This study describes the design, operation, and evaluation of a community-based research (CBR) consult service within the setting of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) institution. To our knowledge, there are no published evaluations of a CBR consult service at a CTSA hub.

A CBR consult service was created to support faculty, health-care providers/research coordinators, trainees, community-based organizations, and community members. A framework was developed to assess the stages of client engagement and to foster clear articulation of client needs and challenges. A developmental evaluation system was integrated with the framework to track progress, store documents, continuously improve the consult service, and assess research outcomes.

This framework provides information on client numbers, types, services used, and successful outreach methods. Tracking progress reveals reasons that prevent clients from completing projects and facilitates learning outcomes relevant to clients and funding agencies. Clients benefit from the expert knowledge, community connections, and project guidance provided by the consult service team, increasing the likelihood of study completion and achieving research outcomes.

This study offers a framework by which CTSA institutions can expand their capacity to conduct and evaluate CBR while addressing challenges that inhibit community engagement.

The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) seeks to improve population health by accelerating the translation of scientific discoveries in the laboratory and clinic into practices for the community. CTSAs achieve this goal, in part, through their pilot project programs that fund promising early career investigators and innovative early-stage research projects across the translational research spectrum. However, there have been few reports on individual pilot projects and their impacts on the investigators who receive them and no studies on the long-term impact and outcomes of pilot projects.

The Georgia CTSA funded 183 pilot projects from 2007 to 2015. We used a structured evaluation framework, the payback framework, to document the outcomes of 16 purposefully-selected pilot projects supported by the Georgia CTSA. We used a case study approach including bibliometric analyses of publications associated with the selected projects, document review, and investigator interviews.

These pilot projects had positive impact based on outcomes in five “payback categories”: (1) knowledge; (2) research targeting, capacity building, and absorption; (3) policy and product development; (4) health benefits; and (5) broader economic benefits.

Results could inform our understanding of the diversity and breadth of outcomes resulting from Georgia CTSA-supported research and provide a framework for evaluating long-term pilot project outcomes across CTSAs.

Clinical Research Coordinators (CRCs) are key members of research teams who ensure rigorous conduction of clinical studies and quality standard compliance. Yet, their roles and responsibilities are still not well defined, and formal recognition of their professional profile is lacking in Italy. This survey of Italian healthcare institutions collected data on centers’ research activities number of CRCs and tasks they performed and explored factors associated with CRC employment.

Cross-sectional study using a brief questionnaire. Data were analyzed by means of graphical representations, histogram, scatter, and polar plots. Multivariable linear regression was specified to test the association between the number of CRCs and a subset of factors.

Data collection took place from February to December 2020. 62/143 institutions (43.4%) responded. Median number of ongoing studies reported by centers was 65 (IQR 29–205); of these, median of sponsored and interventional studies was 32 and 35, respectively. Median number of CRCs employed at each center was 6 (IQR 2–9). The frequency with which activities were reported to be performed by CRCs overlapped with those of Data Managers. Linear multivariable regression analysis revealed a statistically significant association between the number of employed CRCs and the number of sponsored studies (P = 0.01), but not with the total number of studies, geographical location, or institution type.

The association between industry funding and the number of CRCs observed in this study should be further explored to understand the direction of this relationship and to verify whether this may influence compliance with quality standards.

Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) is a secure, web-based electronic data capture application for building and managing surveys and databases. It can also be used for study management, data transfer, and data export into a variety of statistical programs. REDcap was developed and supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Program and is used in over 3700 institutions worldwide. It can also be used to track and measure stakeholder engagement, an integral element of research funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Continuously and accurately tracking and reporting on stakeholder engagement activities throughout the life of a PCORI-funded trial can be challenging, particularly in complex trials with multiple types of engagement.

In this paper, we show our approach for collecting and capturing stakeholder engagement activities using a shareable REDCap tool in one of the PCORI’s first large pragmatic clinical trials (the Comprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services) to inform other investigators planning cluster-randomized pragmatic trials. Benefits and challenges are highlighted for researchers seeking to consistently monitor and measure stakeholder engagement.

We describe how REDCap can provide a time-saving approach to capturing how stakeholders engage in a PCORI-funded study and reporting how stakeholders influenced the study in progress reports back to PCORI.

COVID-19 altered research in Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs in an unprecedented manner, leading to adjustments for COVID-19 research.

CTSA members volunteered to conduct a review on the impact of CTSA network on COVID-19 pandemic with the assistance from NIH survey team in October 2020. The survey questions included the involvement of CTSAs in decision-making concerning the prioritization of COVID-19 studies. Descriptive and statistical analyses were conducted to analyze the survey data.

60 of the 64 CTSAs completed the survey. Most CTSAs lacked preparedness but promptly responded to the pandemic. Early disruption of research triggered, enhanced CTSA engagement, creation of dedicated research areas and triage for prioritization of COVID-19 studies. CTSAs involvement in decision-making were 16.75 times more likely to create dedicated diagnostic laboratories (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.17–129.39; P < 0.01). Likewise, institutions with internal funding were 3.88 times more likely to establish COVID-19 dedicated research (95% CI = 1.12–13.40; P < 0.05). CTSAs were instrumental in securing funds and facilitating establishment of laboratory/clinical spaces for COVID-19 research. Workflow was modified to support contracting and IRB review at most institutions with CTSAs. To mitigate chaos generated by competing clinical trials, central feasibility committees were often formed for orderly review/prioritization.

The lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic emphasize the pivotal role of CTSAs in prioritizing studies and establishing the necessary research infrastructure, and the importance of prompt and flexible research leadership with decision-making capacity to manage future pandemics.

To examine research participants’ levels of satisfaction and perceptions and aid researchers to better engage research volunteers from all racial and ethnic populations in clinical trials. A participant satisfaction survey was developed that focused on three domains to reflect satisfaction with delivery of care, environment, and center operations. In addition, the survey contained open-ended questions to reflect overall experiences and perceptions. Two hundred and seventy-eight participants (55% African American and 29% non-Hispanic Whites) with an average age of 52 years completed the survey.

The results indicated that the majority of the participants rated their satisfaction very highly across all domains. Ninety percent stated they were very satisfied/satisfied or very strongly agreed/agreed in the three domains. Obtaining high-quality care/access to health care professionals (60%), learning more about their illness/disease (60%), and helping others (57%) were noted as important factors in choosing to participate in a trial. Regarding overall experience, majority of respondents stated that friendliness, expertise of staff, learning more about their disease, and contributing to science were important. Further, financial compensation was not a primary motivation for participation. A majority of participants stated that they would participate in future studies and would recommend a friend or a family member to participate in clinical trials.

The findings indicate that the degree of satisfaction with the research staff and with the specific trial itself are important determinants for enrolling, completing a study, and for participating in future trials.

There has been a recent trend in medical research towards a more collaborative relationship between statisticians and clinical investigators. This has led to an increased focus on the most efficient and effective ways to structure, conduct, and measure the impact of organizations that provide statistical services to clinical investigators. Several recent guidelines and recommendations on the conduct of statistical consulting services(SCSs) have been made in response to this need, focusing on larger SCSs consisting primarily of faculty and staff statisticians. However, the application of these recommendations to consulting services primarily staffed by graduate students, which have the dual role of providing a professional service and training, remains unclear.

Guidelines and recommendations, primarily from the Clinical and Translational Science (CTSA) consortium, were applied to a SCS staffed primarily by graduate students in an academic health center. A description of the organizational structure and outcomes after 3 years of operation is presented.

The guidelines recommended by the CTSA consortium and other groups were successfully incorporated into the graduate consulting laboratory. At almost one new project request per week, the consulting laboratory demonstrated a large bandwidth and had an excellent feedback from investigators.

Guidelines developed for larger statistical consulting organizations are able to be applied in student-led consultation organizations. Outcomes and recommendations from 3.5 years of operation are used to describe the successes and challenges we have encountered.

Community Health Workers and Promotoras (CHW/Ps) are valued for their role in helping to engage community members in research. CHW/Ps have traditionally received variable training in research fundamentals, including importance and promotion of research rigor to establish consistency in the methods used over time. Research best practices training exists for research professionals, but no standard training is provided as part of the CHW/P job role. To develop this CHW/P research best practices training, our team engaged English- and Spanish-speaking CHW/Ps to watch an early version of an online module and to examine perceptions of the relevance of such a training and optimal delivery methods.

Six virtual focus group discussions were conducted (three in English and three in Spanish) across different US geographic regions with currently employed CHW/Ps.

Forty CHW/Ps participated (95% female, mean age 44 years, 58% identifying as Hispanic/Latino). Four themes emerged: relevance of training, benefits of providing a certificate of completion, flexible training delivery modalities, and peer-led training.

With participation from representatives of the intended learner group of CHW/Ps, our team found that CHW/Ps valued learning about research best practices. They perceived culturally- and linguistically appropriate health research training to be highly relevant to their role, particularly for communicating key information to community members about their participation in health research. Additionally, participants provided input on effective dissemination of the training including the benefit of having proof of course completion, involvement of peer trainers, and value of providing the option to participate in online training.

Statistical literacy is essential in clinical and translational science (CTS). Statistical competencies have been published to guide coursework design and selection for graduate students in CTS. Here, we describe common elements of graduate curricula for CTS and identify gaps in the statistical competencies.

We surveyed statistics educators using e-mail solicitation sent through four professional organizations. Respondents rated the degree to which 24 educational statistical competencies were included in required and elective coursework in doctoral-level and master’s-level programs for CTS learners. We report competency results from institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs), reflecting institutions that have invested in CTS training.

There were 24 CTSA-funded respondents representing 13 doctoral-level programs and 23 master’s-level programs. For doctoral-level programs, competencies covered extensively in required coursework for all doctoral-level programs were basic principles of probability and hypothesis testing, understanding the implications of selecting appropriate statistical methods, and computing appropriate descriptive statistics. The only competency extensively covered in required coursework for all master’s-level programs was understanding the implications of selecting appropriate statistical methods. The least covered competencies included understanding the purpose of meta-analysis and the uses of early stopping rules in clinical trials. Competencies considered to be less fundamental and more specialized tended to be covered less frequently in graduate courses.

While graduate courses in CTS tend to cover many statistical fundamentals, learning gaps exist, particularly for more specialized competencies. Educational material to fill these gaps is necessary for learners pursuing these activities.

Air pollution is linked to mortality and morbidity. Since humans spend nearly all their time indoors, improving indoor air quality (IAQ) is a compelling approach to mitigate air pollutant exposure. To assess interventions, relying on clinical outcomes may require prolonged follow-up, which hinders feasibility. Thus, identifying biomarkers that respond to changes in IAQ may be useful to assess the effectiveness of interventions.

We conducted a narrative review by searching several databases to identify studies published over the last decade that measured the response of blood, urine, and/or salivary biomarkers to variations (natural and intervention-induced) of changes in indoor air pollutant exposure.

Numerous studies reported on associations between IAQ exposures and biomarkers with heterogeneity across study designs and methods. This review summarizes the responses of 113 biomarkers described in 30 articles. The biomarkers which most frequently responded to variations in indoor air pollutant exposures were high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), von Willebrand Factor (vWF), 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), and 1-hydroxypyrene (1-OHP).

This review will guide the selection of biomarkers for translational studies evaluating the impact of indoor air pollutants on human health.

Community-based organizations (CBOs) are well-positioned to incorporate research evidence, local expertise, and contextual factors to address health inequities. However, insufficient capacity limits use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in these settings. Capacity-building implementation strategies are popular, but a lack of standard models and validated measures hinders progress in the field. To advance the literature, we conducted a comprehensive scoping review.

With a reference librarian, we executed a comprehensive search strategy of PubMed/Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, and EBSCO Global Health. We included articles that addressed implementation science, capacity-building, and CBOs. Of 5527 articles, 99 met our inclusion criteria, and we extracted data using a double-coding process

Of the 99 articles, 47% defined capacity explicitly, 31% defined it indirectly, and 21% did not define it. Common concepts in definitions were skills, knowledge/expertise, and resources. Of the 57 articles with quantitative analysis, 48 (82%) measured capacity, and 11 (23%) offered psychometric data for the capacity measures. Of the 99 studies, 40% focused exclusively on populations experiencing inequities and 22% included those populations to some extent. The bulk of the studies came from high-income countries.

Implementation scientists should 1) be explicit about models and definitions of capacity and strategies for building capacity, 2) specify expected multi-level implementation outcomes, 3) develop and use validated measures for quantitative work, and 4) integrate equity considerations into the conceptualization and measurement of capacity-building efforts. With these refinements, we can ensure that the necessary supports reach CBO practitioners and critical partners for addressing health inequities.

Clinical/translational science (CTS) is team-based, requiring effective collaboration and communication across many disciplines involving a variety of stakeholders. We implemented a pre-doctoral team-based training model with didactic and experiential curricular interventions to support the development of CTS research skills in a cross-disciplinary team environment. We assessed the potential impact of this new training model as a team science intervention that can catalyze new cross-disciplinary collaborations across the institution.

Between 2016 and 2020, 32 pre-doctoral students and 26 co-mentors participated in the assessment of the CTS Team program over a two-year period of TL1 training grant support. Data collection and analyses followed a program logic model and used a variety of metrics for clinical and translational scientist career success.

CTS training in the context of CTS Teams supported improved self-efficacy for clinical research skills and resulted in a significant increase in the frequency of participation in cross-disciplinary collaborative activities by both trainees and mentors. Most CTS Team co-mentor pairs had not previously collaborated. Two-thirds of the co-mentors plan to continue collaborating, and most (85%) currently use or plan to use collaboration tools, for example, written collaboration plans, authorship agreements.

The CTS Team training model provides a unique clinical and translational science team training experience that embeds authentic cross-disciplinary research collaboration into PhD research projects. It establishes trainee cohorts that are diverse in terms of scientific disciplines and translational research phases, and creates a new cross-disciplinary community of practice across faculty members and research groups in multiple colleges.

The Best Practices in Social and Behavioral Research Course was developed to provide instruction on good clinical practice for social and behavioral trials. This study evaluated the new course.

Participants across 4 universities took the course (n=294) and were sent surveys following course completion and 2 months later. Outcomes included relevance, how engaging the course was, and working differently because of the course. Open-ended questions were posed to understand how work was impacted.

Participants rated the course as relevant and engaging (6.4 and 5.8/7 points) and reported working differently (4.7/7 points). Participants with less experience in social and behavioral trials were most likely to report working differently 2 months later.

The course was perceived as relevant and engaging. Participants described actions taken to improve rigor in implementing trials. Future studies with a larger sample and additional participating sites are recommended.

A lack of standardized clinical research coordinator (CRC) training programs requires determining appropriate approaches for content delivery. The purpose of this study was to assess CRCs preferred training delivery methods related to the 8 designated Joint Task Force Clinical Trial Competency domains.

Repeated measures analysis of variance and split-plot analysis of variance were adopted to compare the group means among 5 training delivery methods by 8 competency content domains and to examine whether demographic variables caused different preference patterns on the training delivery methods.

Participants reported a preference for online video; mentoring/coaching was the least preferred. Significant training delivery method preferences were reported for 3 content domains: participant safety considerations, medicines development and regulation, and clinical trials operations.

Observed statistical differences in the training delivery methods by the content domains provides guidance for program development. Ensuring that standardized educational training is aligned with the needs of adult learners may help ensure that CRCs are appropriately prepared for the workforce.