We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Morehouse School of Medicine (MSM) embodies an applied definition of community engagement advanced over four decades. The increased demand for community collaboration requires attention to the institutional contexts supporting community-engaged research. MSM partnered with the University of New Mexico Center for Participatory Research for the Engage for Equity (E2) PLUS Project to assess, ideate, and consider existing and recommended institutional supports for community-engaged research.
Methods:
MSM assembled a community-campus Champion Team. The team coordinated virtual workshops with 18 community and academic research partners, facilitated four interviews of executive leaders and two focus groups (researchers/research staff and patients/community members, respectively) moderated by UNM-CPR. Analyses of the transcripts were conducted using an inductive and deductive process. Once the themes were identified, the qualitative summaries were shared with the Champion Team to verify and discuss implications for action and institutional improvements.
Results:
Institutional strengths and opportunities for systemic change were aligned with equity indicators (power and control, decision-making, and influence) and contextual factors (history, trust, and relationship building) of The continuum of community engagement in research. Institutional advances include community-engagement added as the fourth pillar of the institution’s strategic plan. Action strategies include 1) development a research navigation system to address community-campus research partnership administrative challenges and 2) an academy to build the capacities of community/patient partners to independently acquire, manage, and sustain grants and negotiate equity in dissemination of research.
Conclusions:
MSM has leveraged E2 PLUS to identify systems improvements necessary to ensure that community/patient-centered research and partnerships are amplified and sustained.
To facilitate and sustain community-engaged research (CEnR) conducted by academic-community partnerships (ACPs), a Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA)-funded Community Engagement Core (CEC) and Community Partner Council (CPC) co-created two innovative microgrant programs. The Community Health Grant (CHG) and the Partnership Development Grant (PDG) programs are designed to specifically fund ACPs conducting pilot programs aimed at improving health outcomes. Collectively, these programs have engaged 94 community partner organizations while impacting over 55,000 individuals and leveraging $1.2 million to fund over $10 million through other grants and awards. A cross-sectional survey of 57 CHG awardees demonstrated high overall satisfaction with the programs and indicated that participation addressed barriers to CEnR, such as building trust in research and improving partnership and program sustainability. The goal of this paper is to (1) describe the rationale and development of the CHG and PDG programs; (2) their feasibility, impact, and sustainability; and (3) lessons learned and best practices. Institutions seeking to implement similar programs should focus on integrating community partners throughout the design and review processes and prioritizing projects that align with specific, measurable goals.
The translational science workforce requires preparation in both core skills for biomedical research and competencies for advancing progress along the translational pipeline. Delivering this content in a highly accessible manner will help expand and diversify the workforce.
Methods:
The NCATS Education Branch offers online case study-based courses in translational science for a general scientific audience. The branch updated its course in preclinical translational science with additional content aligned with the NCATS Translational Science Principles, which characterize effective approaches to advance translation. The updated course was offered in 2021 and 2022. The branch also revised the course evaluation to capture knowledge change aligned with the NCATS Translational Science Principles.
Results:
Of 106 students, 88 completed baseline or endpoint surveys, with 48 completing both. Most found the online format (n = 48; 91%) and case study approach (n = 48; 91%) effective. There was a statistically significant increase in knowledge related to the Translational Science Principles (p < 0.001). Survey items with the highest endpoint scores reflected the principles on creativity and innovation, efficiency, cross-disciplinary team science, and boundary-crossing collaborations. Findings highlighted the effectiveness of pairing a case study with lectures that offer generalizable strategies aligned with the translational science principles. Students reported the course helped them learn about the trajectory of a drug discovery and development initiative, where their own work fit in, and scientific and operational approaches to apply in their own work.
Conclusions:
This online case study-based course was effective in teaching generalizable principles for translational science to students with varied scientific backgrounds.
Adrenal vein sampling (AVS) is a complicated procedure requiring clinical expertise, collaboration, and patient involvement to ensure it occurs successfully. Implementation science offers unique insights into the barriers and enablers of service delivery of AVS. The primary aim of this review was to identify implementation components as described within clinical studies, that contribute to a successful AVS procedure. The secondary aim was to inform practice considerations to support the scale-up of AVS. A scoping review of clinical papers that discussed factors contributing to effective AVS implementation was included. A phased approach was employed to extract implementation science data from clinical studies. Implementation strategies were named and defined, allowing for implementation learnings to be synthesized, in the absence of dedicated research examining implementation process and findings only. Ten implementation components reported as contributing to a successful AVS procedure were identified. These components were categorized according to actions required pre-AVS, during AVS, and post-AVS. Using an implementation science approach, the findings of this review and analysis provide practical considerations to facilitate AVS service delivery design. Extracting implementation science information from clinical research has provided a mechanism that accelerates the translation of evidence into practice where implementation research is not yet available.
This paper explores the development of the Dissemination and Implementation Science Collaborative (DISC) at the Medical University of South Carolina, established through the Clinical and Translational Science Award program. DISC aims to accelerate clinical and translational science by providing training, mentorship, and collaboration opportunities in dissemination and implementation (D&I) science. Through DISC, investigators, trainees, and community partners are equipped with the knowledge and skills to conduct D&I research and translate findings into practice, particularly in South Carolina’s public health and healthcare landscape. We describe efforts to achieve the major overarching aims of DISC, which include conducting scientific workforce training, providing mentorship and consultation, and advancing methods and processes for D&I research. By sharing DISC experiences, successes, and challenges, this paper aims to support the growth of D&I research and capacity-building programs, fostering collaboration and shared resources in the field.
Organizations supporting translational research and translational science, including Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs, provide a diverse and often changing array of resources, support, and services to a myriad of researchers and research efforts. While a wide-ranging scope of programs is essential to the advancement of translational research and science, it also complicates a systematic and unified process for tracking activities, studying research processes, and examining impact. To overcome these challenges, the Duke University School of Medicine’s CTSA hub created a data platform, Translational Research Accomplishment Cataloguer (TRACER), that provides capacity to enhance strategic decision-making, impact assessment, and equitable resource distribution. This article reviews TRACER development processes, provides an overview of the TRACER platform, addresses challenges in the development process, and describes avenues for addressing or overcoming these challenges. TRACER development allowed our hub to conceptually identify key processes and goals within programs and linkages between programs, and it sets the stage for advancing evidence-based improvement across our hub. This platform development provides key insight into facilitators that can inform other initiatives seeking to collect and align organizational data for strategic decision-making and impact assessment. TRACER or similar platforms are additionally well positioned to advance the study of translational science.
There are two main schools of thought about statistical inference: frequentist and Bayesian. The frequentist approach relies solely on available data for predictions, while the Bayesian approach incorporates both data and prior knowledge about the event of interest. Bayesian methods were developed hundreds of years ago; however, they were rarely used due to computational challenges and conflicts between the two schools of thought. Recent advances in computational capabilities and a shift toward leveraging prior knowledge for inferences have led to increased use of Bayesian methods.
Methods:
Many biostatisticians with expertise in frequentist approaches lack the skills to apply Bayesian techniques. To address this gap, four faculty experts in Bayesian modeling at the University of Michigan developed a practical, customized workshop series. The training, tailored to accommodate the schedules of full-time staff, focused on immersive, project-based learning rather than traditional lecture-based methods. Surveys were conducted to assess the impact of the program.
Results:
All 20 participants completed the program and when surveyed reported an increased understanding of Bayesian theory and greater confidence in using these techniques. Capstone projects demonstrated participants’ ability to apply Bayesian methodology. The workshop not only enhanced the participants’ skills but also positioned them to readily apply Bayesian techniques in their work.
Conclusions:
Accommodating the schedules of full-time biostatistical staff enabled full participation. The immersive project-based learning approach resulted in building skills and increasing confidence among staff statisticians who were unfamiliar with Bayesian methods and their practical applications.
The Stanford Population Health Sciences Data Ecosystem was created to facilitate the use of large datasets containing health records from hundreds of millions of individuals. This necessitated technical solutions optimized for an academic medical center to manage and share high-risk data at scale. Through collaboration with internal and external partners, we have built a Data Ecosystem to host, curate, and share data with hundreds of users in a secure and compliant manner. This platform has enabled us to host unique data assets and serve the needs of researchers across Stanford University, and the technology and approach were designed to be replicable and portable to other institutions. We have found, however, that though these technological advances are necessary, they are not sufficient. Challenges around making data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable remain. Our experience has demonstrated that there is a high demand for access to real-world data, and that if the appropriate tools and structures are in place, translational research can be advanced considerably. Together, technological solutions, management structures, and education to support researcher, data science, and community collaborations offer more impactful processes over the long-term for supporting translational research with real-world data.
The survey investigates COVID-19 information source trust levels and Vietnamese Americans’ willingness to participate in clinical trials. An analysis of 212 completed surveys revealed that trust in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical trial information from university hospitals and drug companies was associated with willingness to participate in clinical trials. Trust in COVID-19 information from federal governments and state governments was also associated with willingness to participate in clinical trials. However, trust in local health facilities was linked to trial participation reluctance. The results suggest that Vietnamese Americans’ participation in clinical trials can be increased by identifying and using trusted sources of information.
This chapter asks what processes erased applied science from public view from the late 1960s. It explores the public talk of a second industrial revolution in the 1950s, and the increasing popularity of ‘technology’, gaining the support of the Labour Party, which founded the Ministry of Technology in 1964. Meanwhile, funds for scientific research became tighter, and the public popularity of science waned. Increasingly, as economists became interested in ‘innovation’, analysts questioned the efficacy of the applied science route to wealth. By the end of the 1960s, science-push was giving way to demand-pull as a government-favoured model of innovation. Scientific research was seen as just one of several important inputs into successful development. As a result, the use of the term ‘applied science’ fell precipitously. However, in the twenty-first century, the new concept of ‘translational research’ emerged in the ever-more prominent biosciences to fill the gap between bench and bedside.
Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx®) Tech was the key diagnostics component of a three-pronged national strategy, including vaccines and therapeutics, to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Unprecedented in the scale of its mission, its budget, its accelerated time frame, the extent of cross-government agency collaboration and information exchange, and the blending of business, academic, and investment best practices, RAD Tech successfully launched dozens of US Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization diagnostic tests, established a new model for rapidly translating diagnostic tests from the laboratory to the marketplace, and accelerated public acceptance of home-based diagnostic tests. This chapter provides an overview of the processes utilized by RADx Tech during the COVID-19 pandemic to improve clinical laboratory tests and identify, evaluate, support, validate, and commercialize innovative point-of-care and home-based tests that directly detected the presence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus.
Chapter 1 defines translational research and compares basic and applied research paradigms. The chapter includes Brabeck’s (2008) quote that sets out the rationale for applying the translational medical research model of bench to bedside to the authors’ translational education research model of lab to learner. The dilemma of translational research for end users and a description of the related Freddie Reisman Center for Translational Research in Creativity and Motivation (FRC) at Drexel University also are included.
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.
Methods:
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.
Results:
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.
Conclusions:
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.
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 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.
Methods:
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.
Results:
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.
Conclusions:
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.
Advancing the new field of translational science and developing innovative solutions to overcome translational roadblocks are key priorities of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS). However, interpreting this emerging concept of “translational science” (TS) as a field of inquiry distinct from “translational research” (TR) and developing real-world investigations in TS can be challenging. The goal of this paper is to share the obstacles the Einstein-Montefiore CTSA hub has faced in generating institutional interest and research in TS and to present potential strategies for addressing them. The aim is to stimulate dialog within the wider CTSA community and beyond about the need to systematically examine how TS should be efficiently and effectively pursued, that is, the science of translational science. The collective sharing of experiences and innovative approaches to overcoming TS challenges that arise at CTSA hubs is critical if the field is to grow and gain wider recognition and acceptance by the scientific and broader communities.
Translational research (TR) is the movement of fundamental scientific discoveries into healthcare settings and population health policy, and parallels the goals of DOHaD research. Unfortunately, there is little guidance on how to become a translational researcher. To understand the opinions of DOHaD trainees towards TR, we conducted a workshop at the DOHaD World Congress 2022. We found that trainees were enthusiastic for their work to have translational impact, and that they feel that holistic, multidisciplinary solutions may lead to more generalisable research. However, there lacks support for TR career pathways, which may stall the execution of the long-term vision of the DOHaD agenda. We put forward recommendations for trainees to clarify their purpose in pursuing TR and for seeking relevant people and patronages to support their training paths. For mentors, training institutions, and scientific societies, we recommend developing TR-specific programmes, and implementing training opportunities, networking events, and funding to support these endeavours.
Knowledge graphs have become a common approach for knowledge representation. Yet, the application of graph methodology is elusive due to the sheer number and complexity of knowledge sources. In addition, semantic incompatibilities hinder efforts to harmonize and integrate across these diverse sources. As part of The Biomedical Translator Consortium, we have developed a knowledge graph–based question-answering system designed to augment human reasoning and accelerate translational scientific discovery: the Translator system. We have applied the Translator system to answer biomedical questions in the context of a broad array of diseases and syndromes, including Fanconi anemia, primary ciliary dyskinesia, multiple sclerosis, and others. A variety of collaborative approaches have been used to research and develop the Translator system. One recent approach involved the establishment of a monthly “Question-of-the-Month (QotM) Challenge” series. Herein, we describe the structure of the QotM Challenge; the six challenges that have been conducted to date on drug-induced liver injury, cannabidiol toxicity, coronavirus infection, diabetes, psoriatic arthritis, and ATP1A3-related phenotypes; the scientific insights that have been gleaned during the challenges; and the technical issues that were identified over the course of the challenges and that can now be addressed to foster further development of the prototype Translator system. We close with a discussion on Large Language Models such as ChatGPT and highlight differences between those models and the Translator system.
Midcareer is a critical transition point for biomedical research faculty and a common dropout point from an NIH-funded career. We report a study to assess the efficacy of a group peer mentoring program for diverse biomedical researchers in academic medicine, seeking to improve vitality, career advancement, and cross-cultural competence.
Methods:
We conducted a stratified randomized controlled trial with a waitlist control group involving 40 purposefully diverse early midcareer research faculty from 16 states who had a first-time NIH R01 (or equivalent) award, a K training grant, or a similar major grant. The yearlong intervention (2 to 3 days quarterly) consisted of facilitated, structured, group peer mentoring. Main study aims were to enhance faculty vitality, self-efficacy in achieving research success, career advancement, mentoring others, and cultural awareness and appreciation of diversity in the workplace.
Results:
Compared to the control group, the intervention group’s increased vitality did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.20), but perceived change in vitality was 1.47 standard deviations higher (D = 1.47, P = 0.03). Self-efficacy for career advancement was higher in the intervention group (D = 0.41, P = 0.05) as was self-efficacy for research (D = 0.57, P = 0.02). The intervention group also valued diversity higher (D = 0.46, P = 0.02), had higher cognitive empathy (D = 0.85, P = 0.03), higher anti-sexism/racism skills (D = 0.71, P = 0.01), and higher self-efficacy in mentoring others (D = 1.14, P = 0.007).
Conclusions:
The mentoring intervention resulted in meaningful change in important dimensions and skills among a national sample of diverse early midcareer biomedical faculty. This mentoring program holds promise for addressing the urgencies of sustaining faculty vitality and cross-cultural competence.