This study presents an individualized coaching approach tailored to the stages of proximity of promising scientists interested in becoming independently funded researchers in the context of a minority-serving institution. This strategy defined the participant’s stage of proximity by their number of first-author publications in peer-reviewed journals and their track record in submitting research grants. We argue that coaching tailored by stages is an asset to maintain the enthusiasm, persistence, and positive attitude of promising scientists as they try to reach independent investigator status. Furthermore, this valuable educational approach supports the development of management and leadership skills in defined scientific domains.

Implementation science offers a compelling value proposition to translational science. As such, many translational science stakeholders are seeking to recruit, teach, and train an implementation science workforce. The type of workforce that will make implementation happen consists of both implementation researchers and practitioners, yet little guidance exists on how to train such a workforce. We—members of the Advancing Dissemination and Implementation Sciences in CTSAs Working Group—present the Teaching For Implementation Framework to address this gap. We describe the differences between implementation researchers and practitioners and demonstrate what and how to teach them individually and in co-learning opportunities. We briefly comment on educational infrastructures and resources that will be helpful in furthering this type of approach.

Commercializing biomedical discoveries is a challenging process for many reasons. However, Academic Medical Centers (AMC) that have teaching, patient care, research, and service engrained in their mission are well poised to host these discoveries. These academic discoveries can lead to improvement in patient health and economic development if supported to cross the “valley of death” through institutional assistance, by providing guidance, gap funding and product development expertise. Colorado has a vibrant local startup ecosystem, state support for commercialization and entrepreneurship as well as critical mass of product development expertise. University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, as a major AMC, is an engine for growth for the region. This article discusses innovation efforts at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus as a case study, which is built around two major efforts: the CCTSI and CU Innovations. I-Corps at CCTSI and the SPARK|REACH program of CU Innovations have been instrumental in fostering innovation, commercialization, and entrepreneurship on the campus.

The shift in learning environments due to the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates a closer look at course design, faculty approaches to teaching, and student interaction, all of which may predict learner achievement and satisfaction. Transitioning to an online environment requires the reinvention, reimagining, and applying of “e-flavors” of general learning theory. With this shift to online learning comes the opportunity for misunderstandings and “myths” to occur, which may stand in the way of faculty embracing online learning and fully realizing its potential. This article seeks to address several myths and misconceptions that have arisen in higher education during the rapid shift to online teaching and learning. While not comprehensive, these myths represent a snapshot of common challenges. These are we can transfer our in-person course design to online; adult learners do not need an empathetic approach; and online teaching and learning is socially isolating. Through an appreciative inquiry framework, we present each myth in the context of relevant literature and invite faculty with varied online teaching experience to share their own case studies that illustrate how they have “busted” these myths with the goal to identify existing examples of locally effective practices for the express purpose of replication that leads to positive change.

The Science Writing Initiative for Trainees is a science communications internship program for biomedical graduate students and postdoctoral fellows at the Medical University of South Carolina. Interns serve as an amateur press corps, writing news stories and press releases about recent high-impact research articles. Since 2016, 25 interns have written more than 100 EurekAlert! press releases that have received more than a half million views. Interns learn to explain science across the translational spectrum and to convey findings in plain language to a lay audience, serving as ambassadors for science.

The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) has defined translation as the process of turning observations into interventions that are adopted, sustained, and improve health. Translation must attend to research and community systems and context at multiple levels, and to key stakeholders. Dissemination and implementation (D&I) sciences are informed by an understanding of the critical role of people and systems in disseminating, adopting, and sustaining innovations within real-world settings. Thus, the D&I sciences provides a set of principles that can guide the translational work of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) programs from basic research to public health. In this special communication, our cross-domain working group of the CTSA consortium, comprised of experts in methods and processes, workforce development, evaluation, stakeholder engagement, and D&I sciences, share a vision of how CTSAs can enhance translation across the translational spectrum through the integration of D&I sciences into the critical areas of methods and processes, workforce development, and evaluation. We propose a set of recommendations for NCATS national and local leaders that are intended to move D&I sciences out of a position of unfamiliarity and ancillary value and into the core identity of who CTSAs are, how they think, and what they do, to advance translation and health.

Understanding patient and caregiver experiences is a critical component of the conception, design, and implementation of clinical research studies. The “Database of Individual Patient Experiences” (DIPEx) is an innovative, evidence-based approach for eliciting rich information about health experiences. We conducted a formative evaluation with 14 pediatric oncology researchers to assess the value of using data from a DIPEx study on patient and caregiver experiences with childhood cancer to inform patient-centered research in pediatric oncology. Participants identified barriers to incorporating patient perspectives and experiences into their research and how the DIPEx approach could be leveraged to facilitate this practice.

Community research advisory councils (C-RAC) bring together community members with interest in research to support design, evaluation, and dissemination of research in the communities they represent. There are few ways for early career researchers, such as TL1 trainees, to develop skills in community-engaged research, and there are limited opportunities for C-RAC members to influence early career researchers. In our novel training collaboration, TL1 trainees presented their research projects to C-RAC members who provided feedback. We present on initial evidence of student learning and summarize lessons learned that TL1 programs and C-RACs can incorporate into future collaborations.

In this paper, we introduce the Team Effectiveness Model for Science (TEMS) and describe a multiphase set of interventions for forming a new team or developing an existing team. TEMS uses a shared mutual learning mindset as the model’s central and guiding element. It shows how team mindset leads to behavior and to results and how this affects the characteristics of effective team functioning. TEMS addresses two related questions: What are the variables that contribute to effective teams? and How do the variables need to be designed to make their relevant contributions? Team models often answer the first question without fully answering the second. By addressing three gaps, TEMS contributes to enhancing science team effectiveness. Gap 1 is the absence of explicit core values, assumptions, and norms that serve as the foundation for developing and maintaining science team effectiveness. Gap 2 is the absence of a process for integrating the science and relationship aspects of a science team. Gap 3 is the absence of team processes and structures that are derived from the team’s values, assumptions, and norms. Using TEMS to design new or intervene with existing teams focuses on shifting mindset, developing behavioral skills, and designing processes and structures congruent with the new mindset.

Achieving the clinical, public health, economic, and policy benefits of translational science requires the integration and application of findings across biomedical, clinical, and behavioral science and health policy, and thus, collaboration across experts in these areas. To do so, translational teams need the skills, knowledge, and attitudes to mitigate challenges and build on strengths of cross-disciplinary collaboration. Though these competencies are not innate to teams, they can be built through the implementation of effective strategies and interventions. The Science of Team Science (SciTS) has contributed robust theories and evidence of empirically-informed strategies and best practices to enhance collaboration. Yet the field lacks methodological approaches to rigorously translate those strategies into evidence-based interventions to improve collaborative translational research. Here, we apply lessons from Implementation Science and Human-Centered Design & Engineering to describe the Wisconsin Interventions in Team Science (WITS) framework, a process for translating established team science strategies into evidence-based interventions to bolster translational team effectiveness. To illustrate our use of WITS, we describe how University of Wisconsin’s Institute for Clinical and Translational Research translated the existing Collaboration Planning framework into a robust, scalable, replicable intervention. We conclude with recommendations for future SciTS research to refine and test the framework.

Routine, nonmedical and ancillary medical costs associated with participation in clinical research create barriers to enrollment for economically disadvantaged individuals. To the extent that race, ethnicity, and gender are linked to SES, such barriers impact efforts to diversify clinical research enrollment. But payment policies and practices often reflect the longstanding and singular concern that payment to participants will bias decision-making and compromise informed consent. We argue that this concern must be viewed in a larger ethical context in which the untoward consequences for the individual participant and for the broader research enterprise are considerable when either inadequate or no payment is provided for expenses incurred (“reimbursement”) and time committed (“compensation”). Fairness in payment and protection from undue influence of payment on the informed consent process are important but distinct ethical considerations. Fundamentally, approaches to payment that leave participants financially worse off as a consequence of taking part in research are inherently unjust as they have a differential impact on recruitment and retention based on socioeconomic status. Sponsors, funders, investigators, and IRBs must be cognizant of the impact of inadequate payment on clinical trial inclusion of historically understudied groups. We address practical and fair payment strategies to advance inclusion, the additional barrier of ancillary medical costs, and potential unintended consequences of payment.

Rigorous scientific review of research protocols is critical to making funding decisions, and to the protection of both human and non-human research participants. Given the increasing complexity of research designs and data analysis methods, quantitative experts, such as biostatisticians, play an essential role in evaluating the rigor and reproducibility of proposed methods. However, there is a common misconception that a statistician’s input is relevant only to sample size/power and statistical analysis sections of a protocol. The comprehensive nature of a biostatistical review coupled with limited guidance on key components of protocol review motived this work. Members of the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design Special Interest Group of the Association for Clinical and Translational Science used a consensus approach to identify the elements of research protocols that a biostatistician should consider in a review, and provide specific guidance on how each element should be reviewed. We present the resulting review framework as an educational tool and guideline for biostatisticians navigating review boards and panels. We briefly describe the approach to developing the framework, and we provide a comprehensive checklist and guidance on review of each protocol element. We posit that the biostatistical reviewer, through their breadth of engagement across multiple disciplines and experience with a range of research designs, can and should contribute significantly beyond review of the statistical analysis plan and sample size justification. Through careful scientific review, we hope to prevent excess resource expenditure and risk to humans and animals on poorly planned studies.

We used a Zoom Un-meeting as an educational approach to provide experienced clinical research professional (CRP) adult learners a collaborative learning space to learn more about current issues for academic medical center (AMC) clinical research workforce development and collaborate on solution finding. CRPs operationalize the conduct of clinical trials and represent a significant brain trust for the Clinical and Translational Science (CTSA) consortium hubs with their vast knowledge base, extensive experience, understanding of relevant institutional policy, organizational culture, and clinical research operations. Un-meetings are an intentionally organized and coordinated group activity that encourages participants to focus on a topic and incorporate an open flow of ideas through brainstorming and an open discussion format, setting the stage for future collaborative action. We divided topics into a series of six consecutive monthly Un-meeting Zoom workshops. Ultimately, one resulting output from the meeting was the Center for Leading Innovation and Collaborations (CLIC) synergy paper award to support continued collaborative work. Currently, work teams have emerged to analyze qualitative data from brainstorming and breakout session recordings and to identify small-group activities. We describe this adult learning tool as valuable for exploring issues of AMC CRP professional development. This approach encouraged creative/critical thinking and opportunities for leadership, team science, and problem-solving among participants.