Managing clinical trials is a complex process requiring careful integration of human, technology, compliance, and operations for success. We collaborated with experts to develop a multi-axial Clinical Trials Management Ecosystem (CTME) maturity model (MM) to help institutions identify best practices for CTME capabilities.

A working group of research informaticists was established. An online session on maturity models was hosted, followed by a review of the candidate domain axes and finalization of the axes. Next, maturity level attributes were defined for min/max levels (level 1 and level 5) for each axis of the CTME MM, followed by the intermediate levels. A REDCap survey comprising the model’s statements was then created, and a subset of working group members tested the model by completing it at their respective institutions. The finalized survey was distributed to all working group members.

We developed a CTME MM comprising five maturity levels across 11 axes: study management, regulatory and audit management, financial management, investigational product management, subject identification and recruitment, subject management, data, reporting analytics & dashboard, system integration and interfaces, staff training & personnel management, and organizational maturity and culture. Informaticists at 22 Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs and one other organization self-assessed their institutional CTME maturity. Respondents reported relatively high maturity for study management and investigational product management. The reporting analytics & dashboard axis was the least mature.

The CTME MM provides a framework to research organizations to evaluate their current clinical trials management maturity across 11 axes and identify areas for future growth.

Social determinants of health (SDoH), such as socioeconomics and neighborhoods, strongly influence health outcomes. However, the current state of standardized SDoH data in electronic health records (EHRs) is lacking, a significant barrier to research and care quality.

We conducted a PubMed search using “SDOH” and “EHR” Medical Subject Headings terms, analyzing included articles across five domains: 1) SDoH screening and assessment approaches, 2) SDoH data collection and documentation, 3) Use of natural language processing (NLP) for extracting SDoH, 4) SDoH data and health outcomes, and 5) SDoH-driven interventions.

Of 685 articles identified, 324 underwent full review. Key findings include implementation of tailored screening instruments, census and claims data linkage for contextual SDoH profiles, NLP systems extracting SDoH from notes, associations between SDoH and healthcare utilization and chronic disease control, and integrated care management programs. However, variability across data sources, tools, and outcomes underscores the need for standardization.

Despite progress in identifying patient social needs, further development of standards, predictive models, and coordinated interventions is critical for SDoH-EHR integration. Additional database searches could strengthen this scoping review. Ultimately, widespread capture, analysis, and translation of multidimensional SDoH data into clinical care is essential for promoting health equity.