The need to diversify the biomedical research workforce is well documented. The importance of fostering the careers of fledgling underrepresented background (URB) biomedical researchers is evident in light of the national and local scarcity of URB scientists in biomedical research. The Career Education and Enhancement for Health Care Research Diversity (CEED) program at the University of Pittsburgh Institute for Clinical Research Education (ICRE) was designed to promote career success and help seal the “leaky pipeline” for URB researchers. In this study, we aimed to quantify CEED’s effect on several key outcomes by comparing CEED Scholars to a matched set of URB ICRE trainees not enrolled in CEED using data collected over 10 years.

We collected survey data on CEED Scholars from 2007 to 2017 and created a matched set of URB trainees not enrolled in CEED using propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio. Poisson regression was used to compare the rate of publications between CEED and non-CEED URB trainees after adjusting for baseline number of publications.

CEED has 45 graduates. Seventy-six percent are women, 78% are non-White, and 33% are Hispanic/Latino. Twenty-four CEED Scholars were matched to non-CEED URB trainees. Compared to matched URB trainees, CEED graduates had more peer-reviewed publications (p=0.0261) and were more likely to be an assistant professor (p=0.0145).

Programs that support URB researchers can help expand and diversify the biomedical research workforce. CEED has been successful despite the challenges of a small demographic pool.

The rapid implementation of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated the existing health disparities. This study investigated the association between the area deprivation index (ADI), which serves as a measure of socioeconomic deprivation within a geographic area, and the utilization of telemedicine in primary care.

The study data source was electronic health records. The study population consisted of patients with at least one primary care visit between March 2020 and December 2021. The primary outcome of interest was the visit modality (office, phone, and video). The exposure of interest was the ADI score grouped into quartiles (one to four, with one being the least deprived). The confounders included patient sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, race, ethnicity, insurance coverage, marital status). We utilized generalized estimating equations to compare the utilization of telemedicine visits with office visits, as well as phone visits with video visits.

The study population included 41,583 patients with 127,165 office visits, 39,484 phone visits, and 20,268 video visits. Compared to patients in less disadvantaged neighborhoods (ADI quartile = one), patients in more disadvantaged neighborhoods (ADI = two, three, or four) had higher odds of using phone visits vs office visits, lower odds of using video visits vs office visits, and higher odds of using phone visits vs video visits.

Patients who resided in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods mainly relied on phone consultations for telemedicine visits with their primary care provider. Patient-level interventions are essential for achieving equitable access to digital healthcare, particularly for low-income individuals.

Identifying the most effective ways to support career development of early stage investigators in clinical and translational science should yield benefits for the biomedical research community. Institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) offer KL2 programs to facilitate career development; however, the sustained impact has not been widely assessed.

A survey comprised of quantitative and qualitative questions was sent to 2144 individuals that had previously received support through CTSA KL2 mechanisms. The 547 responses were analyzed with identifying information redacted.

Respondents held MD (47%), PhD (36%), and MD/PhD (13%) degrees. After KL2 support was completed, physicians’ time was divided 50% to research and 30% to patient care, whereas PhD respondents devoted 70% time to research. Funded research effort averaged 60% for the cohort. Respondents were satisfied with their career progression. More than 95% thought their current job was meaningful. Two-thirds felt confident or very confident in their ability to sustain a career in clinical and translational research. Factors cited as contributing to career success included protected time, mentoring, and collaborations.

This first large systematic survey of KL2 alumni provides valuable insight into the group’s perceptions of the program and outcome information. Former scholars are largely satisfied with their career choice and direction, national recognition of their expertise, and impact of their work. Importantly, they identified training activities that contributed to success. Our results and future analysis of the survey data should inform the framework for developing platforms to launch sustaining careers of translational scientists.

High impact biomedical research is increasingly conducted by large, transdisciplinary, multisite teams in an increasingly collaborative environment. Thriving in this environment requires robust teamwork skills, which are not acquired automatically in the course of traditional scientific education. Team science skills training does exist, but most is directed at clinical care teams, not research teams, and little is focused on the specific training needs of early-career investigators, whose early team leadership experiences may shape their career trajectories positively or negatively. Our research indicated a need for team science training designed specifically for early-career investigators.

To address this need, we designed and delivered a 2-day workshop focused on teaching team science skills to early-career investigators. We operationalized team science competencies, sought the advice of team science experts, and performed a needs assessment composed of a survey and a qualitative study. Through these multiple approaches, we identified and grouped training priorities into three broad training areas and developed four robust, hands-on workshop sessions.

Attendees comprised 30 pre- and post-doc fellows (TL1) and early-career faculty (KL2 and K12). We assessed impact with a pre- and post-workshop survey adapted from the Team Skills Scale. Results from the pre- and post-test Wilcoxon signed-rank analysis (n = 25) showed statistically significant improvement in team science skills and confidence. Open-ended responses indicated that the workshop focus was appropriate and well targeted to the trainees’ needs.

Although team science education is still very much in its infancy, these results suggest that training targeted to early-career investigators improves team skills and may foster improved collaboration.

This article discusses the process of defining competencies and development of a best practices training course for investigators and clinical research coordinators who conduct social and behavioral research.

The first project phase established recommendations for training in Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and was done in conjunction with representatives from 62 Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs. Diversity in behavioral clinical trials and differences in regulation of behavioral trials compared with clinical trials involving drugs, devices, or biologics necessitated a separate Social and Behavioral Work Group. This group worked with CTSA representatives to tailor competencies and fundamental GCP principles into best practices for social and behavioral research.

Although concepts underlying GCP were deemed similar across all clinical trials, not all areas were equally applicable and the ways in which GCP would be enacted differ for behavioral trials. It was determined that suitable training in best practices for social and behavioral research was lacking.

Based on the training need, an e-learning course for best practices is available to all CTSA sites. Each institution is able to track outcomes for its employees to help achieve standardized competency-based best practices for social and behavioral investigators and staff.

The National Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium 2.0 has developed common metrics as a collaborative project for all participating sites. Metrics address several important aspects and functions of the consortium, including workforce development. The first workforce development metrics to be proposed for all CTSA hubs include the proportion of CTSA-supported trainees and scholars with sustainable careers in translational research and the diversity and inclusiveness of programs.

The University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS), a CTSA hub, has been actively engaged in mentoring translational scientists for the last decade. We have developed programs, processes, and institutional policies that support translational scientists, which have resulted in 100% of our KL2 scholars remaining engaged in translational science and in increasing the inclusion of individuals under-represented in medicine in our research enterprise. In this paper, we share details of our program and what we believe are evidence-based best practices for developing sustainable translational research careers for all aspiring junior faculty members.

The University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science has been integral in catalyzing interactions across the campus to reverse the negative trends seen nationally in sustaining clinician scientists. Our programs and processes can serve as a model for other institutions seeking to develop translational scientists.

Social media is increasingly being used in research, including recruitment.

For the Bayley Short Form Formative Study, which was conducted under the the National Children’s Study, traditional methods of recruitment proved to be ineffective. Therefore, digital media were identified as potential channels for recruitment.

Results included successful recruitment of over 1800 infant and toddler participants to the Study.

This paper outlines the methods, results, and future research opportunities.

The use of online platforms for pediatric healthcare research is timely, given the current pandemic. These platforms facilitate trial efficiency integration including electronic consent, randomization, collection of patient/family survey data, delivery of an intervention, and basic data analysis.

We created an online digital platform for a multicenter study that delivered an intervention for sleep disorders to parents of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). An advisory parent group provided input. Participants were randomized to receive either a sleep education pamphlet only or the sleep education pamphlet plus three quick-tips sheets and two videos that reinforced the material in the pamphlet (multimedia materials). Three measures – Family Inventory of Sleep Habits (FISH), Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire modified for ASD (CSHQ-ASD), and Parenting Sense of Competence (PSOC) – were completed before and after 12 weeks of sleep education.

Enrollment exceeded recruitment goals. Trial efficiency was improved, especially in data entry and automatic notification of participants related to survey completion. Most families commented favorably on the study. While study measures did not improve with treatment in either group (pamphlet or multimedia materials), parents reporting an improvement of ≥3 points in the FISH score showed a significantly improved change in the total CSHQ (P = 0.038).

Our study demonstrates the feasibility of using online research delivery platforms to support studies in ASD, and more broadly, pediatric clinical and translational research. Online platforms may increase participant inclusion in enrollment and increase convenience and safety for participants and study personnel.

Insufficient recruitment of groups underrepresented in medical research threatens the generalizability of research findings and compounds inequity in research and medicine. In the present study, we examined barriers and facilitators to recruitment of underrepresented research participants from the perspective of clinical research coordinators (CRCs).

CRCs from one adult and one pediatric academic medical centers completed an online survey in April-May 2022. Survey topics included: participant language and translations, cultural competency training, incentives for research participation, study location, and participant research literacy. CRCs also reported their success in recruiting individuals from various backgrounds and completed an implicit bias measure.

Surveys were completed by 220 CRCs. CRCs indicated that recruitment is improved by having translated study materials, providing incentives to compensate participants, and reducing the number of in-person study visits. Most CRCs had completed some form of cultural competency training, but most also felt that the training either had no effect or made them feel less confident in approaching prospective participants from backgrounds different than their own. In general, CRCs reported having greater success in recruiting prospective participants from groups that are not underrepresented in research. Results of the implicit bias measure did not indicate that bias was associated with intentions to approach a prospective participant.

CRCs identified several strategies to improve recruitment of underrepresented research participants, and CRC insights aligned with insights from research participants in previous work. Further research is needed to understand the impact of cultural competency training on recruitment of underrepresented research participants.

Along with the greater research enterprise, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) had to quickly adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic. IRBs had to review and oversee COVID-related research, while navigating strict public health measures and a workforce largely relegated to working from home. Our objectives were to measure adjustments to standard IRB review processes, IRB turnaround time and document and any novel ethical issues encountered.

Structured data requests were sent to members of the Consortium to Advance Effective Research Ethics Oversight directing Human Research Protection Programs (HRPP).

Fourteen of the 32 HRPP director members responded to a questionnaire about their approach to review and oversight during COVID-19. Eleven of the 14 provided summary data on COVID-19-specific protocols and six of the 11 provided protocol-related documents for our review. All respondents adopted at least one additional COVID-19-specific step to their usual review process. The average turnaround time for convened and expedited IRB reviews was 15 calendar days. In our review of the documents from 194 COVID-19-specific protocols (n = 302 documents), we identified only a single review that raised ethical concerns unique to COVID-19.

Our data provide a snapshot of how HRPPs approached the review of COVID-19-specific protocols at the start of the pandemic in the USA. While not generalizable to all HRPPs, these data indicate that HRPPs can adapt and respond quickly response to a pandemic and likely need little novel expertise in the review and oversight of COVID-19-specific protocols.

SARS-CoV-2 has been found in the heart of COVID-19 patients. It is unclear how the virus passes from the upper respiratory tract to the myocardium. We hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 is present in the blood of COVID-19 infected patients, spreading to other organs such as heart.

We targeted two viroporins, Orf3a and E, in SARS-CoV-2. Orf3a and E form non-voltage-gated ion channels. A combined fluorescence potassium ion assay with three channel modulators (4-aminopyridine, emodin-Orf3a channel blocker, and gliclazide-E channel blocker) was developed to detect SARS-CoV-2 Orf3a/E channel activity. In blood samples, we subtracted the fluorescence signals in the absence and presence of emodin/gliclazide to detect Orf3a and E channel activity.

In lentivirus-spiked samples, we detected significant channel activity of Orf3a/E based on increase in fluorescence induced by 4-aminopyridine, and this increase in fluorescence was inhibited by emodin and gliclazide. In 18 antigen/PCR-positive samples, our test results found 15 are positive, demonstrating 83.3% concordance. In 24 antigen/PCR-negative samples, our test results found 21 are negative, showing 87.5% concordance.

We developed a cell-free test that can detect Orf3a/E channel activity of SARS-CoV-2 in blood samples from COVID-19-infected individuals, confirming a hypothesis that the virus spreads to the heart via blood circulation.

Incentivizing the development of interdisciplinary scientific teams to address significant societal challenges usually takes the form of pilot funding. However, while pilot funding is likely necessary, it is not sufficient for successful collaborations. Interdisciplinary collaborations are enhanced when team members acquire competencies that support team success.

We evaluated the impact of a multifaceted team development intervention that included an eight-session workshop spanning two half-days. The workshop employed multiple methods for team development, including lectures on empirically supported best practices, skills-based modules, role plays, hands-on planning sessions, and social interaction within and across teams. We evaluated the impact of the intervention by (1) asking participants to assess each of the workshop sessions and (2) by completing a pre/postquestionnaire that included variables such as readiness to collaborate, goal clarity, process clarity, role ambiguity, and behavioral trust.

The content of the team development intervention was very well received, particularly the workshop session focused on psychological safety. Comparison of survey scores before and after the team development intervention indicated that scores on readiness to collaborate and behavioral trust were significantly higher among participants who attended the workshop. Goal clarity, process clarity, and role ambiguity did not differ among those who attended versus those who did not.

Multicomponent team development interventions that focus on key competencies required for interdisciplinary teams can support attitudes and cognitions that the literature on the science of team science indicate are predictive of success. We offer recommendations for the design of future interventions.