Little is known about practices used to disseminate findings to non-research, practitioner audiences. This study describes the perspectives, experience and activities of dissemination & implementation (D&I) scientists around disseminating their research findings.

The study explored D&I scientists’ experiences and recommendations for assessment of dissemination activities to non-research audiences. Existing list serves were used to recruit scientists. Respondents were asked three open-ended questions on an Internet survey about dissemination activities, recommendations for changing evaluation systems and suggestions to improve their own dissemination of their work.

Surveys were completed by 159 scientists reporting some training, funding and/or publication history in D&I. Three themes emerged across each of the three open-ended questions. Question 1 on evaluation generated the themes of: 1a) promotional review; 1b) funding requirements and 1c) lack of acknowledgement of dissemination activities. Question 2 on recommended changes generated the themes of: 2a) dissemination as a requirement of the academic promotion process; 2b) requirement of dissemination plan and 2c) dissemination metrics. Question 3 on personal changes to improve dissemination generated the themes of: 3a) allocation of resources for dissemination activities; 3b) emerging dissemination channels and 3c) identify and address issues of priority for stakeholders.

Our findings revealed different types of issues D&I scientists encounter when disseminating findings to clinical, public health or policy audiences and their suggestions to improve the process. Future research should consider key requirements which determine academic promotion and grant funding as an opportunity to expand dissemination efforts.

There has been a recent trend in medical research towards a more collaborative relationship between statisticians and clinical investigators. This has led to an increased focus on the most efficient and effective ways to structure, conduct, and measure the impact of organizations that provide statistical services to clinical investigators. Several recent guidelines and recommendations on the conduct of statistical consulting services(SCSs) have been made in response to this need, focusing on larger SCSs consisting primarily of faculty and staff statisticians. However, the application of these recommendations to consulting services primarily staffed by graduate students, which have the dual role of providing a professional service and training, remains unclear.

Guidelines and recommendations, primarily from the Clinical and Translational Science (CTSA) consortium, were applied to a SCS staffed primarily by graduate students in an academic health center. A description of the organizational structure and outcomes after 3 years of operation is presented.

The guidelines recommended by the CTSA consortium and other groups were successfully incorporated into the graduate consulting laboratory. At almost one new project request per week, the consulting laboratory demonstrated a large bandwidth and had an excellent feedback from investigators.

Guidelines developed for larger statistical consulting organizations are able to be applied in student-led consultation organizations. Outcomes and recommendations from 3.5 years of operation are used to describe the successes and challenges we have encountered.

Pilot programs are integral to catalyzing and accelerating research at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs. However, little has been published about the structure and operationalization of pilot programs or how they impact the translational research enterprise at CTSAs. The North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS), the CTSA hub at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) conducted an evaluation case study to describe the pilot program structure, assess process outcomes, and provide a framework for other institutions to utilize for the evaluation of their respective pilot programs.

We describe the operationalization of our pilot program, the evaluation framework utilized to evaluate the program, and how we analyzed available data to understand how our pilot funding opportunities were utilized by investigators. We calculated application volumes and funding rates by investigator position title and pilot application type. We also reviewed feedback provided by pilot Principal Investigators (PIs) to understand how many pilot projects were completed, NC TraCS service utilization, and barriers to research. Limited data on publications and subsequent funding was also reviewed.

Between 2009 and 2019 the NC TraCS Pilot Program received 2343 applications and funded 933 projects, ranging from $2000 to $100,000 in amount, with an overall funding rate of 39.8%. Utilization of NC TraCS services had positive impacts on both resubmission funding and project completion rates.

This process evaluation indicates that the program is being operationalized in a way that successfully fulfills the program mission while meeting the needs of a diverse group of researchers.

A key barrier to translation of biomedical research discoveries is a lack of understanding among scientists regarding the complexity and process of implementation. To address this challenge, the National Science Foundation’s Innovation Corps™ (I-Corps™) program trains researchers in entrepreneurship. We report results from the implementation of an I-Corps™ training program aimed at biomedical scientists from institutions funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS).

National/regional instructors delivered 5-week I-Corps@NCATS short courses to 62 teams (150 individuals) across six institutions. Content included customer discovery, value proposition, and validating needs. Teams interviewed real-life customers and presented the value of innovations for specific end-users weekly, culminating in a “Finale” featuring their refined business thesis and business model canvas. Methodology was developed to evaluate the newly adapted program. National mixed-methods evaluation assessed program implementation, reach, effectiveness using observations of training delivery and surveys at Finale (n = 55 teams), and 3–12 months post-training (n = 34 teams).

Innovations related to medical devices (33%), drugs/biologics (20%), software applications (16%), and diagnostics (8%). An average of 24 interviews was conducted. Teams reported increased readiness for commercialization over time (83%, 9 months; 14%, 3 months). Thirty-nine percent met with institutional technology transfer to pursue licensing/patents and 24% pursued venture capital/investor funding following the short courses.

I-Corps@NCATS training provided the NCATS teams a rigorous and repeatable process to aid development of a business model based on customer needs. Outcomes of this pilot program support the expansion of I-Corps™ training to biomedical scientists for accelerating research translation.

The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium, a network of academic health care institutions with CTSA hubs, is charged with improving the national clinical and translational research enterprise. The CTSA Consortium and the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences implemented the Common Metrics Initiative comprised of standardized metrics and a shared performance improvement framework. This article summarizes hubs’ perspectives on its value during the initial implementation.

The value was assessed across 58 hubs. Survey items assessed change in perceived ability to manage performance and advance clinical and translational science. Semi-structured interviews elicited hubs’ perspectives on meaningfulness and value-added of the Common Metrics Initiative and hubs’ recommendations.

Hubs considered their abilities to manage performance to have improved, but there was no change in perceived ability to advance clinical and translational science. The initiative added value by providing a formal structured process, enabling strategic conversations, facilitating improvements in processes, providing an external impetus for improvement, and providing justification for funds invested. Hubs were concerned about the usefulness of the metrics chosen and whether the value-added was sufficient relative to the effort required. Hubs recommended useful benchmarking, disseminating best practices and promoting peer-to-peer learning, and expanding the use of data to inform the initiative.

Implementing Common Metrics and a performance improvement framework yielded concrete short-term benefits, but concerns about usefulness remained, particularly considering the effort required. The Common Metrics Initiative should focus on facilitating cross-hub collaboration around metrics that address high-priority impact areas for individual hubs and the Consortium.

Advance Clinical and Translational Research (Advance-CTR) serves as a central hub to support and educate clinical and translational researchers in Rhode Island. Understanding barriers to clinical research in the state is the key to setting project aims and priorities.

We implemented a Group Concept Mapping exercise to characterize the views of researchers and administrators regarding how to increase the quality and quantity of clinical and translational research in their settings. Participants generated ideas in response to this prompt and rated each unique idea in terms of how important it was and feasible it seemed to them.

Participants generated 78 unique ideas, from which 9 key themes emerged (e.g., Building connections between researchers). Items rated highest in perceived importance and feasibility included providing seed grants for pilot projects, connecting researchers with common interests and networking opportunities. Implications of results are discussed.

The Group Concept Mapping exercise enabled our project leadership to better understand stakeholder-perceived priorities and to act on ideas and aims most relevant to researchers in the state. This method is well suited to translational research enterprises beyond Rhode Island when a participatory evaluation stance is desired.

The Rockefeller University Center for Clinical and Translational Science (RU-CCTS) and Clinical Directors Network (CDN), a Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN), fostered a community–academic research partnership involving Community Health Center (CHCs) clinicians, laboratory scientists, clinical researchers, community, and patient partners. From 2011 to 2018, the partnership designed and completed Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Project (CAMP1), an observational study funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), and CAMP2, a Comparative Effectiveness Research Study funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). We conducted a social network analysis (SNA) to characterize this Community-Engaged Research (CEnR) partnership.

Projects incorporated principles of Community-Based Participatory Research (CAMP1/2) and PCORI engagement rubrics (CAMP2). Meetings were designed to be highly interactive, facilitate co-learning, share governance, and incentivize ongoing engagement. Meeting attendance formed the raw dataset enriched by stakeholder roles and affiliations. We used SNA software (Gephi) to form networks for four project periods, characterize network attributes (density, degree, centrality, vulnerability), and create sociograms. Polynomial regression models were used to study stakeholder interactions.

Forty-seven progress meetings engaged 141 stakeholders, fulfilling 7 roles, and affiliated with 28 organizations (6 types). Network size, density, and interactions across organizations increased over time. Interactions between Community Members or Recruiters/Community Health Workers and almost every other role increased significantly across CAMP2 (P < 0.005); Community Members’ centrality to the network increased over time.

In a partnership with a highly interactive meeting model, SNA using operational attendance data afforded a view of stakeholder interactions that realized the engagement goals of the partnership.

This study examined the perceived competence of Clinical Research Coordinators (CRCs) using several conceptual frameworks. Accurate self-assessment of one’s professional competence is a critical component in the career navigation process and contributes to (a) identifying and securing professional development (training), (b) leveraging professional strengths, and (c) integrating self-knowledge into a comprehensive career plan.

A survey design gathered responses from a sample of 119 CRCs in a southeastern region of the USA Two conceptual frameworks were used to represent aspects of CRC professional competence: the eight Joint Task Force (JTF) competence domains, and perceptions of strengths and training needs from a list of 12 task categories.

The JTF domain with the lowest competence level was Development and Regulations, while the highest was Communication. Perceived competence increased incrementally with years of experience. Top strengths involved direct patient interaction and data management. Tasks in need of training included project management and reporting issues. Variations in responses were based on years of experience as a CRC.

Our results demonstrate an association between the self-reported strengths and training needs of CRCs and experience. This information can contribute to the self-directed career navigation of CRCs.