Research study complexity refers to variables that contribute to the difficulty of a clinical trial or study. This includes variables such as intervention type, design, sample, and data management. High complexity often requires more resources, advanced planning, and specialized expertise to execute studies effectively. However, there are limited instruments that scale study complexity across research designs. The purpose of this study was to develop and establish initial psychometric properties of an instrument that scales research study complexity.

Technical and grammatical principles were followed to produce clear, concise items using language familiar to researchers. Items underwent face, content, and cognitive validity testing through quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. Content validity indices were calculated, and iterative scale revision was performed. The instrument underwent pilot testing using 2 exemplar protocols, asking participants (n = 31) to score 25 items (e.g., study arms, data collection procedures).

The instrument (Research Complexity Index) demonstrated face, content, and cognitive validity. Item mean and standard deviation ranged from 1.0 to 2.75 (Protocol 1) and 1.31 to 2.86 (Protocol 2). Corrected item-total correlations ranged from .030 to .618. Eight elements appear to be under correlated to other elements. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.586 (Protocol 1) and 0.764 (Protocol 2). Inter-rater reliability was fair (kappa = 0.338).

Initial pilot testing demonstrates face, content, and cognitive validity, moderate internal consistency reliability and fair inter-rater reliability. Further refinement of the instrument may increase reliability thus providing a comprehensive method to assess study complexity and related resource quantification (e.g., staffing requirements).

This study describes attitudes towards diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) among members of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program. It also explores associations between program members’ roles and their perceived importance of and commitment to improving DEI and assesses the link between perceived importance of and commitment to improving DEI. Lastly, it ascertains barriers and priorities concerning health equity research, workforce development, CTSA consortium leadership, and clinical trials participation among respondents.

A survey was administered to registrants of the virtual CTSA Program 2020 Fall Meeting. Respondents reported their roles, perceived importance of and commitment to improving DEI. Bivariate cross-tabulations and structural equation modeling examined associations between respondents’ roles, perceived importance of DEI, and commitment to improving DEI. Grounded theory was used to code and analyze open-ended questions.

Among 796 registrants, 231 individuals completed the survey. DEI was “extremely important” among 72.7 percent of respondents and lowest among UL1 PIs (66.7%). Being “extremely committed” to improving DEI was reported by 56.3 percent of respondents and lowest among “other staff” (49.6%). Perceived importance of DEI was positively associated with commitment to improve DEI. Institutional and CTSA Commitment, Support, and Prioritization of DEI represented a key theme for improving DEI among respondents.

Clinical and translational science organizations must take bold steps to transform individual perceptions of DEI into commitment and commitment into action. Institutions must set visionary objectives spanning leadership, training, research, and clinical trials research to meet the promise and benefits of a diverse NIH-supported workforce.

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.

A national survey characterized training and career development for translational researchers through Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) T32/TL1 programs. This report summarizes program goals, trainee characteristics, and mentorship practices.

A web link to a voluntary survey was emailed to 51 active TL1 program directors and administrators. Descriptive analyses were performed on aggregate data. Qualitative data analysis used open coding of text followed by an axial coding strategy based on the grounded theory approach.

Fifty out of 51 (98%) invited CTSA hubs responded. Training program goals were aligned with the CTSA mission. The trainee population consisted of predoctoral students (50%), postdoctoral fellows (30%), and health professional students in short-term (11%) or year-out (9%) research training. Forty percent of TL1 programs support both predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees. Trainees are diverse by academic affiliation, mostly from medicine, engineering, public health, non-health sciences, pharmacy, and nursing. Mentor training is offered by most programs, but mandatory at less than one-third of them. Most mentoring teams consist of two or more mentors.

CTSA TL1 programs are distinct from other NIH-funded training programs in their focus on clinical and translational research, cross-disciplinary approaches, emphasis on team science, and integration of multiple trainee types. Trainees in nearly all TL1 programs were engaged in all phases of translational research (preclinical, clinical, implementation, public health), suggesting that the CTSA TL1 program is meeting the mandate of NCATS to provide training to develop the clinical and translational research workforce.

Driving and stopping driving present challenging issues for older people living with memory problems and the family members supporting them. Changes to driving status impact the individual stopping driving and their family members. CarFreeMe is an existing, effective driving cessation program for older people that may be applicable to older people living with dementia. The purpose of this study was to adapt the program and explore feasibility and key stakeholder perspectives.

The Medical Research Council guidelines for conducting research into complex interventions guided the development, acceptability and feasibility piloting. A multidisciplinary approach was taken, and key stakeholders were involved throughout the process. This included an adaptation process, followed by expert reference group feedback and case series pilot study.

The background research indicated that some key changes were required to meet the needs of people living with dementia. Aspects of the content, language, format and activities were adapted and an additional module was created for family members – whose involvement was identified as important. A more personalized, flexible approach was recommended. The expert reference group [psychologists (n = 2), occupational therapists (n = 3) and dementia behavior consultants (n = 2)] indicated the program was appropriate and needed, and made recommendations for feasibility. Pilot testing with three families indicated acceptability.

A driving cessation program adapted for use with people living with dementia and their families required some changes to meet the needs and situations based on feedback from key stakeholders. Future studies will evaluate implementation outcomes across a range of settings.

To describe an outbreak of bacteremia caused by vancomycin-sensitive Enterococcus faecalis (VSEfe).

An investigation by retrospective case control and molecular typing by whole-genome sequencing (WGS).

A tertiary-care neonatal unit in Melbourne, Australia.

Risk factors for 30 consecutive neonates with VSEfe bacteremia from June 2011 to December 2014 were analyzed using a case control study. Controls were neonates matched for gestational age, birth weight, and year of birth. Isolates were typed using WGS, and multilocus sequence typing (MLST) was determined.

Bacteremia for case patients occurred at a median time after delivery of 23.5 days (interquartile range, 14.9–35.8). Previous described risk factors for nosocomial bacteremia did not contribute to excess risk for VSEfe. WGS typing results designated 43% ST179 as well as 14 other sequence types, indicating a polyclonal outbreak. A multimodal intervention that included education, insertion checklists, guidelines on maintenance and access of central lines, adjustments to the late onset sepsis antibiotic treatment, and the introduction of diaper bags for disposal of soiled diapers after being handled inside the bed, led to termination of the outbreak.

Typing using WGS identified this outbreak as predominately nonclonal and therefore not due to cross transmission. A multimodal approach was then sought to reduce the incidence of VSEfe bacteremia.

Patient advocates need to process vast amounts of information to accurately and effectively represent heterogeneous patient groups and make meaningful contributions to HTA decisions. Although a wealth of data is available from a variety of sources, it is not often curated in user-friendly ways. Patient representatives have frequently requested tailored resources that allow them to mine the existing literature in preparation for their engagements. Developing such resources constitutes a complex challenge that requires contributions and scrutiny from multiple stakeholders.

We previously developed the Continuous Innovation Indicators™ (CII), an evidence-based tool to assess treatments for twelve solid tumors (freely available at www.scoringprogress.com). The foundation of the CII is a rigorous assessment of published evidence for increased overall survival. Based on feedback from patient advocates, we are expanding the framework to include information on adverse events and other patient-centered outcomes for selected prototype indications.

We present a novel, flexible framework that combines evidence of efficacy with published results on other outcomes that matter to patients. Menus and outputs are designed to facilitate dialogue between advocates, clinicians, and HTA professionals. By allowing the user to adjust settings based on known heterogeneity among subpopulations, the tool's output can be used to inform discussions about the value of new interventions for defined patient segments.

Patient representatives must frequently identify knowledge gaps in the literature before their HTA engagements and leverage this information to conduct surveys among their constituents. Our new patient advocate decision aid can support this process and facilitate a better understanding of the value of new innovations for diverse subgroups. A better definition of target populations will help to achieve balance between patient access and budget impact of new treatments. We seek feedback on our prototype from all stakeholders to further improve and maximize utility of this tool.

Much of the interest in youth at clinical high risk (CHR) of psychosis has been in understanding conversion. Recent literature has suggested that less than 25% of those who meet established criteria for being at CHR of psychosis go on to develop a psychotic illness. However, little is known about the outcome of those who do not make the transition to psychosis. The aim of this paper was to examine clinical symptoms and functioning in the second North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS 2) of those individuals whose by the end of 2 years in the study had not developed psychosis.

In NAPLS-2 278 CHR participants completed 2-year follow-ups and had not made the transition to psychosis. At 2-years the sample was divided into three groups – those whose symptoms were in remission, those who were still symptomatic and those whose symptoms had become more severe.

There was no difference between those who remitted early in the study compared with those who remitted at one or 2 years. At 2-years, those in remission had fewer symptoms and improved functioning compared with the two symptomatic groups. However, all three groups had poorer social functioning and cognition than healthy controls.

A detailed examination of the clinical and functional outcomes of those who did not make the transition to psychosis did not contribute to predicting who may make the transition or who may have an earlier remission of attenuated psychotic symptoms.

In a 2015 report, the Institute of Medicine (IOM; Washington, DC USA), now the National Academy of Medicine (NAM; Washington, DC USA), stated that the field of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) exhibits signs of fragmentation; an absence of system-wide coordination and planning; and a lack of federal, state, and local accountability. The NAM recommended clarifying what roles the federal government, state governments, and local communities play in the oversight and evaluation of EMS system performance, and how they may better work together to improve care.

This systematic literature review and environmental scan addresses NAM’s recommendations by answering two research questions: (1) what aspects of EMS systems are most measured in the peer-reviewed and grey literatures, and (2) what do these measures and studies suggest for high-quality EMS oversight?

To answer these questions, a systematic literature review was conducted in the PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, Maryland USA), Web of Science (Thomson Reuters; New York, New York USA), SCOPUS (Elsevier; Amsterdam, Netherlands), and EMBASE (Elsevier; Amsterdam, Netherlands) databases for peer-reviewed literature and for grey literature; targeted web searches of 10 EMS-related government agencies and professional organizations were performed. Inclusion criteria required peer-reviewed literature to be published between 1966-2016 and grey literature to be published between 1996-2016. A total of 1,476 peer-reviewed titles were reviewed, 76 were retrieved for full-text review, and 58 were retained and coded in the qualitative software Dedoose (Manhattan Beach, California USA) using a codebook of themes. Categorizations of measure type and level of application were assigned to the extracted data. Targeted websites were systematically reviewed and 115 relevant grey literature documents were retrieved.

A total of 58 peer-reviewed articles met inclusion criteria; 46 included process, 36 outcomes, and 18 structural measures. Most studies applied quality measures at the personnel level (40), followed by the agency (28) and system of care (28), and few at the oversight level (5). Numerous grey literature articles provided principles for high-quality EMS oversight.

Limited quality measurement at the oversight level is an important gap in the peer-reviewed literature. The grey literature is ahead in this realm and can guide the policy and research agenda for EMS oversight quality measurement.

TaymourRK, AbirM, ChamberlinM, DunneRB, LowellM, WahlK, ScottJ. Policy, Practice, and Research Agenda for Emergency Medical Services Oversight: A Systematic Review and Environmental Scan. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(1):89–97.