Clinical trials provide the “gold standard” evidence for advancing the practice of medicine, even as they evolve to integrate real-world data sources. Modern clinical trials are increasingly incorporating real-world data sources – data not intended for research and often collected in free-living contexts. We refer to trials that incorporate real-world data sources as real-world trials. Such trials may have the potential to enhance the generalizability of findings, facilitate pragmatic study designs, and evaluate real-world effectiveness. However, key differences in the design, conduct, and implementation of real-world vs traditional trials have ramifications in data management that can threaten their desired rigor.

Three examples of real-world trials that leverage different types of data sources – wearables, medical devices, and electronic health records are described. Key insights applicable to all three trials in their relationship to Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) are derived.

Insight and recommendations are given on four topic areas: A. Charge of the DSMB; B. Composition of the DSMB; C. Pre-launch Activities; and D. Post-launch Activities. We recommend stronger and additional focus on data integrity.

Clinical trials can benefit from incorporating real-world data sources, potentially increasing the generalizability of findings and overall trial scale and efficiency. The data, however, present a level of informatic complexity that relies heavily on a robust data science infrastructure. The nature of monitoring the data and safety must evolve to adapt to new trial scenarios to protect the rigor of clinical trials.

West Virginia is a rural state with high rates of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and prediabetes. The Diabetes Prevention and Management (DPM) program was a health coach (HC)-led, 12-month community-based lifestyle intervention.

The study examined the impact of the DPM program on changes in glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) and weight over twelve months among rural adults with diabetes and prediabetes. Program feasibility and acceptability were also explored.

An explanatory sequential quantitative and qualitative one-group study design was used to gain insight into the pre- and 12-month changes to health behavior and clinical outcomes. Trained HCs delivered the educational sessions and provided weekly health coaching feedback. Assessments included demographics, clinical, anthropometric, and qualitative focus groups. Participants included 94 obese adults with diabetes (63%) and prediabetes (37%). Twenty-two participated in three focus groups.

Average attendance was 13.7 ± 6.1 out of 22 sessions. Mean weight loss was 4.4 ± 11.5 lbs at twelve months and clinical improvement in A1C (0.4%) was noted among T2DM adults. Program retention (82%) was higher among older participants and those with poor glycemic control. While all participants connected to a trained HC, only 72% had regular weekly health coaching. Participants reported overall acceptability and satisfaction with the program and limited barriers to program engagement.

Our findings suggest that it is feasible to implement an HC-led DPM program in rural communities and improve A1C in T2DM adults. Trained HCs have the potential to be integrated with healthcare teams in rural regions of the United States.

Scientific endeavors are increasingly carried out by teams of scientists. While there is growing literature on factors associated with effective science teams, little is known about processes that facilitate the success of dissemination and implementation (D&I) teams studying the uptake of healthcare innovations. This study aimed to identify strategies used by D&I scientists to promote team science.

Using a nominal group technique, a sample of 27 D&I scholars responded to the question, “What strategies have you or others used to promote team science?” Participants were asked to individually respond and then discuss within a small group to determine the group’s top three strategies. Through a facilitated consensus discussion with the full sample, a rank-ordered list of three strategies was determined.

A total of 126 individual responses (M = 9; SD = 4.88) were submitted. Through small group discussion, six groups ranked their top three strategies to promote team science. The final ranked list of strategies determined by the full sample included: (1) developing and maintaining clear expectations, (2) promoting and modeling effective communication, and (3) establishing shared goals and a mission of the work to be accomplished.

Because of its goal of translating knowledge to practice, D&I research necessitates the use of team science. The top strategies are in line with those found to be effective for teams in other fields and hold promise for improving D&I team cohesion and innovation, which may ultimately accelerate the translation of health innovations and the improvement of care quality and outcomes.

Recruitment of study participants is challenging and can incur significant costs. Social media advertising is a promising method for recruiting clinical studies and may improve cost efficiency by targeting populations likely to match a study’s qualifications. Prior systematic reviews of social media as a recruitment tool have been favourable, however, there are no meta-analyses of its cost-effectiveness.

Studies evaluating recruitment costs through social media and non-social media methods were identified on MEDLINE and EMBASE. Articles were screened through a two-step process in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Cost data were extracted from selected articles and meta-analyzed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The primary outcome was the relative cost-effectiveness of social media compared to non-social media recruitment, defined as the odds ratio of recruiting a participant per US dollar spent. The secondary outcome was the cost-effectiveness of social media recruitment compared to other online recruitment methods only.

In total, 23 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The odds ratio of recruiting a participant through social media advertising compared to non-social media methods per dollar spent was 1.97 [95% CI 1.24–3.00, P = 0.004]. The odds ratio of recruiting a participant through social media compared to other online methods only was 1.66 [95% CI 1.02–2.72, P = 0.04].

Social media advertising may be more cost-effective than other methods of recruitment, however, the magnitude of cost-effectiveness is highly variable between studies. There are limited data on newer social media platforms and on difficult-to-reach populations such as non-English speakers or older individuals.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) has been a leader in cancer-related dissemination & implementation (D&I) science. Given increased demand for D&I research, the CPCRN Scholars Program launched in 2021 to expand the number of practitioners, researchers, and trainees proficient in cancer D&I science methods.

The evaluation was informed by a logic model and data collected through electronic surveys. Through an application process (baseline survey), we assessed scholars’ competencies in D&I science domains/subdomains, collected demographic data, and asked scholars to share proposed project ideas. We distributed an exit survey one month after program completion to assess scholars’ experience and engagement with the program and changes in D&I competencies. A follow-up survey was administered to alumni nine months post-program to measure their continued network engagement, accomplishments, and skills.

Three cohorts completed the program, consisting of 20, 17, and 25 scholars in Years 1-3, respectively. There was a significant increase in the total D&I competency scores for all three cohorts for 4 overarching domains and 43 subdomains (MPre = 1.38 MPost = 1.89). Differences were greatest for the domain of Practice-Based Considerations (0.50 mean difference) and Theory & Analysis (0.47 mean difference). Alumni surveys revealed that scholars appreciated access to D&I-focused webinars, toolkits, and training resources. 80% remain engaged with CPCRN workgroups and investigators.

Program evaluation with scholars and alumni helped with ongoing quality assurance, introspection, and iterative program adaptation to meet scholars’ needs. This approach is recommended for large-scale capacity-building training programs.

Clinical and Translational Award (CTSA) programs are developing relevant training for researchers and community stakeholders participating in community-engaged research (CEnR). However, there is limited research exploring the ways community stakeholders and partners with key CEnR experiences can inform and shape training priorities for prospective CEnR scholars to build meaningful and equitable partnerships.

This study conducted and analyzed online individual semi-structured in-depth interviews with community stakeholders (n = 13) engaged in CEnR to identify training priorities for graduate students and emerging scholars.

Thematic analysis of 13 interview transcripts revealed four major training priorities for prospective scholars interested in engaging in CEnR: 1) researcher’s positionality, 2) equitable power sharing, 3) funding, and 4) ethics.

Building equitable research partnerships was a central theme woven across all four training priorities. Further research should focus on examining the development, implementation, and evaluation of CEnR training in partnership with community stakeholders and partners with relevant CEnR experience. Adopting a collaborative approach to incorporate both community stakeholders and researchers’ priorities can align training competencies to better prepare scholars to engage in building research partnerships.

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.

Choosing an appropriate electronic data capture system (EDC) is a critical decision for all randomized controlled trials (RCT). In this paper, we document our process for developing and implementing an EDC for a multisite RCT evaluating the efficacy and implementation of an enhanced primary care model for individuals with opioid use disorder who are returning to the community from incarceration.

Informed by the Knowledge-to-Action conceptual framework and user-centered design principles, we used Claris Filemaker software to design and implement CRICIT, a novel EDC that could meet the varied needs of the many stakeholders involved in our study.

CRICIT was deployed in May 2021 and has been continuously iterated and adapted since. CRICIT’s features include extensive participant tracking capabilities, site-specific adaptability, integrated randomization protocols, and the ability to generate both site-specific and study-wide summary reports.

CRICIT is highly customizable, adaptable, and secure. Its implementation has enhanced the quality of the study’s data, increased fidelity to a complicated research protocol, and reduced research staff’s administrative burden. CRICIT and similar systems have the potential to streamline research activities and contribute to the efficient collection and utilization of clinical research data.

Essential trace elements and micronutrients are critical in eliciting an effective immune response to combat sepsis, with selenium being particularly noteworthy. The objective of this investigation is to analyze and the levels of serum selenium in neonates within sepsis and control groups.

In 2023, a case–control study was carried out involving 66 hospitalized infants – 33 diagnosed with sepsis forming the case group and 33 free from sepsis constituting the control group – along with their mothers, at Children’s and Shariati Hospitals in Bandar Abbas. The serum selenium concentrations (expressed in micrograms per deciliter) were quantified utilizing atomic absorption spectrometry. Subsequently, the data were processed and analyzed using IBM SPSS statistical software, version 22.

The average serum selenium level in neonates with sepsis (42.06 ± 20.40 µg/dL) was notably lower compared to the control group (55.61 ± 20.33 µg/dL), a difference that was statistically significant (p-value = 0.009). The levels of serum selenium were comparable between neonates and mothers across both study groups.

The findings of this research indicate that selenium levels in the sepsis group were reduced compared to the control group, despite similar selenium levels in the mothers and neonates in both groups, suggesting that sepsis could be associated with a decrease in selenium levels.

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.

We describe the effectiveness of community outreach and engagement in supporting recruitment for the US National Children’s Vanguard Study between 2009 and 2012.

Thirty-seven study locations used 1 of 4 strategies to recruit 18–49-year-old pregnant or trying to conceive women: (1) Initial Vanguard Study used household-based recruitment; (2) Direct Outreach emphasized self-referral; (3) Enhanced Household-Based Recruitment enhanced Initial Vanguard Study strategies; and (4) Provider-Based Recruitment recruited through healthcare providers. Outreach and engagement included advance letters, interactions with healthcare providers, participation in community events, contacts with community organizations, and media outreach.

After 1–2 years, 41%–74% of 9844 study-eligible women had heard about the National Children’s Vanguard Study when first approached. Women who heard were 1.5–3 times more likely to consent. Hearing via word-of-mouth or the media most frequently predicted consent. The more sources women heard from the higher the odds of consent.

We conclude that tailored outreach and engagement facilitate recruitment in cohort studies.