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.

Local nodes on federated research and data networks (FR&DNs) provide enabling infrastructure for collaborative clinical and translational research. Studies in other fields note that infrastructuring, that is, work to identify and negotiate relationships among people, technologies, and organizations, is invisible, unplanned, and undervalued. This may explain the limited literature on nodes in FR&DNs in health care.

A retrospective case study of one PCORnet® node explored 3 questions: (1) how were components of infrastructure assembled; (2) what specific work was required; and (3) what theoretically grounded, pragmatic questions should be considered when infrastructuring a node for sustainability. Artifacts, work efforts, and interviews generated during node development and implementation were reviewed. A sociotechnical lens was applied to the analysis. Validity was established with internal and external partners.

Resources, services, and expertise needed to establish the node existed within the organization, but were scattered across work units. Aligning, mediating, and institutionalizing for sustainability among network and organizational teams, governance, and priorities consumed more work efforts than deploying technical aspects of the node. A theoretically based set of questions relevant to infrastructuring a node was developed and organized within a framework of infrastructuring emphasizing enacting technology, organizing work, and institutionalizing; validity was established with internal and external partners.

FR&DNs are expanding; we provide a sociotechnical perspective on infrastructuring a node. Future research should evaluate the applicability of the framework and questions to other node and network configurations, and more broadly the infrastructuring required to enable and support federated clinical and translational science.

Clinical trials, which are mainly conducted in urban medical centers, may be less accessible to rural residents. Our aims were to assess participation and the factors associated with participation of rural residents in clinical trials.

Using geocoding, the residential address of participants enrolled into clinical trials at Mayo Clinic locations in Arizona, Florida, and the Midwest between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017, was categorized as urban or rural. The distance travelled by participants and trial characteristics was compared between urban and rural participants. Ordinal logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate whether study location and risks were associated with rural participation in trials.

Among 292 trials, including 136 (47%) cancer trials, there were 2313 participants. Of these, 731 (32%) were rural participants, which is greater than the rural population in these 9 states (19%, P < 0.001). Compared to urban participants, rural participants were older (65 ± 12 years vs 64 ± 12 years, P = 0.004) and travelled further to the medical center (103 ± 104 vs 68 ± 88 miles, P < 0.001). The proportion of urban and rural participants who were remunerated was comparable. In the multivariable analysis, the proportion of rural participants was lower (P < 0.001) in Arizona (10%) and Florida (18%) than the Midwest (38%) but not significantly associated with the study-related risks.

Approximately one in three clinical trial participants were rural residents versus one in five in the population. Rural residents travelled further to access clinical trials. The study-associated risks were not associated with the distribution of rural and urban participants in trials.

Growing recognition that collaboration among scientists from diverse disciplines fosters the emergence of solutions to complex scientific problems has spurred initiatives to train researchers to collaborate in interdisciplinary teams. Evaluations of collaboration patterns in these initiatives have tended to be cross-sectional, rather than clarifying temporal changes in collaborative dynamics. Mobile health (mHealth), the science of using mobile, wireless devices to improve health outcomes, is a field whose advancement needs interdisciplinary collaboration. The NIH-supported annual mHealth Training Institute (mHTI) was developed to meet that need and provides a unique testbed.

In this study, we applied a longitudinal social network analysis technique to evaluate how well the program fostered communication among the disciplinarily diverse scholars participating in the 2017−2019 mHTIs. By applying separable temporal exponential random graph models, we investigated the formation and persistence of project-based and fun conversations during the mHTIs.

We found that conversations between scholars of different disciplines were just as likely as conversations within disciplines to form or persist in the 2018 and 2019 mHTI, suggesting that the mHTI achieved its goal of fostering interdisciplinary conversations and could be a model for other team science initiatives; this finding is also true for scholars from different career stages. The presence of team and gender homophily effects in certain years suggested that scholars tended to communicate within the same team or gender.

Our results demonstrate the usefulness of longitudinal network models in evaluating team science initiatives while clarifying the processes driving interdisciplinary communications during the mHTIs.

Ensuring equitable access to health care is a widely agreed-upon goal in medicine, yet access to care is a multidimensional concept that is difficult to measure. Although frameworks exist to evaluate access to care generally, the concept of “access to genomic medicine” is largely unexplored and a clear framework for studying and addressing major dimensions is lacking.

Comprised of seven clinical genomic research projects, the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research consortium (CSER) presented opportunities to examine access to genomic medicine across diverse contexts. CSER emphasized engaging historically underrepresented and/or underserved populations. We used descriptive analysis of CSER participant survey data and qualitative case studies to explore anticipated and encountered access barriers and interventions to address them.

CSER’s enrolled population was largely lower income and racially and ethnically diverse, with many Spanish-preferring individuals. In surveys, less than a fifth (18.7%) of participants reported experiencing barriers to care. However, CSER project case studies revealed a more nuanced picture that highlighted the blurred boundary between access to genomic research and clinical care. Drawing on insights from CSER, we build on an existing framework to characterize the concept and dimensions of access to genomic medicine along with associated measures and improvement strategies.

Our findings support adopting a broad conceptualization of access to care encompassing multiple dimensions, using mixed methods to study access issues, and investing in innovative improvement strategies. This conceptualization may inform clinical translation of other cutting-edge technologies and contribute to the promotion of equitable, effective, and efficient access to genomic medicine.

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.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for assessing safety (risks) and effectiveness (benefits) of new drug products using the data provided in a Sponsor’s new drug product marketing application before they can be marketed. The FDA forms cross-disciplinary review teams to conduct these assessments. Recently, the FDA began implementing more interdisciplinary approaches to its assessments, reducing redundancy in review processes and documentation by increasing team integration around review issues.

Through a phenomenological descriptive comparative case study, the impact of FDA’s new interdisciplinary approach on review team integration was compared with its traditional multidisciplinary review approach.

We identified collaborative integration occurring in one FDA review team using the new interdisciplinary review and another team using the traditional review and then modeled and analyzed the collaborative, cross-disciplinary integration in each case using an input-process-output (IPO) model drawn from the Science-of-Team-Science (SciTS).

This study provides a systematic method for understanding and visualizing integration in each type of review previously and presently used at FDA and illustrates how the new interdisciplinary approach can ensure more integration than more traditional approaches previously used. In addition, our study suggests that an IPO model of integration can characterize how effectively FDA review teams are integrating around issues and assist in the evaluation of differences in integration between FDA’s new interdisciplinary review and the existing multidisciplinary approach. The approach used here is a new application of SciTS scholarship in a unique sector, and it also serves as an example for measuring review team effectiveness.

Unmet social needs contribute to growing health disparities and rising health care costs. Strategies to collect and integrate information on social needs into patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) show promise for connecting patients with community resources. However, gaps remain in understanding the contextual factors that impact implementing these interventions in clinical settings.

We conducted qualitative interviews with patients and focus groups with providers (January−September 2020) in two primary care clinics to inform the implementation of a module that collects and integrates patient-reported social needs information into the EHR. Questions addressed constructs within the Theoretical Framework for Acceptability and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Data were coded deductively using team-based framework analysis, followed by inductive coding and matrix analyses.

Forty patients participated in interviews, with 20 recruited at the clinics and 20 from home. Two focus groups were conducted with a total of 12 providers. Factors salient to acceptability and feasibility included patients’ discomfort answering sensitive questions, concerns about privacy, difficulty reading/understanding module content, and technological literacy. Rapport with providers was a facilitator for patients to discuss social needs. Providers stressed that limited time with patients would be a barrier, and expressed concerns about the lack of available community resources.

Findings highlight the need for flexible approaches to assessing and discussing social needs with patients. Feasibility of the intervention is contingent upon support from the health system to facilitate social needs assessment and discussion. Further study of availability of community resources is needed to ensure intervention effectiveness.