To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Advances in translational science require innovative solutions, and engagement of productive transdisciplinary teams play a critical role. While various forms of scientific meetings have long provided venues for sharing scientific findings and generating new collaborations, many conferences lack opportunities for active discussions. We describe the use of an Un-Meeting to foster innovative translational science teams through engaged discussions across multidisciplinary groups addressing a shared theme. The Un-Meeting was delivered by the University of Rochester Center for Leading Innovation and Collaboration, the national coordinating center for the National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program. This pilot CTSA program Un-Meeting focused on engaging translational scientists, policy-makers, community members, advocates, and public health professionals to address the opioid crisis. The participant-driven format leveraged lightning talks, attendee-led idea generation, and extensive breakout discussions to foster multidisciplinary networking. Results indicated participation by a broad set of attendees and a high level of networking during the meeting. These results, coupled with the growth of the Un-Meeting across the CTSA Consortium, provide practices and models to potentially advance team and translational science. While future work will further assess the impact of Un-Meetings, this format presents a promising approach to enhance translational science.
Health equity research spans various disciplines, crossing formal organizational and departmental barriers and forming invisible communities. This study aimed to map the nomination network of scholars at the University of Rochester Medical Center who were active in racial and ethnic health equity research, education, and social/administrative activities, to identify the predictors of peer recognition.
We conducted a snowball survey of faculty members with experience and/or interest in racial and ethnic health equity, nominating peers with relevant expertise.
Data from a total of 121 individuals (64% doing research on extent and outcomes of racial/ethnic disparities and racism, 48% research on interventions, 55% education, and 50% social/administrative activities) were gathered in six rounds of survey. The overlap between expertise categories was small with coincidence observed between education and social/administrative activities (kappa: 0.27; p < 0.001). Respondents were more likely to nominate someone if both were involved in research (OR: 3.1), if both were involved in education (OR: 1.7), and if both were affiliated with the same department (OR: 3.7). Being involved in health equity research significantly predicted the centrality of an individual in the nomination network, and the most central actors were involved in multiple expertise categories.
Compared with equity researchers, those involved in racial equity social/administrative activities were less likely to be recognized by peers as equity experts.
Team development and idea generation are key intertwined steps in translational science that need a framework to accommodate unstructured, participatory interactions. To this end, we introduced Un-Meetings to the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program, innovative events that facilitate cross-disciplinary idea generation and informal discussions between translational scientists, policy makers, community members, advocates, and public health professionals. Here we describe a mixed methods study to characterize the conceptual diversity and clusterization of ideas generated through an Opioid Crisis Un-Meeting.
An Un-Meeting targeting translation science approaches to the opioid crisis were hosted at the University of Rochester Center for Leading Innovation and Collaboration (CLIC). We used semantic analysis and conceptual mapping of keywords to analyze how attendee-led idea generation sessions identified topics for breakout discussions.
One hundred and two individuals from 40 institutions proposed 150 unique ideas that were grouped into 23 breakout sessions. Network analysis showed that diverse pools of experts were bridged by topics addressing the complexities of the opioid crisis. Two clusters emerged: (1) systems, contexts, and community engagement, and (2) technologies, innovations, and treatment advancements.
The cross-disciplinary nature of topic areas that bridge across thematic communities provide opportunities for CTSA programs to engage and support development of diverse translational teams. Potential opportunities for team building include technological advancements of opioid prevention, treatment, surveillance, systems approaches, and studies focusing on special populations and health disparities. The analysis method here may be useful in identifying naturally emerging teams of experts and community gaps when addressing large problems.
Although dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is a growing field, many health researchers with relevant D&I expertise do not self-identify as D&I researchers. The goal of this work was to analyze the distribution, clustering, and recognition of D&I expertise in an academic institution.
A snowball survey was administered to investigators at University of Rochester with experience and/or interest in D&I research. The respondents were asked to identify their level of D&I expertise and to nominate others who were experienced and/or active in D&I research. We used social network analysis to examine nomination networks.
Sixty-eight participants provided information about their D&I expertise. Thirty-eight percent of the survey respondents self-identified as D&I researchers, 24% as conducting D&I under different labels, and 38% were familiar with D&I concepts. D&I researchers were, on average, the most central actors in the network (nominated most by other survey participants) and had the highest within-group density, indicating wide recognition by colleagues and among themselves. Researchers who applied D&I under different labels had the highest within-group reciprocity (25%), and the highest between-group reciprocity (29%) with researchers familiar with D&I. Participants significantly tended to nominate peers within their departments and within their expertise categories.
Identifying and engaging unrecognized clusters of expertise related to D&I research may provide opportunities for mutual learning and dialog and will be critical to bridging across departmental and topic area silos and building capacity for D&I in academic settings.
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.
Thematic analysis of personal networks involves identifying regularities in network structure and content, and grouping networks into types/clusters, to allow for a holistic understanding of social complexities. We propose an inductive approach to network thematic analysis, applying the learnings from qualitative coding, fused mixed-methods analysis, and typology development. It involves framing (changing focus by magnifying, aggregating, and graphical configuration), pattern detection (identification of underlying dimensions, sorting, and clustering), labeling, and triangulating (confirmation and fine-tuning using quantitative and qualitative approaches); applied repeatedly and emergently. We describe this approach utilized in two cases of studying support networks of caregivers.
ABSTRACT IMPACT: This analysis helps disentangle various paths to translational collaboration, with implications for departmental capacity building and support. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Studies that bridge research collaboration networks are cross-disciplinary and translational. We explored the characteristics of researchers and their collaboration patterns in bridging research grants at University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: the database of sponsored research grants from 2011 to 2018, obtained from an internal University database was transformed into a two-mode network of grant-to-investigator. Grants at 90th percentile and above of normalized two-mode betweenness centrality were defined as ‘bridging grants’. For each grant we extracted the gender, academic rank, academic degree, affiliating department, and centrality-status (being at 75th percentile of degree centrality in one-mode collaboration network) of the Principal Investigator (PI), as well as the number of co-investigators (CI) and the existence of central actor(s) in the research team. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Out of 2491 sponsored grants, 250 were ‘bridging grants’. The significant predictors of bridging were centrality of PI, existence of central CI(s), PI holding PhD, and larger number of CIs. The PI’s academic rank (being full professor) and gender were not significant predictors. Among bridging grants 79 included both central PI and CIs (central actors group) and 60 included no central actor on the team. In the latter group, more PIs were clinical faculty and fewer were full professors. Network analysis of affiliating departments showed that Medicine was the prominent actor in the central actors group, while the network of no-central actor group was more fragmented with Neurology as central. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Widely recognized researchers are more likely to collaborate with each other in bridging studies possibly marginalizing less experienced peers. Bridging grants led by less central researchers, often clinician-scientists, may thrive where supportive culture and departmental facilities exist.
ABSTRACT IMPACT: This study provides a framwork to inform and organize health equity efforts and initiatives at CTSA institutes. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: to map the activities of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program hubs across the EQ-DI framework, to depict opportunities for interaction between health equity and dissemination & implementation (D&I) science. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The EQ-DI framework demonstrates the dynamic interaction between D&I science and health equity. Health equity could be a lens to sensitize and inform D&I planning (through goal-setting and team development), execution (through ‘adaptation’ and D&I strategies), and evaluation (through incorporating health equity in D&I outcome assessment). On the other hand, D&I models, methods, and study designs can operationalize dissemination and implementation of evidence-based interventions to improve equity. Stakeholder engagement is at the center of the framework to inform and direct the sensitization and operationalization cycles. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We reviewed the activities of Colorado Clinical & Translational Sciences Institute (CCTSI) and University of Rochester Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UR CTSI) to improve health equity and mapped them across the EQ-DI framework. The sensitizing activities included health equity training, eliciting community priorities, and inclusion of health equity as a critical axis in funding mechanisms. The operationalizing activities included D&I methodological training and consultation, collaborative team science, and funding mechanisms to support implementation of health equity EBIs. Community engagement through studios, community liaisons, and consults was a core priority guiding sensitizing and operationalizing activities. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: The CTSA Program has been a champion for community engagement and translational collaboration to improve individual and population health. CTSA hubs provide infrastructure and resources to facilitate equity-focused D&I.
ABSTRACT IMPACT: This study provides insights on how to replicate a successful initiative for preventing unintended teen pregnancy. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Reducing unintended teen pregnancy is a national health priority, and a recommended strategy is to increase awareness and availability of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). The Rochester LARC Initiative did this, and teen LARC use rose from 4% to 24%. The goal of this study is to determine key elements for replicating the intervention. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Our initiative used an innovative approach we call ‘community detailing’ to deliver education about LARC to adults working with teens. We analyzed the intervention goals, design components, implementation strategies, and public health outcomes. Our analysis was informed by the CDC model for Promoting Science-Based Approaches to Teen Pregnancy Prevention Using Getting to Outcomes (PSBA-GTO), Diffusion of Innovations, and RE-AIM framework for implementation outcomes. We compared our model with characteristics of LARC-promotion efforts, as well as successful health education campaigns. We tabulated the components of our intervention across theoretical domains, aiming to determine essential elements of effective design, adaptation, and dissemination & implementation. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The initiative incorporated multiple components common to successful health education programs: measurable behavior-change outcomes; formative research before roll-out; tailored communications for different audiences; speakers who were credible, knowledgeable and skilled communicators; content that was new to recipients and essential for decreasing barriers to desired behaviors. It included elements of successful LARC promotion/teen pregnancy prevention programs, such as organizing information by effectiveness of methods and using youth-empowering messaging. It differed from other successful programs by offering discussions to adults who work with teens in both medical and community settings. This analysis also highlights unintended positive ripple effects. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: These results establish how community detailing is effective for disseminating actionable information about the safety, efficacy and availability of LARC. These insights could inform other prevention initiatives. An anticipated practical product of this study will be a user-friendly manual for replicating the LARC Initiative in other locations.
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Collaborations are at the core of translational science and team science. Differences by gender have been identified in various research contexts from recruitment to retention to promotion. This study assesses the relational associations of translational collaborations, and what role of gender. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: In 2011 and 2013, clinical and basic sciences investigators at University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry responded to an online survey nominating their research collaborators. Two study years were merged, and name lists were transformed into a collaboration network. Departments were classified into basic sciences (e.g. biochemistry) and clinical (e.g. urology). If respondent and partner were affiliated to different department classes, the collaboration was defined as translational. Multi-level GLM models were developed to assess the associates of the likelihood of translational vs. within discipline collaborations. Partner nominations were nested in respondents. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: 202 respondents were included in the multi-level GLM models. A collaboration was more likely to be translational if the respondent shared more collaborators with the partner (OR:1.13), and respondent was a central actor in collaboration network (OR: 1.2). Translational collaborations were less likely to be reported by clinicians (OR: 0.25). In the model to assess gender match, a collaboration was more likely to be translational if the respondent was male, and nominated a male partner. For both genders, collaboration with a partner of the opposite gender was more likely to be translational if respondent had more shared collaborators with the partner. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Translational collaborations happen in teams. Gender homophily exits in translational collaborations, and is reduced by shared collaborators; implying the effect of personal connections and community membership. Community-building interventions may increase diversity in translational collaborations.
Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is dedicated to studying how to effectively translate and apply research in real-world contexts. There has been increasing interest in health equity within the D&I field to ensure the equitable implementation of evidence-based programs/practices across a range of diverse populations and settings. At the same time, health equity researchers recognize the potential of D&I science to promote the more widespread dissemination, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based interventions to address health inequities. The National Center for Accelerating Clinical and Translational Science Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program has been a champion for community engagement and translational scholarship in its mission to improve individual and population health. The overall CTSA infrastructure and resources within and among CTSA hubs are well-equipped to facilitate a health equity focus to D&I across the phases of translational research. This paper proposes a framework that demonstrates the interaction and opportunities between health equity and D&I science and highlights how CTSAs can support and facilitate wider efforts in translational research with a focus on equitable D&I.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.