7 results
566 Formative Findings from a Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) Study of TeamMAPPS, an Evidence-Based Team Science Curriculum Designed for CTSA Hubs
- Part of
- Stephen Molldrem, Elizabeth J. Lyons, Jeffrey S. Farroni, Kevin Wooten, Heidi Luft
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 8 / Issue s1 / April 2024
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 03 April 2024, p. 169
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We are using ethnographic methods and Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) frameworks to study barriers and facilitators to implementing ‘TeamMAPPS: Team Methods to Advance Processes and Performance in Science.’ TeamMAPPS is an evidence-based Team Science curriculum deployed as five online modules and being implemented across CTSA hubs. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: For this pre-implementation study, we used the Implementation Mapping framework to understand likely barriers and facilitators, with the aim of designing implementation strategies and long-term outcome measures. Data included field notes from a two-day train-the-trainer, one visit to a key implementing site, and 27 interviews. Participants were four TeamMAPPS conceptualizers, four module designers, and 15 implementers from seven implementing sites, each with a CTSA hub (four were interviewed twice). We coded transcripts using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify contextual barriers and facilitators to D&I, the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) D&I outcomes framework, and target competencies of TeamMAPPS. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Priority D&I outcomes that emerged were adoption, reach, and effectiveness. Potential barriers/facilitators to “adoption” included institutional willingness to incentivize scientists to utilize TeamMAPPS, support for Team Science at CTSAs, and systems of rewards for scientists to undergo trainings. Anticipated barriers/facilitators for “reach” were closely tied to adoption, such as institutions’ ability to persuade or require scientists to take trainings. Other issues relevant to reach included the time it takes to time to complete TeamMAPPS and potentially fraught intra-team dynamics arising if modules are implemented as a whole-team intervention. Anticipated barriers/facilitators for “effectiveness” included having adequate tools to assess actual impact. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: TeamMAPPS has the potential to accelerate advances in translational sciences across the CTSA consortium. As this D&I study proceeds we will continue Implementation Mapping and use the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to develop bundles of implementer-informed strategies to the effectively deliver TeamMAPPS among CTSAs.
Exploring team dynamics during the development of a multi-institutional cross-disciplinary translational team: Implications for potential best practices
- Joseph A. Kotarba, Stephen Molldrem, Elise Smith, Heidi Spratt, Suresh K. Bhavnani, Jeffrey S. Farroni, Kevin Wooten
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 7 / Issue 1 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 October 2023, e220
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Introduction:
A recent literature review revealed no studies that explored teams that used an explicit theoretical framework for multiteam systems in academic settings, such as the increasingly important multi-institutional cross-disciplinary translational team (MCTT) form. We conducted an exploratory 30-interview grounded theory study over two rounds to analyze participants’ experiences from three universities who assembled an MCTT in order to pursue a complex grant proposal related to research on post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, also called “long COVID.” This article considers activities beginning with preliminary discussions among principal investigators through grant writing and submission, and completion of reviews by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, which resulted in the proposal not being scored.
Methods:There were two stages to this interview study with MCTT members: pre-submission, and post-decision. Round one focused on the process of developing structures to collaborate on proposal writing and assembly, whereas round two focused on evaluation of the complete process. A total of 15 participants agreed to be interviewed in each round.
Findings:The first round of interviews was conducted prior to submission and explored issues during proposal writing, including (1) importance of the topic; (2) meaning and perception of “team” within the MCTT context; and (3) leadership at different levels of the team. The second round explored best practices-related issues including (1) leadership and design; (2) specific proposal assembly tasks; (3) communication; and (4) critical events.
Conclusion:We conclude with suggestions for developing best practices for assembling MCTTs involving multi-institutional teams.
480 Integrating a Research Ethics Program within an Academic Health Science Center
- Part of
- Jeffrey S. Farroni, Victoria H. McNamara, Elise Smith
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 7 / Issue s1 / April 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 24 April 2023, p. 139
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Research ethics services are critical to the clinical, research, and educational missions of an academic health science center. Our ethics program aims to develop a culture where investigators are as intellectually engaged in ethical issues of scientific integrity as they are in study design, data collection, and implementation. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This descriptive analysis depicts the historical development, from 2010 to 2022, of our research ethics program as an exemplar of ethics integration into the research enterprise of an academic health science center that engages in translational research. In this culture, clinicians, translational researchers and their scientific peers, research participants, and community members become involved in ethics investigation, deliberation, and innovation. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: There are four pillars to our research ethics program: 1) research ethics consultation service, which fosters the development of ethical best practices and standards for the practice of translational research; 2) education, which provides customized training and educational opportunities in research ethics to diverse stakeholders; 3) leadership, through collaboration and partnerships; 4) scholarly engagement, in the pursuit of innovative ethics research and professional development. Through these initiatives we can engage a broad constituency of stakeholders, become an integral component of research oversight, engage as active participants in the research enterprise, and have a critical role in guiding institutional culture. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The integration of our ethics program mirrors the translational science continuum which promotes the multidirectional flow of ideas among ethics consultants, laboratory/clinical scientists, implementation researchers and the community.
81 The Social Responsibility of Translational Science
- Part of
- Elise Smith, Stephen Molldrem, Galveston Jeffrey S. Farroni, Galveston Emma Tumilty
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 7 / Issue s1 / April 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 24 April 2023, pp. 22-23
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Recent NCATS funding announcements emphasize pursuing domain-agnostic translational science projects that seek to transform the system of science. We aimed to articulate the social responsibility of translational science, defined as prioritizing improved health outcomes and decreased disparities. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We focused on the framing of social responsibilities of translational science and distinctions between (a) domain-agnostic translational science that aims to transform the system of science and (b) translational research that takes place within a specific therapeutic area. We reviewed CTSA funding calls, translational research ethics papers, and statements by leaders in the field of translational science. We integrated the social responsibilities of improving health outcomes and decreasing disparities with the values of translational science, which prioritize the relevance, usability, and sustainability of translational interventions. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We drew on our review of the literature and case studies to offer guidance aimed at helping to ensure that differently positioned actors and entities within the translational ecology can advance the values of translational science while also fulfilling the social responsibilities of translational science. We specify how (a) Funders and policymaking institutions, (b) Organizations such as research universities and CTSA institutes, (c) Translational health science teams working on innovative translational science projects, and (d) Individual translational scientists can all contribute to ensuring that translational science fulfills its ethical obligations and social responsibilities. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The social responsibility of translational science can be fulfilled by centering its efforts to develop useful, sustainable, and relevant innovations. These criteria clarify how social responsibilities manifest in practice and can help funders shape and guide the next era of translational discovery.
491 Outcomes of an Integrated Research Ethics Consultation Service
- Part of
- Elise Smith, Jeffrey S. Farroni, Victoria H. McNamara
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 7 / Issue s1 / April 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 24 April 2023, p. 141
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The need for mechanisms of ethical discourse and guidance has increased as translational research collaborations become more complex. The goal of this project is to analyze the stakeholder engagement and ethical issues our research ethics consultation service (RECS) conducted over a two year period. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted a retrospective review of our RECS database from 2020 to 2022. We examined the nature of the research and ethical issues of concern from consult requestors, including whether or not consults were preventative. In addition, we assessed the educational outreach conducted during that timeframe as a measure of service awareness. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: There was a total of 42 consults conducted over the previous year. There were a wide variety of issues related to informed IRB-related processes (31%), consent (24%), QA/QI determination (12%), authorship (10%), confidentiality (7%), diversity/inclusion (7%), grant preparation (7%). Many of the consults (n=28, 67%) included secondary issues. A few consults (n=4, 10%) were preventative, meaning that the consult was requested in anticipation or consideration of a potential ethical issue. Outreach efforts extended to a diverse array of institutional stakeholders and trainees. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The RECS serves numerous constituencies throughout our institution on ethical issues spanning nearly all aspects of research design, conduct, and analysis. These data highlight initiatives to increase study efficiency (in collaboration with institutional research oversight) and helps to direct educational efforts and outreach.
4453 Public Health Ethics: Utilizing open education methods to foster interprofessional learning and practices
- Jeffrey S Farroni, Emma Tumilty
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 4 / Issue s1 / June 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 29 July 2020, p. 65
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Innovative educational approaches and training modalities are important for training a diverse workforce in the authentic skills needed to advance all phases of clinical and translational research. Endeavors to study and develop policies that promote the translational science spectrum are steeped in value judgments. Learning how to navigate moral ambiguity and ethical reasoning enlightens our understanding of stakeholder obligations, roles and responsibilities. Ethics education can be challenging if learners are insufficiently engaged in the necessary critical reflection. In this course, decision-making in public health is informed through the analysis of the ethical issues, developing alternative courses of action and providing justification for actions taken in response to real-world dilemmas. The course is provided to students with a variety of backgrounds (science, health, policy) in a Master of Public Health degree program. Course objective were to: 1) Identify ethical issues in public health policy, practice, and research using appropriate concepts and terms; 2) Recognize the full spectrum of determinants of health and related information needed to resolve ethical conflicts in public health policy, practice, and research; 3) Present varied and complex information in written and oral formats; 4) Assess potential solutions to ethical conflicts in public health policy, practice, and research and 5) Decide ethical courses of action for public health policy, practice, and research. We adopted an open pedagogy as a guiding praxis to inform public health ethics discourse amongst our learners. In this way, learner agency was maximized to develop course materials within a generalized framework and shared with each other through the perspectives of each individual. The goal was to not only analyze complex ethical dimensions of public health issues but also gain insights into the disciplinary lenses of one’s peers. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Each week was divided into two sessions, a seminar and workshop. Course instructors introduce topics in a one-hour session and then allow students to decide what information is needed for a second session where the ethical issues of the topic will be discussed. Information-gathering tasks are then distributed amongst students in areas that are not their specialty, e.g. social history to be researched by learner with a biology background. The second session then involves the reporting back of background information by each student and a discussion of the ethical issues that arise. Through this process, the ability to communicate with others in different disciplines is supported, while exploring other disciplines and then engaging in ethical discussion and reasoning. Topics were introduced during the seminar session each week over the span of five weeks: 1) global public health, 2) disease prevention & control, 3) environmental & occupational public health, 4) resource allocation & priority setting and 5) research ethics. Learners were tasked with identifying the needed information to address the ethical, policy, and research aspects of the public health question(s) presented in these seminars. Students independently submitted resources they discovered to course instructors prior to the workshop. The following session began with a workshop where learners briefly presented their findings and deliberated on specific facets of the public health issue from that previous seminar while discussing a specific case. Students were assessed on their preparation (submission of identified resources), workshop presentation and participation. Research Preparation: In each seminar, the class decided what key information would be required to support the discussion at the workshop, which revolved around a relevant case study on that week’s topic. Course instructors facilitated the groups identification of material to be researched and the delegation of tasks within the group. Each student submitted a summary document (template provided) to course instructors prior to class for their area of research related to the case. Research Presentation: At the beginning of each workshop, each student was asked to present the research work to the rest of the class so that everyone has the same information for the case study discussion. These short (5-10 minutes) presentations followed the format of the preparation summary. Participation/collaboration: Both the seminar and the workshop asked students to be active learners within the class, participating in discussion, strategizing for information-gathering tasks, presenting researched material and arguments to others, and participating in case study discussion. Participation was assessed in relation to the value of the contributions made by students. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The open pedagogy allowed the learners to construct the necessary materials to discuss issues with each other and develop not only a deeper understanding of the ethical dimension of public health issues but a shared understanding of each other’s disciplinary lenses. Course feedback was generally very positive, with learners either agreeing (33%) or strongly agreeing (67%) that the course was effective overall. In asking what learners liked best about the course, some indicated the “open pedagogy learning style” and “I liked the discussion format.” The positive comments mostly highlighted the discussion format. Areas for improvement noted by the learners included wanting “a longer course to cover more topics” and that the material was covered in “too short a time frame.” Other comments included that the course “was a bit disorganized” or that “the discussions were not very structured.” While the discussions by their very nature were unstructured, there is opportunity to refine this pedagogy to find right balance of learner agency. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The goal of this teaching method was to empower the learner with the important critical thinking skills to navigate challenging ethical dilemmas in public health they may encounter in their careers. These skills include the identification of the ethical or moral conflict(s), collecting the necessary information to examine/resolve the dilemma, think creatively about the information that is unavailable and how to discuss/disseminate information to a broad constituency. This an educational model that is easily adaptable for learners working in other areas of the translational research spectrum, e.g. basic, pre-clinical, clinical and implementation sciences.
2442 Listening for empathy: Audio narratives in DPT curriculum as a model for interprofessional education
- Jeffrey S. Farroni, Laura W. Farroni, Rebecca Russell
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 2 / Issue S1 / June 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 November 2018, p. 58
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: (1) Evaluate the auditory narrative process as a learning experience for interviewer, editor, and interviewee. (2) Discuss methodologies for developing or selecting audio narratives and suggest how to effectively integrate them into the DPT curriculum, or thread into individual coursework. (3) Experience and appraise podcast components developed for a DPT psychosocial aspects of disability course. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Students were provided preassessment and postassessment on empathy. Other methodologies include conducting interviews, developing story boards, and editing audio narratives. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Learner feedback indicated that course material was experienced in a way that deepens one’s understanding of the complex and challenging issues facing patient, caregivers, and themselves as they embark on their profession. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The utility of integrating different modalities within coursework is to enrich learner experience to encourage self-reflection and awareness of not only their identity but that of multidisciplinary collaborators.