company (n = 18). Interviewees were asked about their roles and relationships with MTBs, processes and tools used, and institutional practices. The interviews were then coded and analyzed to understand the variation in maturity across the evolving field of precision oncology.
The findings provide insight into the present level of maturity in the precision oncology field, including the state of tooling and informatics within the same domain, the effects of the critical environment on overall maturity, and prospective approaches to enhance maturity of the field. We found that maturity is relatively low, but continuing to evolve, across these dimensions due to the resource-intensive and complex sociotechnical infrastructure required to advance maturity of the field and to fully close learning loops.
Our findings advance the field by defining and contextualizing the current state of maturity and potential future strategies for advancing precision oncology, providing a framework to examine how learning health systems mature, and furthering the development of maturity models with new evidence.
Despite the central importance of cross-disciplinary collaboration in the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) network and the implementation of various programs designed to enhance collaboration, rigorous evidence for the efficacy of these approaches is lacking. We conducted a novel randomized controlled trial (RCT; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05395286) of a promising approach to enhance collaboration readiness and behavior among 95 early career scholars from throughout the CTSA network.
Participants were randomly assigned (within two cohorts) to participate in an Innovation Lab, a week-long immersive collaboration experience, or to a treatment-as-usual control group. Primary outcomes were change in metrics of self-reported collaboration readiness (through 12-month follow-up) and objective collaboration network size from bibliometrics (through 21 months); secondary outcomes included self-reported number of grants submitted and, among Innovation Lab participants only, reactions to the Lab experience (through 12 months).
Short-term reactions from Innovation Lab participants were quite positive, and controlled evidence for a beneficial impact of Innovation Labs over the control condition was observed in the self-reported number of grant proposals in the intent-to-treat sample. Primary measures of collaboration readiness were near ceiling in both groups, limiting the ability to detect enhancement. Collaboration network size increased over time to a comparable degree in both groups.
The findings highlight the need for systematic intervention development research to identify efficacious strategies that can be implemented throughout the CTSA network to better support the goal of enhanced cross-disciplinary collaboration.
In recent times, there have been calls from within the developing nations for increased ownership by governmental research bodies and universities of the priority research setting and research that aligns with national health strategies. This is a review paper of the studies that have been published on clinical trials in developing countries, with a focus mainly on Pakistan. The literature review used online databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov trial registries to search for clinical trials conducted in Pakistan between January 2000 and December 2022 and analyzed. The results revealed that clinical research in Pakistan is hindered by a number of barriers, including a lack of funding, skilled personnel, and regulatory issues. Lack of funding is a common obstacle, and the majority of funding for clinical trials originates from Western countries or pharmaceutical companies established in the West. In conclusion, clinical studies in developing countries, especially in Pakistan, are hindered by a plethora of barriers, and to improve the current state, increasing funding, streamlining ethical approval procedures, simplifying regulatory systems, addressing cultural and religious concerns, and participating in global efforts to bridge the gap in health-based research are crucial.
]]>The slow adoption of evidence-based interventions reflects gaps in effective dissemination of research evidence. Existing studies examining designing for dissemination (D4D), a process that ensures interventions and implementation strategies consider adopters’ contexts, have focused primarily on researchers, with limited perspectives of practitioners. To address these gaps, this study examined D4D practice among public health and clinical practitioners in the USA.
We conducted a cross-sectional study among public health and primary care practitioners in April to June 2022 (analyzed in July 2022 to December 2022). Both groups were recruited through national-level rosters. The survey was informed by previous D4D studies and pretested using cognitive interviewing.
Among 577 respondents, 45% were public health and 55% primary care practitioners, with an overall survey response rate of 5.5%. The most commonly ranked sources of research evidence were email announcements for public health practitioners (43.7%) and reading academic journals for clinical practitioners (37.9%). Practitioners used research findings to promote health equity (67%) and evaluate programs/services (66%). A higher proportion of clinical compared to public health practitioners strongly agreed/agreed that within their work setting they had adequate financial resources (36% vs. 23%, p < 0.001) and adequate staffing (36% vs. 24%, p = 0.001) to implement research findings. Only 20% of all practitioners reported having a designated individual or team responsible for finding and disseminating research evidence.
Addressing both individual and modifiable barriers, including organizational capacity to access and use research evidence, may better align the efforts of researchers with priorities and resources of practitioners.
The proposal of improving reproducibility by lowering the significance threshold to 0.005 has been discussed, but the impact on conducting clinical trials has yet to be examined from a study design perspective. The impact on sample size and study duration was investigated using design setups from 125 phase II studies published between 2015 and 2022. The impact was assessed using percent increase in sample size and additional years of accrual with the medians being 110.97% higher and 2.65 years longer respectively. The results indicated that this proposal causes additional financial burdens that reduce the efficiency of conducting clinical trials.
]]>Social Network Analysis is a method of analyzing coauthorship networks or relationships through graph theory. Institutional Development Award (IDeA) Networks for Clinical and Translational Research (IDeA-CTR) was designed to expand the capability for clinical and translational research to enhance National Institutes of Health funding.
All publications from a cohort of clinical and translational scientists in Oklahoma were collected through a PubMed search for 2014 through 2021 in October 2022. For this study’s bibliometric portion, we pulled the citations from iCite in November of 2022.
There were 2,391 articles published in 1,019 journals. The number of papers published by year increased from 56 in 2014 to 448 in 2021. The network had an average of 6.4 authors per paper, with this increasing by year from 5.3 in 2014 to 6.9 in 2021. The average journal impact factor for the overall network was 7.19, with a range from 0.08 to 202.73. The Oklahoma Shared Clinical and Translational Resources (OSCTR) network is a small world network with relatively weak ties.
This study provides an overview of coauthorship in an IDeA-CTR collaboration. We show the growth and structure of coauthorship in OSCTR, highlighting the importance of understanding and fostering collaboration within research networks.
The clinical and translational research workforce involved in social and behavioral research (SBR) needs to keep pace with clinical research guidance and regulations. Updated information and a new module on community and stakeholder engagement were added to an existing SBR training course. This article presents evaluation findings of the updated course for the Social and Behavioral Workforce.
Participants working across one university were recruited. Course completers were sent an online survey to evaluate the training. Some participants were invited to join in a focus group to discuss the application of the training to their work. We performed descriptive statistics and conducted a qualitative analysis on focus group data.
There were 99 participants from diverse backgrounds who completed the survey. Most reported the training was relevant to their work or that of the study teams they worked with. Almost half (46%) indicated they would work differently after participating. Respondents with community or stakeholder engaged research experience vs. those without were more likely to report that the new module was relevant to study teams they worked with (t = 5.61, p = 0.001), and that they would work differently following the training (t = 2.63, p = 0.01). Open-ended survey responses (n = 99) and focus group (n = 12) data showed how participants felt their work would be affected by the training.
The updated course was rated highly, particularly by those whose work was related to the new course content. This course provides an up-to-date resource for the training and development for the Social and Behavioral Workforce.
To compare how clinical researchers generate data-driven hypotheses with a visual interactive analytic tool (VIADS, a visual interactive analysis tool for filtering and summarizing large datasets coded with hierarchical terminologies) or other tools.
We recruited clinical researchers and separated them into “experienced” and “inexperienced” groups. Participants were randomly assigned to a VIADS or control group within the groups. Each participant conducted a remote 2-hour study session for hypothesis generation with the same study facilitator on the same datasets by following a think-aloud protocol. Screen activities and audio were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed. Hypotheses were evaluated by seven experts on their validity, significance, and feasibility. We conducted multilevel random effect modeling for statistical tests.
Eighteen participants generated 227 hypotheses, of which 147 (65%) were valid. The VIADS and control groups generated a similar number of hypotheses. The VIADS group took a significantly shorter time to generate one hypothesis (e.g., among inexperienced clinical researchers, 258 s versus 379 s, p = 0.046, power = 0.437, ICC = 0.15). The VIADS group received significantly lower ratings than the control group on feasibility and the combination rating of validity, significance, and feasibility.
The role of VIADS in hypothesis generation seems inconclusive. The VIADS group took a significantly shorter time to generate each hypothesis. However, the combined validity, significance, and feasibility ratings of their hypotheses were significantly lower. Further characterization of hypotheses, including specifics on how they might be improved, could guide future tool development.
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is largely preventable, and the leading cause of death for men and women. Though women have increased life expectancy compared to men, there are marked sex disparities in prevalence and risk of CVD-associated mortality and dementia. Yet, the basis for these and female-male differences is not completely understood. It is increasingly recognized that heart and brain health represent a lifetime of exposures to shared risk factors (including obesity, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and hypertension) that compromise cerebrovascular health. We describe the process and resources for establishing a new research Center for Women’s Cardiovascular and Brain Health at the University of California, Davis as a model for: (1) use of the cy pres principle for funding science to improve health; (2) transdisciplinary collaboration to leapfrog progress in a convergence science approach that acknowledges and addresses social determinants of health; and (3) training the next generation of diverse researchers. This may serve as a blueprint for future Centers in academic health institutions, as the cy pres mechanism for funding research is a unique mechanism to leverage residual legal settlement funds to catalyze the pace of scientific discovery, maximize innovation, and promote health equity in addressing society’s most vexing health problems.
]]>The focus on social determinants of health (SDOH) and their impact on health outcomes is evident in U.S. federal actions by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. The disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on minorities and communities of color heightened awareness of health inequities and the need for more robust SDOH data collection. Four Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs comprising the Texas Regional CTSA Consortium (TRCC) undertook an inventory to understand what contextual-level SDOH datasets are offered centrally and which individual-level SDOH are collected in structured fields in each electronic health record (EHR) system potentially for all patients.
Hub teams identified American Community Survey (ACS) datasets available via their enterprise data warehouses for research. Each hub’s EHR analyst team identified structured fields available in their EHR for SDOH using a collection instrument based on a 2021 PCORnet survey and conducted an SDOH field completion rate analysis.
One hub offered ACS datasets centrally. All hubs collected eleven SDOH elements in structured EHR fields. Two collected Homeless and Veteran statuses. Completeness at four hubs was 80%–98%: Ethnicity, Race; < 10%: Education, Financial Strain, Food Insecurity, Housing Security/Stability, Interpersonal Violence, Social Isolation, Stress, Transportation.
Completeness levels for SDOH data in EHR at TRCC hubs varied and were low for most measures. Multiple system-level discussions may be necessary to increase standardized SDOH EHR-based data collection and harmonization to drive effective value-based care, health disparities research, translational interventions, and evidence-based policy.
Community involvement in research is key to translating science into practice, and new approaches to engaging community members in research design and implementation are needed. The Community Scientist Program, established at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston in 2018 and expanded to two other Texas institutions in 2021, provides researchers with rapid feedback from community members on study feasibility and design, cultural appropriateness, participant recruitment, and research implementation. This paper aims to describe the Community Scientist Program and assess Community Scientists' and researchers' satisfaction with the program. We present the analysis of the data collected from 116 Community Scientists and 64 researchers who attended 100 feedback sessions, across three regions of Texas including Northeast Texas, Houston, and Rio Grande Valley between June 2018 and December 2022. Community Scientists stated that the feedback sessions increased their knowledge and changed their perception of research. All researchers (100%) were satisfied with the feedback and reported that it influenced their current and future research methods. Our evaluation demonstrates that the key features of the Community Scientist Program such as follow-up evaluations, effective bi-directional communication, and fair compensation transform how research is conducted and contribute to reducing health disparities.
]]>Research articles in the clinical and translational science literature commonly use quantitative data to inform evaluation of interventions, learn about the etiology of disease, or develop methods for diagnostic testing or risk prediction of future events. The peer review process must evaluate the methodology used therein, including use of quantitative statistical methods. In this manuscript, we provide guidance for peer reviewers tasked with assessing quantitative methodology, intended to complement guidelines and recommendations that exist for manuscript authors. We describe components of clinical and translational science research manuscripts that require assessment including study design and hypothesis evaluation, sampling and data acquisition, interventions (for studies that include an intervention), measurement of data, statistical analysis methods, presentation of the study results, and interpretation of the study results. For each component, we describe what reviewers should look for and assess; how reviewers should provide helpful comments for fixable errors or omissions; and how reviewers should communicate uncorrectable and irreparable errors. We then discuss the critical concepts of transparency and acceptance/revision guidelines when communicating with responsible journal editors.
]]>Clinical research professionals (CRPs) are essential contributors to clinical and translational research endeavors, encompassing roles such as research nurses, research coordinators, data managers, and regulatory affairs specialists. This paper reports on the implementation of a novel training program for the CRPs, the Co-mentoring Circles Program, developed by the University of Florida Health Clinical Research Professionals Consortium, and proposes an initial logic model of CRP workforce development informed by the observations, participant feedback, and the established Translational Workforce Logic Model. The co-mentoring program was delivered through an online didactic curriculum and bi-monthly meetings over nine months, from January to September 2022. The formative evaluation identified the factors that support CRP workforce development through knowledge acquisition and professional relationship building. Finally, this paper proposes a logic model of CRP workforce development, including financial and human inputs, didactic and co-mentoring activities, workforce outputs, outputs related to workforce and clinical research study progress, and resulting impacts of increased national capacity for translational research and increased rate of research translation.
]]>The University of Michigan created the Practice-Oriented Research Training (PORT) program and implemented it between 2008 and 2018. The PORT program provided research training and funding opportunities for allied healthcare professionals. The program consisted of weekly didactics and group discussion related to topics relevant to developing specific research ideas into projects and funding for a mentored research project for those who submitted a competitive grant application. The goal of this evaluation was to assess the long-term impact of the PORT program on the research careers of the participants. Ninety-two participants (74 staff and 18 faculty) participated in both phases of the program. A mixed-methods approach to evaluation was used; 25 participants who received funding for their research completed surveys, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight program participants. In addition, data were collected on participants’ publication history. Fifteen out of the 74 staff participants published 31 first-authored papers after participating in PORT. Twelve out of 15 staff participants who published first-authored papers did so for the first time after participating in the PORT program. Results of quantitative and qualitative analyses suggest that the PORT program had positive impacts on both participants and the research community.
]]>Despite advances in incorporating diversity and structural competency into medical education curriculum, there is limited curriculum for public health research professionals. We developed and implemented a four-part diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training series tailored for academic health research professionals to increase foundational knowledge of core diversity concepts and improve skills.
We analyzed close- and open-ended attendee survey data to evaluate within- and between-session changes in DEI knowledge and perceived skills.
Over the four sessions, workshop attendance ranged from 45 to 82 attendees from our 250-person academic department and represented a mix of staff (64%), faculty (25%), and trainees (11%). Most identified as female (74%), 28% as a member of an underrepresented racial and ethnic minority (URM) group, and 17% as LGBTQI. During all four sessions, attendees increased their level of DEI knowledge, and within sessions two through four, attendees’ perception of DEI skills increased. We observed increased situational DEI awareness as higher proportions of attendees noted disparities in mentoring and opportunities for advancement/promotion. An increase in a perceived lack of DEI in the workplace as a problem was observed; but only statistically significant among URM attendees.
Developing applied curricula yielded measurable improvements in knowledge and skills for a diverse health research department of faculty, staff, and students. Nesting this training within a more extensive program of departmental activities to improve climate and address systematic exclusion likely contributed to the series’ success. Additional research is underway to understand the series’ longer-term impact on applying skills for behavior change.
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are a measure of childhood adversity and are associated with life-long morbidity. The impacts of ACEs on peripartum health including preeclampsia, a common and dangerous hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, remain unclear, however. Therefore, we aimed to determine ACE association with peripartum psychiatric health and prevalence of preeclampsia using a case–control design.
Clinical data were aggregated and validated using a large, intergenerational knowledgebase developed at our institution. Depression symptoms were measured by standard clinical screeners: the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). ACEs were assessed via survey. Scores were compared between participants with (N = 32) and without (N = 46) prior preeclampsia.
Participants with ACE scores ≥4 had significantly greater odds of preeclampsia than those with scores ≤ 3 (adjusted odds ratio = 6.71, 95% confidence interval:1.13–40.00; p = 0.037). Subsequent speculative analyses revealed that increased odds of preeclampsia may be driven by increased childhood abuse and neglect dimensions of the ACE score. PHQ-9 scores (3.73 vs. 1.86, p = 0.03), EPDS scores (6.38 vs. 3.71, p = 0.01), and the incidence of depression (37.5% vs. 23.9%, p = 0.05) were significantly higher in participants with a history of preeclampsia versus controls.
Childhood sets the stage for life-long health. Our findings suggest that ACEs may be a risk factor for preeclampsia and depression, uniting the developmental origins of psychiatric and obstetric risk.
Strategies are needed to ensure greater participation of underrepresented groups in diabetes research. We examined the impact of a remote study protocol on enrollment in diabetes research, specifically the Pre-NDPP clinical trial. Recruitment was conducted among 2807 diverse patients in a safety-net healthcare system. Results indicated three-fold greater odds of enrolling in remote versus in-person protocols (AOR 2.90; P < 0.001 [95% CI 2.29–3.67]). Priority populations with significantly higher enrollment included Latinx and Black individuals, Spanish speakers, and individuals who had Medicaid or were uninsured. A remote study design may promote overall recruitment into clinical trials, while effectively supporting enrollment of underrepresented groups.
]]>Historically underrepresented groups in biomedical research have continued to experience low representation despite shifting demographics. Diversity fosters inclusive, higher quality, and innovative team science. One avenue for diversifying research teams is integrating diversity-focused initiatives into Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Programs, such as the integrated Translational Health Research Institute of Virginia (iTHRIV). In 2020, iTHRIV participated in Building Up, developed by the University of Pittsburgh CTSA, and intended to increase representation and improve career support for underrepresented groups in the biomedical workforce. Drawing lessons from this study, iTHRIV implemented the “inspiring Diverse Researchers in Virginia” (iDRIV) program. This yearlong program provided education, coaching, mentoring, and sponsorship for underrepresented early career investigators in the biomedical workforce. To date, 24 participants have participated in the program across three cohorts. Participants have been predominantly female (92%), with 33% identifying as Hispanic/Latinx, 29% as Black, and 13% as Asian. Notably, 38% of scholars have subsequently achieved at least one accomplishment, such as receiving a local research honor or award and an extramural funding award from a foundation or federal agency. The iTHRIV iDRIV program serves as a model for providing career support to developing investigators from underrepresented backgrounds, with the overall goal of improving patient health.
]]>Traditionally, research institutions have valued individual achievements such as principal investigator and lead authorship status as primary indicators in the academic promotions process. However, the scientific process increasingly requires collaboration by teams of researchers across multiple disciplines, sometimes including experts outside academia, often referred to as “team science.” We sought to determine whether there is agreement about what constitutes team science at our academic institution and whether current promotion processes sufficiently incentivize faculty participation in team science.
We conducted 20 qualitative interviews with academic leaders (N = 24) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) who supervise faculty promotions processes. Participants were asked to share their definitions of team science and the extent to which faculty receive credit for engaging in these activities during the promotions process. A subset of participants also completed a brief survey in which they ranked the importance of participation in team science relative to other factors that are traditionally valued in the promotions process. Interview data were examined by two analysts using structural coding. Descriptive analyses were conducted of survey responses.
Though team science is valued at UCSF, definitions of team science and the approach to assigning credit for team science in academic promotions processes varied widely. Participants suggested opportunities to bolster support for team science.
Efforts to define and provide transparent faculty incentives for team science should be prioritized at institutions, like UCSF, seeking to advance faculty engagement in collaborative research.
Telemedicine enables critical human communication and interaction between researchers and participants in decentralized research studies. There is a need to better understand the overall scope of telemedicine applications in clinical research as the basis for further research. This narrative, nonsystematic review of the literature sought to review and discuss applications of telemedicine, in the form of synchronous videoconferencing, in clinical research. We searched PubMed to identify relevant literature published between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2023. Two independent screeners assessed titles and abstracts for inclusion, followed by single-reviewer full-text screening, and we organized the literature into core themes through consensus discussion. We screened 1044 publications for inclusion. Forty-eight publications met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. We identified six core themes to serve as the structure for the narrative review: infrastructure and training, recruitment, informed consent, assessment, monitoring, and engagement. Telemedicine applications span all stages of clinical research from initial planning and recruitment to informed consent and data collection. While the evidence base for using telemedicine in clinical research is not well-developed, existing evidence suggests that telemedicine is a potentially powerful tool in clinical research.
]]>Disparities in the recruitment of minority populations in research are well-documented. However, the degree of participation and retention of minorities following enrollment is less known, particularly in decentralized studies. Although decentralized clinical research methods may allow researchers to engage broader study populations with less participation burden, they may present different retention challenges. To evaluate racial and ethnic differences in the degree of participation after enrollment in a decentralized study, we analyzed data from a cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases following COVID-19 immunization.
We compared by race and ethnicity the following post-enrollment participation metrics: response to > 50% of follow-up surveys, donation of a blood sample for antibody testing, consent to use of bio samples for future research, and withdrawal prior to study completion.
Overall, we observed higher levels of post-enrollment study participation among non-Hispanic White (NHW) participants as compared to Black or Hispanic participants: 95% of NHW participants completed follow-up versus 87% of Black participants and 91% of Hispanic participants, 73% of NHW participants provided bio samples versus 64% Black participants and 67% Hispanic participants, and 65% of NHW participants provided consent for future research versus 62% of Black participants and 52% of Hispanic participants.
Our findings demonstrate that the degree of study participation after enrollment in this decentralized study differed by race and ethnicity, indicating that attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion is needed not only in clinical research recruitment but also throughout study administration.
Translation is the process of turning observations in the research laboratory, clinic, and community into interventions that improve people’s health. The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program is a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) initiative to advance translational science and research. Currently, 64 “CTSA hubs” exist across the nation. Since 2006, the Houston-based Center for Clinical Translational Sciences (CCTS) has assembled a well-integrated, high-impact hub in Texas that includes six partner institutions within the state, encompassing ∼23,000 sq. miles and over 16 million residents. To achieve the NCATS goal of “more treatments for all people more quickly,” the CCTS promotes diversity and inclusion by integrating underrepresented populations into clinical studies, workforce training, and career development. In May 2023, we submitted the UM1 application and six “companion” proposals: K12, R25, T32-Predoctoral, T32-Postdoctoral, and RC2 (two applications). In October 2023, we received priority scores for the UM1 (22), K12 (25), T32-Predoctoral (20), and T32-Postdoctoral (23), which historically fall within the NCATS funding range. This report describes the grant preparation and submission approach, coupled with data from an internal survey designed to assimilate feedback from principal investigators, writers, reviewers, and administrative specialists. Herein, we share the challenges faced, the approaches developed, and the lessons learned.
]]>Cancer health research relies on large-scale cohorts to derive generalizable results for different populations. While traditional epidemiological cohorts often use costly random sampling or self-motivated, preselected groups, a shift toward health system-based cohorts has emerged. However, such cohorts depend on participants remaining within a single system. Recent consumer engagement models using smartphone-based communication, driving projects, and social media have begun to upend these paradigms.
We initiated the Healthy Oregon Project (HOP) to support basic and clinical cancer research. HOP study employs a novel, cost-effective remote recruitment approach to effectively establish a large-scale cohort for population-based studies. The recruitment leverages the unique email account, the HOP website, and social media platforms to direct smartphone users to the study app, which facilitates saliva sample collection and survey administration. Monthly newsletters further facilitate engagement and outreach to broader communities.
By the end of 2022, the HOP has enrolled approximately 35,000 participants aged 18–100 years (median = 44.2 years), comprising more than 1% of the Oregon adult population. Among those who have app access, ∼87% provided consent to genetic screening. The HOP monthly email newsletters have an average open rate of 38%. Efforts continue to be made to improve survey response rates.
This study underscores the efficacy of remote recruitment approaches in establishing large-scale cohorts for population-based cancer studies. The implementation of the study facilitates the collection of extensive survey and biological data into a repository that can be broadly shared and supports collaborative clinical and translational research.
Despite federal regulations mandating the inclusion of underrepresented groups in research, recruiting diverse participants remains challenging. Identifying and implementing solutions to recruitment barriers in real time might increase the participation of underrepresented groups. Hence, the present study created a comprehensive dashboard of barriers to research participation. Barriers to participation were recorded in real time for prospective participants. Overall, 230 prospective participants expressed interest in the study but were unable to join due to one or more barriers. Awareness of the most common obstacles to research in real time will give researchers valuable data to meaningfully modify recruitment methods.
]]>This paper describes the process developed at the University of Pittsburgh to increase the number of NIH-funded Diversity Supplements.
The authors formed a Diversity in Academia Workgroup where we created the infrastructure and process to increase the number of Diversity Supplements. Each year, the Office of Sponsored Programs provided a list of grants that would be eligible to submit a Diversity Supplement. We surveyed the Principal Investigators inquiring about their interest in working with a trainee on a Diversity Supplement. If yes, we included their information in a database we built so that trainees could search for eligible research studies. The Diversity Deans then identified underrepresented faculty and postdoctoral researchers. We invited Program Officers from NIH to participate in a panel presentation for trainees, which was well attended.
The number of Diversity Supplements awarded to Pitt researchers has significantly increased from 7 in 2020 to 10 in 2021 and to 15 in 2022. Six more have been awarded in the first half of 2023.
We created the Diversity in Academia Workgroup with the goal to increase the number of Diversity Supplements at the University of Pittsburgh and in so doing, increase the diversity in the biomedical research workforce. While challenging, we know the critical importance and benefits of increased diversity at the University, and we have made significant strides toward this goal.
Participant recruitment and retention (R&R) are well-documented challenges in longitudinal studies, especially those involving populations historically underrepresented in research and vulnerable groups (e.g., pregnant people or young children and their families), as is the focus of the HEALthy Brain and Child Development (HBCD) birth cohort study. Subpar access to transportation, overnight lodging, childcare, or meals can compromise R&R; yet, guidance on how to overcome these “logistical barriers” is sparse. This study’s goal was to learn about the HBCD sites’ plans and develop best practice recommendations for the HBCD consortium for addressing these logistical barriers.
The HBCD’s workgroups developed a survey asking the HBCD sites about their plans for supporting research-related transportation, lodging, childcare, and meals, and about the presence of institutional policies to guide their approach. Descriptive statistics described the quantitative survey data. Qualitative survey responses were brief, not warranting formal qualitative analysis; their content was summarized.
Twenty-eight respondents, representing unique recruitment locations across the U.S., completed the survey. The results indicated substantial heterogeneity across the respondents in their approach toward supporting research-related transportation, lodging, childcare, and meals. Three respondents were aware of institutional policies guiding research-related transportation (10.7%) or childcare (10.7%).
This study highlighted heterogeneity in approaches and scarcity of institutional policies regarding research-related transportation, lodging, childcare, and meals, underscoring the need for guidance in this area to ensure equitable support of participant R&R across different settings and populations, so that participants are representative of the larger community, and increase research result validity and generalizability.
Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) greatly influence health outcomes. SDOH surveys, such as the Assessing Circumstances & Offering Resources for Needs (ACORN) survey, have been developed to screen for SDOH in Veterans. The purpose of this study is to determine the terminological representation of the ACORN survey, to aid in natural language processing (NLP).
Each ACORN survey question was read to determine its concepts. Next, Solor was searched for each of the concepts and for the appropriate attributes. If no attributes or concepts existed, they were proposed. Then, each question’s concepts and attributes were arranged into subject-relation-object triples.
Eleven unique attributes and 18 unique concepts were proposed. These results demonstrate a gap in representing SDOH with terminologies. We believe that using these new concepts and relations will improve NLP, and thus, the care provided to Veterans.
Empowering the Participant Voice (EPV) is an NCATS-funded six-CTSA collaboration to develop, demonstrate, and disseminate a low-cost infrastructure for collecting timely feedback from research participants, fostering trust, and providing data for improving clinical translational research. EPV leverages the validated Research Participant Perception Survey (RPPS) and the popular REDCap electronic data-capture platform. This report describes the development of infrastructure designed to overcome identified institutional barriers to routinely collecting participant feedback using RPPS and demonstration use cases. Sites engaged local stakeholders iteratively, incorporating feedback about anticipated value and potential concerns into project design. The team defined common standards and operations, developed software, and produced a detailed planning and implementation Guide. By May 2023, 2,575 participants diverse in age, race, ethnicity, and sex had responded to approximately 13,850 survey invitations (18.6%); 29% of responses included free-text comments. EPV infrastructure enabled sites to routinely access local and multi-site research participant experience data on an interactive analytics dashboard. The EPV learning collaborative continues to test initiatives to improve survey reach and optimize infrastructure and process. Broad uptake of EPV will expand the evidence base, enable hypothesis generation, and drive research-on-research locally and nationally to enhance the clinical research enterprise.
]]>Access to local, population specific, and timely data is vital in understanding factors that impact population health. The impact of place (neighborhood, census tract, and city) is particularly important in understanding the Social Determinants of Health. The University of Rochester Medical Center’s Clinical and Translational Science Institute created the web-based tool RocHealthData.org to provide access to thousands of geographically displayed publicly available health-related datasets. The site has also hosted a variety of locally curated datasets (eg., COVID-19 vaccination rates and community-derived health indicators), helping set community priorities and impacting outcomes. Usage statistics (available through Google Analytics) show returning visitors with a lower bounce rate (leaving a site after a single page access) and spent longer at the site than new visitors. Of the currently registered 1033 users, 51.7% were from within our host university, 20.1% were from another educational institution, and 28.2% identified as community members. Our assessments indicate that these data are useful and valued across a variety of domains. Continuing site improvement depends on new sources of locally relevant data, as well as increased usage of data beyond our local region.
]]>Institutional Development Awards for Clinical and Translational Research (IDeA-CTR) networks, funded by NIH/NIGMS, aim to advance CTR infrastructure to address historically unmet state and regional health needs. Success depends on the response to actionable feedback to IDeA-CTR leadership from network partners and governance groups through annual surveys, interviews, and governance body recommendations. The Great Plains IDeA-CTR applied internal formative meta-evaluation to evaluate dispositions of 172 governance recommendations from 2017 to 2021. Results provided insights to improve the classification and quality of recommendations, credibility of evaluation processes, responsiveness to recommendations, and communications and governance in a complex CTR network comprising multiple coalitions.
]]>While mentors can learn general strategies for effective mentoring, existing mentorship curricula do not comprehensively address how to support marginalized mentees, including LGBTQIA+ mentees. After identifying best mentoring practices and existing evidence-based curricula, we adapted these to create the Harvard Sexual and Gender Minority Health Mentoring Program. The primary goal was to address the needs of underrepresented health professionals in two overlapping groups: (1) LGBTQIA+ mentees and (2) any mentees focused on LGBTQIA+ health. An inaugural cohort (N = 12) of early-, mid-, and late-career faculty piloted this curriculum in spring 2022 during six 90-minute sessions. We evaluated the program using confidential surveys after each session and at the program’s conclusion as well as with focus groups. Faculty were highly satisfied with the program and reported skill gains and behavioral changes. Our findings suggest this novel curriculum can effectively prepare mentors to support mentees with identities different from their own; the whole curriculum, or parts, could be integrated into other trainings to enhance inclusive mentoring. Our adaptations are also a model for how mentorship curricula can be tailored to a particular focus (i.e., LGBTQIA+ health). Ideally, such mentor trainings can help create more inclusive environments throughout academic medicine.
]]>We assessed the rigor and reproducibility (R&R) activities of institutions funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCTSA) through a survey and website search (N = 61). Of 50 institutional responses, 84% reported incorporating some form of R&R training, 68% reported devoted R&R training, 30% monitored R&R practices, and 10% incentivized them. Website searches revealed 9 (15%) freely available training curricula, and 7 (11%) institutional programs specifically created to enhance R&R. NCATS should formally integrate R&R principles into its translational science models and institutional requirements.
]]>Participation in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) has numerous benefits, yet many eligible children remain unenrolled. This qualitative study sought to explore perceptions of a novel electronic health record (EHR) intervention to facilitate referrals to WIC and improve communication/coordination between WIC staff and healthcare professionals.
WIC staff in three counties were provided EHR access and recruited to participate. An automated, EHR-embedded WIC participation screening and referral tool was implemented within 8 healthcare clinics; healthcare professionals within these clinics were eligible to participate. The interview guide was developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to elicit perceptions of this novel EHR-based intervention. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via telephone. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using thematic analysis.
Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight WIC staff, seven pediatricians, four medical assistants, and one registered nurse. Most participants self-identified as female (95%) and White (55%). We identified four primary themes: (1) healthcare professionals had a positive view of WIC but communication and coordination between WIC and healthcare professionals was limited prior to WIC having EHR access; (2) healthcare professionals favored WIC screening using the EHR but workflow challenges existed; (3) EHR connections between WIC and the healthcare system can streamline referrals to and enrollment in WIC; and (4) WIC staff and healthcare professionals recommended that WIC have EHR access.
A novel EHR-based intervention has potential to facilitate healthcare referrals to WIC and improve communication/coordination between WIC and healthcare systems.
Assessing perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccines is essential for understanding vaccine hesitancy and for improving uptake during public health emergencies. In the complicated landscape of COVID-19 vaccine mandates and rampant misinformation, many individuals faced challenges during vaccination decision-making. The purpose of our mixed methods study is to elucidate factors affecting vaccine decision-making and to highlight the discourse surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines in diverse and underserved communities.
This mixed methods study was conducted in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin between March and November 2021, combining a cross-sectional survey (n = 3593) and focus groups (n = 47).
The groups least likely to report receiving a vaccination were non-Hispanic Whites, Indigenous people, males, and those with moderate socioeconomic status (SES). Those indicating high and low SES reported similar vaccination uptake. Focus group data highlighted resistance to mandates, distrust, misinformation, and concerns about the rapid development surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines. Psychological reactance theory posits that strongly persuasive messaging and social pressure can be perceived as a threat to freedom, encouraging an individual to take action to restore that freedom.
Our findings indicate that a subsection of participants felt pressured to get the vaccine, which led to weaker intentions to vaccinate. These results suggest that vaccine rollout strategies should be reevaluated to improve and facilitate informed decision-making.
Translation of critical and broadly impactful health advancements is stymied by insufficient scientific scrutiny of barriers and roadblocks in the process. The Clinical & Translational Science Award (CTSA) funding opportunity announcement released in July 2021 makes clear the distinction between translational research and translational science (TS) and urges a shift from the former to the latter. This represents a significant shift in the overall scientific direction of the CTSA program and necessitates corresponding shifts in CTSA hub operations. To better support TS, the Team Science Core of the Duke CTSA hub designed and facilitated a virtual retreat for hub personnel that (1) enabled organizational learning about TS and (2) identified anticipated challenges and opportunities. A post-retreat survey was utilized to assess the degree to which the retreat met its stated goals. Our survey received a 62% response rate; 100% of respondents would recommend the session to others. Respondents also reported gains in all areas assessed, with evidence for greater understanding of TS and increased perspective of the value and relevance of TS. In this paper, we provide a roadmap for designing and implementing facilitated TS retreats, which we argue is a key step in TS capacity building through workforce development.
]]>Research experience is often important for academic and career development. This paper describes the implementation and impact of a training program for temporary research assistants (RAs) at an academic medical center. The program includes a 9-month didactic lecture series covering research and professional development skills, a Quality Improvement project focused on improving research processes, and manuscript writing. Overall, the program goals of increasing confidence, self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and well-being, as well as providing an opportunity for career exploration, were met. Thus, this program has the potential to support temporary RAs and enhance their early research experiences.
]]>