Although there is growing attention to research translation, dissemination practices remain underdeveloped. This study aimed to gain insights into the dissemination approaches, barriers for dissemination, and needs for dissemination support of public health researchers of the Amsterdam Public Health (APH) research institute.

A concurrent mixed-methods design was used, collecting quantitative and qualitative data through a survey and qualitative data from interviews. Researchers of the Health Behaviors and Chronic Diseases (HBCD) research line of APH were approached via email with a link to an online survey. For the interviews, we aimed to balance researchers in terms of career phase and position. Data were analyzed through descriptive statistics and thematic content analysis.

HBCD researchers primarily rely on traditional approaches for dissemination, e.g. academic journals (93%), conferences (93%), and reports to funders (71%). Social media (67%) was also frequently mentioned. Dissemination is often prioritized late due to time constraints and competing priorities. Researchers mentioned a lack of time, money, knowledge, and skills but also limited awareness of available support as barriers. A need for more resources, education, and a shift in mindset was expressed, suggesting a comprehensive inspiring platform and stronger in-house connections as solutions.

HBCD researchers emphasized the importance of dedicated time and budget for dissemination, as well as other forms of institutional support. Overall, there is a need for a shift in mindset, more educational initiatives, greater integration of dissemination into researchers’ roles, the establishment of a comprehensive inspiring platform, and stronger in-house connections to support dissemination efforts.

Effective mentorship is recognized as critical for the professional development of clinical and translational investigators. Evidence-based mentorship training prompted the development of training for mentees at early career stages who are navigating both mentor and mentee roles. The curriculum titled, Mentoring Up for Early Career Investigators, recognizes the importance of building mentee self-efficacy across proactive mentorship skills and competencies.

Mentoring Up for Early Career Investigators curriculum is based on the research mentor training approach in Entering Mentoring. Pilot implementations of Mentoring Up at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and University of Pennsylvania had positive training outcomes for KL2 Scholars. Subsequently, Mentoring Up was implemented and evaluated at several other institutions. For 26 implementations longer than 4 hours, data were collected on trainee demographics, satisfaction with training, skill gains across mentorship competencies, and the intent to change mentoring behaviors following training.

88% of participants rated the mentee training as valuable. Significant skill gains were reported across all mentorship competencies following training. 77% reported specific plans to change or augment their mentoring behaviors because of the training. The majority aligned with mentorship skill competencies (aligning expectations, effective communications) or mentoring up strategies (voicing needs, setting boundaries, communicating proactively).

Mentoring Up training is effective in advancing mentee skills and promoting strategies to be more proactive in getting their mentoring needs met. Mentoring Up offers an expansion to the suite of mentorship education and resources to support the career advancement of all in the translational science workforce.

Clinical research coordinators (CRCs) play a key role in supporting the translational research enterprise, with responsibilities encompassing tasks related to the design, implementation, and evaluation of clinical research trials. While the literature explores CRC competencies, job satisfaction, and retention, little attention has been given to the role of the PI working with Human Resources (HR) in the CRC hiring and onboarding processes. We investigated the priorities, decision-making processes, and satisfaction levels of principal investigators (PIs) and hiring managers in CRC hiring.

An online survey consisting of open-ended and fixed-choice questions to gather information on desired CRC qualifications and competencies, factors influencing hiring decisions, and overall satisfaction with selected candidates was administered. The survey utilized a Task/Competency Checklist developed from job descriptions and the literature. Respondents were asked to rank the importance of factors such as CRC skill set, years of experience, educational background, and budget constraints.

Results indicated that the skill set of the applicant was the most frequently cited factor influencing the hiring decision, followed by years of experience. Education and budget constraints were of lesser importance. Most respondents reported a satisfaction rating of 50% or greater with their new hires, although some participants expressed challenges related to institutional training requirements, the performance of entry-level CRCs, and the qualifications of experienced candidates.

The hiring cycle involves HR-PI collaboration for a clear job description, effective onboarding processes, and accessible professional development opportunities to enhance PI and employee satisfaction and CRC retention.

A gap in the literature exists pertaining to a global research nurse/research midwife resources and communication skill set necessary to engage with participants of diverse populations and geographic regions in the community or home-based conduct of decentralized clinical trials.

An embedded mixed methods study was conducted to examine research nurse/research midwife knowledge base, experiences, and communication skill sets pertaining to decentralized trials across global regions engaged in remote research: the USA, Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom, and Australia.

An online survey was deployed across international research nurse/research midwife stakeholder groups, collecting demographics, decentralized trial experience, barriers and facilitators to optimal trial conduct, and the self-perceived communication competence (SPCC) and interpersonal communication competence (IPCC) instruments.

86 research nurses and research midwives completed the survey across all countries: The SPCC and IPCC results indicated increased clinical research experience significantly correlated with increased SPCC score (p < 0.05). Qualitative content analysis revealed five themes: (1) Implications for Role, (2) Safety and Wellbeing, (3) Training and Education, (4) Implications for Participants, and (5) Barriers and Facilitators.

Common trends and observations across the global sample can inform decentralized trial resource allocation and policy pertaining to the research nurse/research midwife workforce. This study demonstrates shared cultural norms of research nursing and midwifery across varied regional clinical trial ecosystems.

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).

Clinical research requires a competent workforce of clinical research professionals (CRPs) who are well-trained to perform varied and complex tasks within their roles. The Joint Task Force for Clinical Trial Competency (JTF) framework established essential domains for conducting high-quality clinical research that can guide professional development of CRPs. The Research Professionals Network (RPN) Workshops were established in 2017 to focus on developing ongoing inter-institutional, peer-led, JTF-centric continuing education for CRPs. Four institutions and their affiliates are part of the collaboration.

Workshop participant survey data and other metrics were collected over four academic years. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed to assess participant experience and identify relevant themes.

Participants demonstrated overall high satisfaction with the workshops and significantly value the interpersonal, inter-institutional collaboration made possible through the workshops.

These inter-institutional RPN Workshops have evolved into a Community of Practice, which can be expanded into future opportunities.

Patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) experience frequent episodes of acute decline in lung function called pulmonary exacerbations (PEx). An existing clinical and place-based precision medicine algorithm that accurately predicts PEx could include racial and ethnic biases in clinical and geospatial training data, leading to unintentional exacerbation of health inequities.

We estimated receiver operating characteristic curves based on predictions from a nonstationary Gaussian stochastic process model for PEx within 3, 6, and 12 months among 26,392 individuals aged 6 years and above (2003–2017) from the US CF Foundation Patient Registry. We screened predictors to identify reasons for discriminatory model performance.

The precision medicine algorithm performed worse predicting a PEx among Black patients when compared with White patients or to patients of another race for all three prediction horizons. There was little to no difference in prediction accuracies among Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients for the same prediction horizons. Differences in F508del, smoking households, secondhand smoke exposure, primary and secondary road densities, distance and drive time to the CF center, and average number of clinical evaluations were key factors associated with race.

Racial differences in prediction accuracies from our PEx precision medicine algorithm exist. Misclassification of future PEx was attributable to several underlying factors that correspond to race: CF mutation, location where the patient lives, and clinical awareness. Associations of our proxies with race for CF-related health outcomes can lead to systemic racism in data collection and in prediction accuracies from precision medicine algorithms constructed from it.