Randomized clinical trials (RCT) are the foundation for medical advances, but participant recruitment remains a persistent barrier to their success. This retrospective data analysis aims to (1) identify clinical trial features associated with successful participant recruitment measured by accrual percentage and (2) compare the characteristics of the RCTs by assessing the most and least successful recruitment, which are indicated by varying thresholds of accrual percentage such as ≥ 90% vs ≤ 10%, ≥ 80% vs ≤ 20%, and ≥ 70% vs ≤ 30%.

Data from the internal research registry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and Aggregated Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov were collected for 393 randomized interventional treatment studies closed to further enrollment. We compared two regularized linear regression and six tree-based machine learning models for accrual percentage (i.e., reported accrual to date divided by the target accrual) prediction. The outperforming model and Tree SHapley Additive exPlanations were used for feature importance analysis for participant recruitment. The identified features were compared between the two subgroups.

CatBoost regressor outperformed the others. Key features positively associated with recruitment success, as measured by accrual percentage, include government funding and compensation. Meanwhile, cancer research and non-conventional recruitment methods (e.g., websites) are negatively associated with recruitment success. Statistically significant subgroup differences (corrected p-value < .05) were found in 15 of the top 30 most important features.

This multi-source retrospective study highlighted key features influencing RCT participant recruitment, offering actionable steps for improvement, including flexible recruitment infrastructure and appropriate participant compensation.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for assessing safety (risks) and effectiveness (benefits) of new drug products using the data provided in a Sponsor’s new drug product marketing application before they can be marketed. The FDA forms cross-disciplinary review teams to conduct these assessments. Recently, the FDA began implementing more interdisciplinary approaches to its assessments, reducing redundancy in review processes and documentation by increasing team integration around review issues.

Through a phenomenological descriptive comparative case study, the impact of FDA’s new interdisciplinary approach on review team integration was compared with its traditional multidisciplinary review approach.

We identified collaborative integration occurring in one FDA review team using the new interdisciplinary review and another team using the traditional review and then modeled and analyzed the collaborative, cross-disciplinary integration in each case using an input-process-output (IPO) model drawn from the Science-of-Team-Science (SciTS).

This study provides a systematic method for understanding and visualizing integration in each type of review previously and presently used at FDA and illustrates how the new interdisciplinary approach can ensure more integration than more traditional approaches previously used. In addition, our study suggests that an IPO model of integration can characterize how effectively FDA review teams are integrating around issues and assist in the evaluation of differences in integration between FDA’s new interdisciplinary review and the existing multidisciplinary approach. The approach used here is a new application of SciTS scholarship in a unique sector, and it also serves as an example for measuring review team effectiveness.

Older adults have a high disease burden but are often underrepresented in research studies due to recruitment and retention obstacles, among others. Geriatric research specialists have identified solutions to these challenges and designed frameworks to help other researchers. Our team utilized three frameworks to create an interactive webinar series aimed to educate research team members on Age-Friendly practices.

We recruited 40 non-aging-trained research team members to participate in a six-session, real-time webinar series from October to November 2022. Sessions were comprised of 20–30 minute didactics and 30–40 minute group discussions. Participants completed pre- and post-program surveys, commitment to change forms, and post-webinar session surveys. Responses were examined for strengths and areas for improvement. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests assessed differences in confidence scores.

Self-reported confidence scores improved after the webinar series. Most participants provided positive feedback and high likeliness to use what they learned and recommend the webinar to others. The strengths were practical tips, applicable tools, and real-world examples. The major area for improvement was information on industry-sponsored trials. The commitment to change responses varied from pledging to use more inclusive language to adapting materials to improve the consent process.

This interactive Age-Friendly Research webinar series was feasible and well received by participants. We created an Age-Friendly Research community fostering commitment to change clinical and translational research to be more inclusive of older adults. Future work will include more information on industry-sponsored trials and expand to other research centers.

Unmet social needs contribute to growing health disparities and rising health care costs. Strategies to collect and integrate information on social needs into patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) show promise for connecting patients with community resources. However, gaps remain in understanding the contextual factors that impact implementing these interventions in clinical settings.

We conducted qualitative interviews with patients and focus groups with providers (January−September 2020) in two primary care clinics to inform the implementation of a module that collects and integrates patient-reported social needs information into the EHR. Questions addressed constructs within the Theoretical Framework for Acceptability and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Data were coded deductively using team-based framework analysis, followed by inductive coding and matrix analyses.

Forty patients participated in interviews, with 20 recruited at the clinics and 20 from home. Two focus groups were conducted with a total of 12 providers. Factors salient to acceptability and feasibility included patients’ discomfort answering sensitive questions, concerns about privacy, difficulty reading/understanding module content, and technological literacy. Rapport with providers was a facilitator for patients to discuss social needs. Providers stressed that limited time with patients would be a barrier, and expressed concerns about the lack of available community resources.

Findings highlight the need for flexible approaches to assessing and discussing social needs with patients. Feasibility of the intervention is contingent upon support from the health system to facilitate social needs assessment and discussion. Further study of availability of community resources is needed to ensure intervention effectiveness.

Ideally, real-world data (RWD) collected to generate real-world evidence (RWE) should lead to impact on the care and health of real-world patients. Deriving from care in which clinicians and patients try various treatments to inform therapeutic decisions, N-of-1 trials bring scientific methods to real-world practice.

These single-patient crossover trials generate RWD and RWE by giving individual patients various treatments in a double-blinded way in sequential periods to determine the most effective treatment for a given patient.

This approach is most often used for patients with chronic, relatively stable conditions that provide the opportunity to make comparisons over multiple treatment periods, termed Type 1 N-of-1 trials. These are most helpful when there is heterogeneity of treatment effects among patients and no a priori best option. N-of-1 trials also can be done for patients with rare diseases, potentially testing only one treatment, to generate evidence for personalized treatment decisions, designated as Type 2 N-of-1 trials. With both types, in addition to informing individual’s treatments, when uniform protocols are used for multiple patients with the same condition, the data collected in the individual N-of-1 trials can be aggregated to provide RWD/RWE to inform more general use of the treatments. Thereby, N-of-1 trials can provide RWE for the care of individuals and for populations.

To fulfill this potential, we believe N-of-1 trials should be built into our current healthcare ecosystem. To this end, we are building the needed infrastructure and engaging the stakeholders who should receive value from this approach.

The hidden curriculum encompasses the norms, values, and behaviors within a learning environment. Navigating the hidden curricula of academia is crucial for doctoral trainees, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds. Faculty mentors have an important role in helping trainees uncover and cope with the hidden curriculum. The purpose of this paper is to explore perceptions of the hidden curriculum among diverse doctoral trainees and mentors.

Following a presentation on the hidden curriculum at the Association for Clinical and Translational Science annual meeting in March 2021, attendees were asked to brainstorm ideas for diverse trainees and their mentors. Breakout room discussions were held for specific hidden curriculum topics; participants voted on which topics to discuss from a list of topics defined during the presentation. Ideas from these discussions were presented to the larger group to upvote.

Participants (n = 116) voted to discuss the following hidden curriculum topics: “coping with bias,” “assertive communication,” “knowing how things work,” and “developing a career.” Many suggestions emphasized the role of institutions in empowering mentors to help diverse trainees and, more generally, to meaningfully support policies and programs that facilitate the career success of trainees and faculty from underrepresented backgrounds.

This work generated a list of suggested action items for trainees, mentors, and institutions to ameliorate the hidden curricula of academia, especially for diverse trainees. However, institutions need to support changes that will facilitate these discussions as well as more broadly enable the success of faculty and students from diverse backgrounds.

Social media is increasingly being used in research, including recruitment.

For the Bayley Short Form Formative Study, which was conducted under the the National Children’s Study, traditional methods of recruitment proved to be ineffective. Therefore, digital media were identified as potential channels for recruitment.

Results included successful recruitment of over 1800 infant and toddler participants to the Study.

This paper outlines the methods, results, and future research opportunities.

Along with the greater research enterprise, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) had to quickly adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic. IRBs had to review and oversee COVID-related research, while navigating strict public health measures and a workforce largely relegated to working from home. Our objectives were to measure adjustments to standard IRB review processes, IRB turnaround time and document and any novel ethical issues encountered.

Structured data requests were sent to members of the Consortium to Advance Effective Research Ethics Oversight directing Human Research Protection Programs (HRPP).

Fourteen of the 32 HRPP director members responded to a questionnaire about their approach to review and oversight during COVID-19. Eleven of the 14 provided summary data on COVID-19-specific protocols and six of the 11 provided protocol-related documents for our review. All respondents adopted at least one additional COVID-19-specific step to their usual review process. The average turnaround time for convened and expedited IRB reviews was 15 calendar days. In our review of the documents from 194 COVID-19-specific protocols (n = 302 documents), we identified only a single review that raised ethical concerns unique to COVID-19.

Our data provide a snapshot of how HRPPs approached the review of COVID-19-specific protocols at the start of the pandemic in the USA. While not generalizable to all HRPPs, these data indicate that HRPPs can adapt and respond quickly response to a pandemic and likely need little novel expertise in the review and oversight of COVID-19-specific protocols.

iLookOut, a web-based child abuse training for early childcare professionals (ECPs), has been shown to improve knowledge and attitudes related to correctly identifying and reporting suspected cases of child abuse. The overarching goal of the present study is to examine “what works for whom” for iLookOut in order to identify strategies for optimizing learner outcomes.

This prospective study enrolled 12,705 ECPs who completed iLookOut (November 2014–December 2018). We used structural equation models to test whether learner demographic and professional characteristics were differentially associated with implementation outcomes (i.e., acceptability and appropriateness) and whether these mediated subsequent indicators of training effectiveness (i.e., gains in knowledge).

Consistent with previous research, individuals with lower baseline knowledge scores showed greater knowledge gains (β = −.57; p < .001). Greater knowledge gains were seen for learners who reported higher acceptability (β = .08; p < .001) or appropriateness (β = .14; p < .001). Implementation outcomes strongly associated with knowledge gains included acceptability for female learners and appropriateness for learners who had not completed high school or had >15 years of experience in childcare settings. Where mediation was found, for the majority of groups, appropriateness emerged as the driving mediator.

Implementation outcomes emerged as important drivers of knowledge change for most groups. The iLookOut Core Training’s use of a multimedia learning environment, video-based storylines, and game-based techniques were endorsed by learners and correlated with increases in knowledge. Future work should explore why aspects of the iLookOut training are rated as less acceptable or appropriate by some groups and what changes would improve efficacy for low performing learners.