The Translational Science Benefits Model: A New Framework for Assessing the Health and Societal Benefits of Clinical and Translational Sciences

Increasing the genomic workforce through research capacity building: Designing evaluation plans for maximum impact

More interventions are needed to address the need for workforce diversity and research capacity building (RCB) in genomics. In 2023, the National Human Genome Research Institute and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health funded the Diversity Centers for Genome Research Consortium to address this critical gap. The NIH program staff designed a prospective evaluation plan and developed common data elements (CDEs) that capture common evaluation outputs, synergize and streamline reporting, and facilitate continuous quality improvement. We created five CDEs: genomics programs and equipment, scientific productivity, scientific collaboration, community engagement, and workforce development. The prospective development of an evaluation plan based on CDEs facilitates the ongoing evaluation, reporting, and adjustment of RCB interventions to enhance the diversity of the genomics workforce.

Examining rural health equity and impact through the translational science benefits model: outcomes from the CTSA Consortium of Rural States (CORES)

Introduction

Rural communities often lack access to healthcare, have limited resources and infrastructure, and may experience suboptimal translation of evidence-based interventions into practice or measurement of translational research impact. The Consortium of Rural States (CORES), comprising eight Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs, is a research consortium that focuses on clinical and translational research impacting rural health.

Methods

Utilizing the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) framework, each CTSA hub's evaluation lead co-created an inventory of rural-focused activities, projects, and initiatives that occurred at their respective site during the funding period 2021-2023. Variables included program area; activity type and description; target population; activity status; outputs; and short-term outcomes. The evaluators then mapped site outcomes according to the four TSBM domains (clinical, community, economic, policy) and 30 subcategories (benefits).

Results

184 rural-focused activities, projects and initiatives were identified across the hubs. All rural-focused efforts involved impacts in the Community and Clinical domains of the TSBM, with >60% focusing on Community impacts. These results suggest an opportunity gap to better define Economic and Policy-level impacts in the context of rural-focused initiatives.

Discussion

This work demonstrates a novel mapping of the TSBM to rural health research settings and explores the nuances of using the concepts and domains of the TSBM as a coding tool. This work gives the Consortium insight on the types of projects and impacts that are supported and how to prioritize more exploration of the full range of translational science benefits in rural health initiatives going forward.

Who benefits? Health equity and the Translational Science Benefits Model

Introduction

Evaluating the impacts of translational science is crucial for demonstrating the quality, relevance, and societal benefits of research. This paper presents current results of efforts to expand the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM), a framework and toolkit originally developed at Washington University in St. Louis with 30 specific, real-world benefits across clinical, community, economic, and policy domains. In response to a growing emphasis on health and social equity, we have refined the TSBM to better address and integrate ideas of fairness and justice.

Methods

Our methods included a literature scan to identify health equity gaps in the framework, community listening sessions in St. Louis, MO, and Madison, WI, and thematic analysis to incorporate equity into the TSBM.

Results

The results introduce new dimensions within the existing TSBM domains that include 10 new benefits, all emphasizing themes of trust, power, and access.

Discussion

Our aim is to enhance the relevance and utility of the framework and tools to researchers, practitioners, and those affected by implementations of findings from translational science and research. The integration of equity into the TSBM supports continued growth in the number of users and uses of the framework and toolkit to demonstrate health and social impact.

Shrinking the know-do gap in psychedelic-assisted therapy

There is a push to shrink the anticipated 17-year research-to-practice gap for psychedelic-assisted therapy (PAT), offering precarious hope to those with disabling mental health conditions. However, numerous questions regarding how PAT works, how well it works, for whom and in what context remain. Substantial changes to current systems of care, including regulatory approvals, clinical training and access will all be required to accommodate PAT, a multimodal therapy that combines pharmacological and psychotherapy components that are not routinely available outside clinical research settings. Implementation science can help to reduce the gap in a way that maintains scientific rigour by simultaneously examining the safety, effectiveness and implementation of PAT. Specifically, precision implementation science methods (for example, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) designs), hybrid study designs, valid measurement of fidelity and use of theory-based models and frameworks for treatment development will accelerate the process of implementation while balancing safety and quality. The time to proceed, with accelerated caution, is now.

Modernizing CTSA hub evaluation: an integrated system for performance monitoring and translational science impact assessment

Background

The Evaluation Unit at the Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute (ACTRI) implemented a balanced scorecard model in conjunction with a project management tool to consolidate data collection for progress monitoring, strategic alignment, and impact assessment. This approach aims to streamline communication and enhance information accessibility for all partners. We developed an efficient system for collecting, analyzing, and reporting key information on unit progress, impact, and alignment with institutional goals. The Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) was proposed as a framework to evaluate the broader impact of our translational research, beyond immediate scientific advancements, across clinical, societal, economic, and policy domains.

Methods

The ACTRI Evaluation Unit initially adapted the balanced scorecard (BSC) to the research environment, substituting business perspectives with research grant aims. In its second iteration, the BSC was integrated into Monday.com, a project management platform, to create customized, real-time monitoring dashboards for each unit within the institute. The Evaluation Unit's 3.0 version further adapted the TSBM to assess the broader impacts of unit activities. Quarterly data collection was implemented, and partners were trained in impact assessment and dashboard usage. This process began in early 2023 and is ongoing.

Results

Eleven monitoring dashboards were developed and successfully implemented across the institute. The new system facilitated more efficient data collection and reporting, reducing communication overhead and increasing the frequency of updates. The data collected were utilized to draft annual reports as well as inform strategic planning and executive sessions.

Conclusions

Integrating the TSBM into our existing BSC framework, combined with a project management tool, effectively streamlined impact assessment and progress monitoring. This approach not only enhanced data collection and reporting efficiency but also encouraged units to align their goals and activities with desired impacts, thereby strengthening the institute's overall strategic focus.

Navigating the road ahead: using concept mapping to assess Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program goals

Evaluating large-scale programs designed to transform public health demands innovative approaches for navigating their complexity and scope. The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program, supported by the NIH's National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), represents a significant national investment with over 60 sites or "hubs" spread across the country. Assessing an initiative of this size and complexity requires measures that balance local flexibility with national coherence. To that end, this study used concept mapping, a mixed-methods approach integrating qualitative brainstorming and sorting with quantitative multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis. Participation across the CTSA was unprecedented. Over 100 evaluation stakeholders were engaged across the network of hubs, leading to the identification of more than 80 measures, which were then organized into thematic clusters that reflect a logical progression from CTSA activities to outcomes and impacts, as well as critical foundational factors such as collaboration and education. The results also revealed a pattern where long-term impacts were ranked among the highest in importance but among the lowest in feasibility, particularly for measures tied to the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM), a new evaluation framework gaining popularity across the CTSA. The findings of this study underscore the efficacy of concept mapping in incorporating wide-ranging perspectives, identifying areas of consensus, and informing leadership in the development of unified, data-driven evaluation frameworks -such as TSBM and/or a CTSA logic model- critical to maximizing the CTSA's transformative potential for public health.

Evaluating the impact of clinical and translational pilot funding using multiple outcome metrics

NIH/NIGMS-funded IDeA-Clinical and Translational Research (CTR) networks seek to expand translational research infrastructure to support research that has at its endpoints measurable clinical, public health, technological, or economic benefits. This retrospective case study followed 14 projects that received Pilot funding from the Great Plains IDeA-CTR (GP IDeA-CTR) at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. It focuses on the impact of pilot funding and GP IDeA-CTR resources on subsequent clinical and translational research. Metrics include extramural awards, lessons learned that relate to clinical and translational research infrastructure, and demonstrated and potential benefits using the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM).

Impacts of pragmatic implementation science in a primary care laboratory

The Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) initiative, funded by the National Cancer Institute, called for the development of implementation laboratories to bolster implementation science, create research-ready environments, and expedite adoption and implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into practice. The Building Research in Implementation and Dissemination to close Gaps and achieve Equity in Cancer Control (BRIDGE-C2) Center is one of seven ISC3 centers. BRIDGE-C2 aims to identify strategies to improve implementation of cancer prevention EBIs and conduct research / develop pragmatic methods to tailor, enhance, and support the adoption and sustainability of these strategies; advance implementation science; and build capacity and training opportunities. Since its inception, the BRIDGE-C2 Center has been conducting research and training activities to advance knowledge on how to effectively implement strategies to improve cancer prevention EBIs in primary care clinics serving socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. The translational science benefits model (TSBM) provides a useful framework for organizing a description of the BRIDGE-C2 Center's activities. In this paper, we describe examples of BRIDGE-C2 activities and the specific impact indicators within each relevant domain/subdomain of the TSBM, demonstrating that a single activity or project has multiple impacts on methods and capacity building, clinical domains, and community health.

Real-world impacts from a decade of Quality Enhancement Research Initiative-partnered projects to translate the Diabetes Prevention Program in the Veterans Health Administration

OBJECTIVES

To describe the impacts of four Veterans Health Administration (VA) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) projects implementing an evidence-based lifestyle intervention known as the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP).

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

2012-2024 VA administrative and survey data.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a summary of findings and impacts from four effectiveness-implementation projects focused on in-person and/or online DPP across VA sites.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Patient demographics, participation data, and key findings and impacts were summarized across reports from the VA Diabetes-Mellitus Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI-DM) Diabetes Prevention Program (VA DPP) Trial, QUERI-DM Online DPP Trial, the Enhancing Mental and Physical Health of Women through Engagement and Retention (EMPOWER) QUERI DPP Project, and EMPOWER 2.0 QUERI Program.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Between 2012 and 2024, four VA QUERI studies enrolled 963 Veterans in DPP across 16 VA sites. All participants had overweight/obesity with one additional risk factor for type 2 diabetes (i.e., prediabetes, elevated risk score, or history of gestational diabetes) and 56% (N = 536) were women. In addition to enhancing the reach of and engagement in diabetes prevention services among Veterans, these projects resulted in three key impacts as follows: (1) informing the national redesign of VA MOVE! including recommendations to increase the number of MOVE! sessions and revise guidelines across 150+ VA sites, (2) enhancing the national evidence base to support online DPP delivery options with citations in national care guidelines outside VA, and (3) demonstrating the importance of gender-tailoring of preventive care services by and for women Veterans to enhance engagement in preventive services.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past decade, the evolution of VA QUERI DPP projects increased the reach of and engagement in diabetes prevention services among Veterans, including women Veterans who have been harder to engage in lifestyle change programs in VA, and resulted in three key impacts informing type 2 diabetes and obesity prevention efforts within and outside of VA.

The role of information science within the clinical translational science ecosystem

Academic health sciences libraries ("libraries") offer services that span the entire research lifecycle, positioning them as natural partners in advancing clinical and translational science. Many libraries enjoy active and productive collaborations with Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program hubs and other translational initiatives like the IDeA Clinical & Translational Research Network. This article explores areas of potential partnership between libraries and Translational Science Hubs (TSH), highlighting areas where libraries can support the CTSA Program's five functional areas outlined in the Notice of Funding Opportunity. It serves as a primer for TSH and libraries to explore potential collaborations, demonstrating how libraries can connect researchers to services and resources that support the information needs of TSH.

Non-Categorical Analyses Identify Rotenone-Induced 'Parkinsonian' Rats Benefiting from Nano-Emulsified Punicic Acid (Nano-PSO) in a Phenotypically Diverse Population: Implications for Translational Neurodegenerative Therapies

The pursuit of nutraceuticals to improve the quality of life for patients with neurodegenerative conditions is a dynamic field within neuropharmacology. Unfortunately, many nutraceuticals that show promise in preclinical studies fail to demonstrate significant clinical benefits in human trials, leading to their exclusion as therapeutic options. This discrepancy may stem from the categorical interpretation of preclinical and clinical results. Basic researchers often assume that non-human experimental animals exhibit less phenotypic variability than humans. This belief overlooks interindividual phenotype variation, thereby leading to categorical conclusions being drawn from experiments. Consequently, when human clinical trials are conducted, the researchers expect similarly conclusive results. If these results are not achieved, the nutraceutical is deemed ineffective for clinical use, even if numerous individuals might benefit. In our study, we evaluated whether analyzing phenotype variability and similarity through non-categorical methods could help identify rotenone (ROT)-treated rats that might benefit from consuming nano-emulsified punicic acid (Nano-PSO), even if the prevention of "parkinsonism" or the restoration of neurometabolic function is inconsistent across individuals. Our findings supported this hypothesis. The benefits of Nano-PSO were not categorical; however, analyzing phenotype variance allowed us to identify ROT rats with varying degrees of benefit from Nano-PSO consumption. Hence, the translational potential of results from basic science studies testing nutraceuticals as pharmaceutical products against neurodegeneration may improve if researchers also interpret their results using non-categorical methods of data analysis for population screening, even if the overall therapeutic outcomes for the entire population show internal inconsistencies.

Extending the translational science benefits model to implementation science for cancer prevention and control

Introduction

There is increasing pressure on the federal research budget and shifting public opinions about the value of the academic enterprise. We must develop and apply metrics that demonstrate the broad benefits of research for health and society. The Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) measures the impact of large-scale translational science initiatives, such as the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Moonshot. TSBM provides the scaffolding to illustrate how science has real-world health impacts. We propose an expansion of the TSBM to explicitly include implementation-focused outcomes.

Methods

TSBM includes four categories of benefits, including (1) clinical and medical, (2) community and public health, (3) economic, and (4) policy and legislative. Implementation science outcomes serve as a precursor to the model's established domains of impact and can help to sharpen focus on the translational steps needed to achieve a broad range of impacts. We provide several examples of studies that illustrate these implementation outcomes and other clinical and community benefits.

Conclusions

It is important to consider a broad range of scientific impacts and the conditions that are necessary to achieve them. The expansion of the TSBM to include implementation science outcomes may help to accelerate the cancer community's ability to achieve the goal of preventing 4 million cancer deaths by 2047.

Examining the impact of the QUARTET USA trial using the translational science benefits model

Evaluation of benefits beyond quantitative academic outputs is essential in determining translational research value. We used the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) to examine the impact of the QUARTET USA trial using 30 benefits across 4 domains: Clinical, Community, Economic, and Policy. We found that the QUARTET USA trial demonstrated impact in six areas within the Clinical, and Community domains and had potential impact in two additional areas within the Community and Economic domains. Use of the TSBM supports the value of the QUARTET USA trial, which can be used as a template for future cardiovascular trials.

Gaps and opportunities for measuring equity with the Translational Science Benefits Model: Recommendations from the Center for American Indian and Alaska Native Diabetes Translation Research

Translational research needs to show value through impact on measures that matter to the public, including health and societal benefits. To this end, the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) identified four categories of impact: Clinical, Community, Economic, and Policy. However, TSBM offers limited guidance on how these areas of impact relate to equity. Central to the structure of our Center for American Indian and Alaska Native Diabetes Translation Research are seven regional, independent Satellite Centers dedicated to community-engaged research. Drawing on our collective experience, we provide empirical evidence about how TSBM applies to equity-focused research that centers community partnerships and recognizes Indigenous knowledge. For this special issue - "Advancing Understanding and Use of Impact Measures in Implementation Science" - our objective is to describe and critically evaluate gaps in the fit of TSBM as an evaluation approach with sensitivity to health equity issues. Accordingly, we suggest refinements to the original TSBM Logic model to add: 1) community representation as an indicator of providing community partners "a seat at the table" across the research life cycle to generate solutions (innovations) that influence equity and to prioritize what to evaluate, and 2) assessments of the representativeness of the measured outcomes and benefits.

No one left to cope alone (NOLA): protocol for the development of a postdiagnostic intervention to support people newly diagnosed with dementia

INTRODUCTION

Receiving a diagnosis of dementia is a seminal moment in many people's lives. It can be associated with anger and grief for both the person with dementia and their network. Despite this, there is no provision for emotional support to help people affected by dementia manage the impact of receiving that diagnosis. As such, a postdiagnostic intervention to help people process and adjust to a diagnosis of dementia is needed. This protocol describes the initial work to be undertaken as part of a Programme Development Grant. The aims are to synthesise evidence for existing interventions, understand the implementation context and establish an advisory board.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

Phase 1 will consist of two systematic reviews to synthesise research evidence for existing interventions in related areas. Phase 2 will consist of two qualitative research studies. Study 1 is a UK-wide qualitative survey to understand the current lived experience of receiving a diagnosis and postdiagnostic support. Study 2 is a local qualitative study in which three groups of stakeholders will be asked about the perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing a postdiagnostic intervention in Natuional Health Services (NHS). In Phase 3, an advisory group of people living with dementia, carers and other professionals will be established to provide advice and feedback and contribute to the codevelopment of the initial intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Health Research Authority, 15 July 2024. All data will be held in accordance with North East London NHS regulations, who act as sponsor of this development work. We will engage with policy professionals in Study 2 (Phase 2) and through this network disseminate our findings to facilitate policy change. The use of coproduction to ensure people with dementias voices are heard throughout this work will result in impact in health and well-being.

Rethinking our future: Describing and enhancing the impacts of dissemination and implementation science for cancer prevention and control

Background

Researchers generally do an excellent job tracking the scientific impacts of their scholarship in ways that are relevant for academia (e.g., publications, grants) but too often neglect to focus on broader impacts on population health and equity. The National Cancer Institute's Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) includes 7 P50 Centers that are interested in broad measures of impact. We provide an overview of the approach underway within the ISC3 consortium to identify health and social impacts.

Methods

ISC3 adapted and applied the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) to identify the impact on the discipline of D&I science and to consider dissemination and implementation (D&I) impacts in the four original TSBM domains: (1) clinical; (2) community; (3) economic; and (4) policy. To collect data from all Centers, we: (1) co-developed a set of detailed impact indicators with examples; (2) created a data collection template; and (3) summarized the impact data from each center.

Results

Based on data from 48 ISC3 pilot studies, cores, or consortium activities, we identified 84 distinct benefits. The most common impacts were shown for implementation science (43%), community (28%), and clinical (18%). Frequent audiences included primary care providers, public health practitioners, and community partners. ISC3 members highlighted the need for product feedback, and storytelling assistance to advance impact.

Conclusions

The ISC3 consortium is using a participatory approach to successfully apply the TSBM, thus seeking to maximize the real-world impacts of D&I science. The D&I field needs to prioritize ways to more fully document and communicate societal impacts.

The Translational Science Benefits Model, a new training tool for demonstrating implementation science impact: A pilot study

Introduction

Demonstrating the impact of implementation science presents a new frontier for the field, and operationalizing downstream impact is challenging. The Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) offers a new approach for assessing and demonstrating research impact. Here we describe integration of the TSBM into a mentored training network.

Methods

Washington University's Clinical and Translational Science Awards TSBM team collaborated with a National Institute of Mental Health-supported training program, the Implementation Research Institute (IRI), a 2-year training institute in mental health implementation science. This partnership included three phases: (1) introductory workshop on research impact, (2) workshop on demonstrating impact, and (3) sessions to guide dissemination, including interactive tools and consultation with the TSBM research team. Fifteen IRI alumni were invited to participate in the pilot; six responded agreeing to participate in the training, develop TSBM case studies, and provide feedback about their experiences. Participants applied the tools and gave feedback on design, usability, and content. We present their case studies and describe how the IRI used the results to incorporate TSBM into future trainings.

Results

The case studies identified 40 benefits spanning all four TSBM domains, including 21 community, 11 policy, five economic, and three clinical benefits. Participants reported that TSBM training helped them develop a framework for talking about impact. Selecting benefits was challenging for early-stage projects, suggesting the importance of early training.

Conclusions

The case studies showcased the institute's impact and the fellows' work and informed refinement of tools and methods for incorporating TSBM into future IRI training.

Community partner coauthorship for increased implementation science impact: Strengthening capacity and engagement

Engaging diverse partners in each phase of the research process is the gold standard of community-engaged research and adds value to the impact of implementation science. However, partner engagement in dissemination, particularly meaningful involvement in developing peer-reviewed manuscripts, is lacking. The Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control are using the Translational Science Benefits Model to demonstrate the impact of our work beyond traditional metrics, including building capacity and promoting community engagement. This paper presents a case example of one center that has developed a policy for including community partners as coauthors. Standard practices are used to foster clear communications and bidirectional collaboration. Of published papers focused on center infrastructure and implementation research pilots, 92% have community partner coauthors. This includes 21 individuals in roles ranging from physician assistant to medical director to quality manager. Through this intentional experience of co-creation, community partners have strengthened implementation science expertise. Community coauthors have also ensured that data interpretation and dissemination reflect real-world practice environments and offer sustainable strategies for rapid translation to practice improvements. Funders, academic journals, and researchers all have important roles to play in supporting community coauthors as critical thought partners who can help to narrow the gap between research and practice.

A qualitative exploration of disseminating research findings among public health researchers in China

BACKGROUND

Research dissemination is essential to accelerate the translating of evidence into practice. Little is known about dissemination among Chinese public health researchers. This study aimed to explore the understanding and practices of disseminating research findings and to identify barriers and facilitators that influence dissemination activities to non-research audiences.

METHODS

This study deployed an exploratory qualitative design with purposive and snowball sampling. One focus group with 5 participants and 12 in-depth interviews were conducted with participants working in diverse fields from universities (n = 10), the National Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (n = 4), the Chinese National Cancer Center (n = 1), the Chinese National Center for Cardiovascular Disease (n = 1), and China office of a global research institute (n = 1) from May to December 2021 to reach saturation. Data were initially analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. The designing for dissemination (D4D) logic model was then used to organize themes and subthemes. Two coders independently coded all transcripts and discussed disparities to reach a consensus.

RESULTS

Out of 17 participants, 12 misunderstood the concept of dissemination; 14 had disseminated to non-research audiences: 10 to the public, 10 to practitioners, and 9 to policymakers. We identified multiple barriers to dissemination to non-research audiences across four phases of the D4D logic model, including low priority of dissemination, limited application of D4D strategies, insufficient support from the research organizations, practice settings, and health systems, and overemphasis on academic publications.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a lack of understanding and experience of dissemination, indicating a lack of emphasis on active dissemination in China. We provide implications for raising awareness, building capacity, facilitating multidisciplinary collaboration, providing incentives and infrastructure, changing climate and culture, establishing communication and executive networks, and accelerating systematic shifts in impact focus.

Development of TRACER: A Translational Research Accomplishments Cataloguer for Clinical and Translational Science Award hub activity tracking, evaluation, and decision-making

Organizations supporting translational research and translational science, including Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs, provide a diverse and often changing array of resources, support, and services to a myriad of researchers and research efforts. While a wide-ranging scope of programs is essential to the advancement of translational research and science, it also complicates a systematic and unified process for tracking activities, studying research processes, and examining impact. To overcome these challenges, the Duke University School of Medicine's CTSA hub created a data platform, Translational Research Accomplishment Cataloguer (TRACER), that provides capacity to enhance strategic decision-making, impact assessment, and equitable resource distribution. This article reviews TRACER development processes, provides an overview of the TRACER platform, addresses challenges in the development process, and describes avenues for addressing or overcoming these challenges. TRACER development allowed our hub to conceptually identify key processes and goals within programs and linkages between programs, and it sets the stage for advancing evidence-based improvement across our hub. This platform development provides key insight into facilitators that can inform other initiatives seeking to collect and align organizational data for strategic decision-making and impact assessment. TRACER or similar platforms are additionally well positioned to advance the study of translational science.

Application of the Delphi method to the development of common data elements for social drivers of health: A systematic scoping review

Collaborative data science requires standardized, harmonized, interoperable, and ethically sourced data. Developing an agreed-upon set of elements requires capturing different perspectives on the importance and feasibility of the data elements through a consensus development approach. This study reports on the systematic scoping review of literature that examined the inclusion of diverse stakeholder groups and sources of social drivers of health variables in consensus-based common data element (CDE) sets. This systematic scoping review included sources from PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, WoS MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases. Extracted data included the stakeholder groups engaged in the Delphi process, sources of CDE sets, and inclusion of social drivers data across 11 individual and 6 social domains. Of the 384 studies matching the search string, 22 were included in the final review. All studies involved experts with healthcare expertise directly relevant to the developed CDE set, and only six (27%) studies engaged health consumers. Literature reviews and expert input were the most frequent sources of CDE sets. Seven studies (32%) did not report the inclusion of any demographic variables in the CDE sets, and each demographic SDoH domain was included in at least one study with age and sex assigned at birth included in all studies, and social driver domains included only in four studies (18%). The Delphi technique engages diverse expert groups around the development of SDoH data elements. Future studies can benefit by involving health consumers as experts.

Understanding enterprise data warehouses to support clinical and translational research: impact, sustainability, demand management, and accessibility

OBJECTIVES

Healthcare organizations, including Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) hubs funded by the National Institutes of Health, seek to enable secondary use of electronic health record (EHR) data through an enterprise data warehouse for research (EDW4R), but optimal approaches are unknown. In this qualitative study, our goal was to understand EDW4R impact, sustainability, demand management, and accessibility.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We engaged a convenience sample of informatics leaders from CTSA hubs (n = 21) for semi-structured interviews and completed a directed content analysis of interview transcripts.

RESULTS

EDW4R have created institutional capacity for single- and multi-center studies, democratized access to EHR data for investigators from multiple disciplines, and enabled the learning health system. Bibliometrics have been challenging due to investigator non-compliance, but one hub's requirement to link all study protocols with funding records enabled quantifying an EDW4R's multi-million dollar impact. Sustainability of EDW4R has relied on multiple funding sources with a general shift away from the CTSA grant toward institutional and industry support. To address EDW4R demand, institutions have expanded staff, used different governance approaches, and provided investigator self-service tools. EDW4R accessibility can benefit from improved tools incorporating user-centered design, increased data literacy among scientists, expansion of informaticians in the workforce, and growth of team science.

DISCUSSION

As investigator demand for EDW4R has increased, approaches to tracking impact, ensuring sustainability, and improving accessibility of EDW4R resources have varied.

CONCLUSION

This study adds to understanding of how informatics leaders seek to support investigators using EDW4R across the CTSA consortium and potentially elsewhere.

Dissemination and implementation research coordination and training to improve cardiovascular health in people living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: the research coordinating center of the HLB-SIMPLe Alliance

As global adoption of antiretroviral therapy extends the lifespan of People Living with HIV (PLHIV) through viral suppression, the risk of comorbid conditions such as hypertension has risen, creating a need for effective, scalable interventions to manage comorbidities in PLHIV. The Heart, Lung, and Blood Co-morbiditieS Implementation Models in People Living with HIV (HLB-SIMPLe) Alliance has been funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and the Fogarty International Center (FIC) since September 2020. The Alliance was created to conduct late-stage implementation research to contextualize, implement, and evaluate evidence-based strategies to integrate the diagnosis, treatment, and control of cardiovascular diseases, particularly hypertension, in PLHIV in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).The Alliance consists of six individually-funded clinical trial cooperative agreement research projects based in Botswana, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia; the Research Coordinating Center; and personnel from NIH, NHLBI, and FIC (the Federal Team). The Federal Team works together with the members of the seven cooperative agreements which comprise the alliance. The Federal Team includes program officials, project scientists, grant management officials and clinical trial specialists. This Alliance of research scientists, trainees, and administrators works collaboratively to provide and support venues for ongoing information sharing within and across the clinical trials, training and capacity building in research methods, publications, data harmonization, and community engagement. The goal is to leverage shared learning to achieve collective success, where the resulting science and training are greater with an Alliance structure rather than what would be expected from isolated and unconnected individual research projects.In this manuscript, we describe how the Research Coordinating Center performs the role of providing organizational efficiencies, scientific technical assistance, research capacity building, operational coordination, and leadership to support research and training activities in this multi-project cooperative research Alliance. We outline challenges and opportunities during the initial phases of coordinating research and training in the HLB-SIMPLe Alliance, including those most relevant to dissemination and implementation researchers.

Using a Community-Informed Translational Model to Prioritize Translational Benefits in Youth Concussion Return-to-Learn Programs

BACKGROUND

The Translational Science Benefit Model (TSBM) was developed to broadly capture systematic measures of health and societal benefits from scientific research, beyond traditional outcome measures. We aimed to develop a systematic process for the application of the TSBM and to then provide an example of a novel application of the TSBM to an ongoing Return-to-Learn (RTL) after youth concussion project involving partnerships with community stakeholders.

METHODS

We invited investigators, project advisory board, and participants of the RTL project to participate in a modified Delphi process. We first generated a list of potential translational benefits using the indicators of the TSBM as guideposts. We then prioritized the benefits on an adapted Eisenhower matrix.

RESULTS

We invited 35 concussion care or research experts to participate, yielding 20 ranked translational benefits. Six of these recommendations were ranked high priority, six were regarded as investments, and eight were ranked as either low yield or low priority.

DISCUSSION

This study found that activities such as education and training of stakeholders, development of policy and consensus statements, and innovation in dissemination, were perceived as higher priority than other activities. Our approach using a modified Delphi process and incorporating the TSBM can be replicated to generate and prioritize potential benefits to society from research studies.

Social determinants of health-based strategies to address vaccination disparities through a university-public health partnership

A decline in routine vaccinations, attributed to vaccine hesitancy, undermines preventative healthcare, impacting health and exacerbating vaccine disparities. University-public health partnerships can improve vaccination services. This study describes and evaluates a university-public health use case employing social determinants of health (SDoH)-based strategies to address vaccination disparities. Guided by the Translational Science Benefits Logic Model, the partnership offered no-cost preventative vaccines at community-based organization (CBO) sites, collected CBO clientele's vaccination interest, hesitancy, and demographic data, and conducted descriptive analyses. One hundred seven vaccination events were held, administering 3,021 vaccines. This partnership enhanced health outcomes by addressing disparities through co-located vaccination and SDoH services.

Enhancing Impact: A Call to Action for Equitable Implementation Science

Despite investments in evidence-based interventions and Implementation Science, most evidence-based interventions are not widely or routinely adopted, delivered, or sustained in many real-world community and healthcare settings. This gap is even greater in settings and populations experiencing numerous social and structural barriers to health, with important implications for persistent patterns in health inequities. In this Viewpoint, as part of a Special Issue on Advancing the Adaptability of Chronic Disease Prevention and Management through Implementation Science, we outline seven calls to action for the field of Implementation Science, with the goal of encouraging researchers, practitioners, and funders to be more intentional and accountable in applying Implementation Science to have greater impact on promoting health equity. Calls to action include (1) enhance public health, community, and multi-sectoral partnerships to promote health equity and equitable implementation; (2) revisit and build the evidence base needed to promote health equity and impact at multiple levels; (3) prioritize focus on policy development, dissemination, and implementation; (4) be agile and responsive in application of Implementation Science frameworks, processes, and methods; (5) identify and redefine meaningful metrics for equity and impact; (6) disseminate scientific evidence and research to a diverse range of partners and potential beneficiaries; and (7) extend focus on de-implementation, mis-implementation, and sustainability which are central to enhancing health equity. Additionally, we outline why a focus on prevention and public health is essential to making progress towards health equity in Implementation Science, summarize important advancements that the field has made towards making equity more foundational, and pose important research questions to enhance equitable impact of work in this area.

Implementation science for cancer control: One center's experience addressing context, adaptation, equity, and sustainment

Implementation science (IS) has great potential to enhance the frequency, speed, and quality of the translation of evidence-based programs, policies, products, and guidelines into practice. Progress has been made, but with some notable exceptions, this promise has not been achieved for cancer prevention and control. We discuss five interrelated but conceptually distinct, crosscutting issues important to accelerate IS for cancer prevention and control and how our Colorado Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control (COISC3) addressed these issues. These needs and opportunities include more fully addressing changing, multi-level context; guiding rapid, iterative adaptations; evaluating innovative approaches to engagement and health equity; greater attention to costs and economic issues; and sustainability. We summarize conceptual issues; evaluation needs and capacity building activities and then provide examples of how our IS center addressed these five needs for cancer prevention and control. We discuss changes made to address priorities of (i) guiding adaptations of implementation strategies to address changing context and (ii) working on issues identified and prioritized by our primary care partners rather than the research team. We conclude with discussion of lessons learned, limitations, and directions for future research and practice in IS to enhance cancer prevention and control as well as translational behavioral medicine more generally.

Navigating the field of implementation science towards maturity: challenges and opportunities

BACKGROUND

The field of implementation science has significantly expanded in size and scope over the past two decades, although work related to understanding implementation processes have of course long preceded the more systematic efforts to improve integration of evidence-based interventions into practice settings. While this growth has had significant benefits to research, practice, and policy, there are some clear challenges that this period of adolescence has uncovered.

MAIN BODY

This invited commentary reflects on the development of implementation science, its rapid growth, and milestones in its establishment as a viable component of the biomedical research enterprise. The authors reflect on progress in research and training, and then unpack some of the consequences of rapid growth, as the field has grappled with the competing challenges of legitimacy among the research community set against the necessary integration and engagement with practice and policy partners. The article then enumerates a set of principles for the field's next developmental stage and espouses the aspirational goal of a "big tent" to support the next generation of impactful science.

CONCLUSION

For implementation science to expand its relevance and impact to practice and policy, researchers must not lose sight of the original purpose of the field-to support improvements in health and health care at scale, the importance of building a community of research and practice among key partners, and the balance of rigor, relevance, and societal benefit.

The "D&I Bridge": introducing a teaching tool to define the D, the I, and the why

Interest in learning dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is at an all-time high. As founding faculty and fellows of a new center focused on D&I science, we have found that non-specialist researchers and newcomers to D&I science often express confusion around the difference between the D and the I. Relatedly, they struggle to identify what their specific D&I projects target to impact public health within the amorphous "black box" that is the singular, loosely defined "research-to-practice gap." To improve conceptual clarity and enhance engagement with D&I science, we developed a graphic-the D&I Bridge-and an accompanying glossary of terms to use as a teaching and framing tool. The D&I Bridge depicts D&I science as bridging what we know from public health knowledge to what we do in public health practice with intention and equity, and it spans over four distinct, inter-related gaps: the public health supply gap, the public health demand gap, the methodological/scientific gap, and the expertise capacity gap. The public health supply gap is addressed by implementation strategies, whereas the public health demand gap is addressed by dissemination strategies. The methodological/scientific gap is addressed by producing generalizable knowledge about D&I, and the expertise capacity gap is addressed by developing the multi-disciplinary workforce needed to advance D&I. Initial practice feedback about the D&I Bridge has been positive, and this conceptualization of D&I science has helped inform our center's D&I training, D&I project consultations, and strategic planning. We believe the D&I Bridge provides a useful heuristic for helping non-specialists understand the differential scopes of various D&I science projects as well as specific gaps that may be addressed by D&I methods.

Methods for scaling up an outreach intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in rural areas

BACKGROUND

Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and patient navigation are evidence-based practices shown to improve rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) and follow-up in various settings, yet these programs have not been broadly adopted by health systems and organizations that serve diverse populations. Reasons for low adoption rates are multifactorial, and little research explores approaches for scaling up a complex, multi-level CRC screening outreach intervention to advance equity in rural settings.

METHODS

SMARTER CRC, a National Cancer Institute Cancer Moonshot project, is a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a mailed FIT and patient navigation program involving 3 Medicaid health plans and 28 rural primary care practices in Oregon and Idaho followed by a national scale-up trial. The SMARTER CRC intervention combines mailed FIT outreach supported by clinics, health plans, and vendors and patient navigation for colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT result. We applied the framework from Perez and colleagues to identify the intervention's components (including functions and forms) and scale-up dissemination strategies and worked with a national advisory board to support scale-up to additional organizations. The team is recruiting health plans, primary care clinics, and regional and national organizations in the USA that serve a rural population. To teach organizations about the intervention, activities include Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) tele-mentoring learning collaboratives, a facilitation guide and other materials, a patient navigation workshop, webinars, and individualized technical assistance. Our primary outcome is program adoption (by component), measured 6 months after participation in an ECHO learning collaborative. We also assess engagement and adaptations (implemented and desired) to learn how the multicomponent intervention might be modified to best support broad scale-up.

DISCUSSION

Findings may inform approaches for adapting and scaling evidence-based approaches to promote CRC screening participation in underserved populations and settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04890054) and at the NCI's Clinical Trials Reporting Program (CTRP no.: NCI-2021-01032) on May 11, 2021.

Learning health system benefits: Development and initial validation of a framework

Introduction

Implementation of research findings in clinical practice often is not realized or only partially achieved, and if so, with a significant delay. Learning health systems (LHSs) hold promise to overcome this problem by embedding clinical research and evidence-based best practices into care delivery, enabling innovation and continuous improvement. Implementing an LHS is a complex process that requires participation and resources of a wide range of stakeholders, including healthcare leaders, clinical providers, patients and families, payers, and researchers. Engaging these stakeholders requires communicating clear, tangible value propositions. Existing models identify broad categories of benefits but do not explicate the full range of benefits or ways they can manifest in different organizations.

Methods

To develop such a framework, a working group with representatives from six Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs reviewed existing literature on LHS characteristics, models, and goals; solicited expert input; and applied the framework to their local LHS experiences.

Results

The Framework of LHS Benefits includes six categories of benefits (quality, safety, equity, patient satisfaction, reputation, and value) relevant for a range of stakeholders and defines key concepts within each benefit. Applying the framework to five LHS case examples indicated preliminary face validity across varied LHS approaches and revealed three dimensions in which the framework is relevant: defining goals of individual LHS projects, facilitating collaboration based on shared values, and establishing guiding tenets of an LHS program or mission.

Conclusion

The framework can be used to communicate the value of an LHS to different stakeholders across varied contexts and purposes, and to identify future organizational priorities. Further validation will contribute to the framework's evolution and support its potential to inform the development of tools to evaluate LHS impact.

Disseminating for impact: creating curriculum activities for translational dissemination for the clinical and translational research workforce

There has been an increased focus on the practices associated with dissemination for the translation of research to clinical practice and ultimately, policy. Simultaneously, there has been attention placed on the role of the clinical research workforce in supporting optimal dissemination efforts for impact and societal benefit. Curriculums focused on education opportunities for dissemination for translational scientists have been under-reported. The Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) is a framework that has been developed to support assessment of clinical and translational research outcomes that measure impact (both in the clinical and community setting) beyond traditional citations in academic journals/bibliometric activities. The TSBM framework outlines more than 30 different facets of impact and can provide a basis for operationalizing broad impacts of research for translational and clinical scientists. Engagement science offers methods and modalities to work with individual stakeholders, and collaborators in a team science model, and engagement with external scholars and society. This article will describe the use of the TSBM framework and engagement science strategies to develop a translational dissemination framework with novel components for evaluation of dissemination and implementation activities. We propose using the translational dissemination framework to guide the development of an educational curriculum for the clinical research workforce. We outline the educational domains and proposed evaluation criteria essential in implementing this innovative translational dissemination educational content for the clinical and translational research workforce.

The Evolve to Next-Gen ACT Network: An evolving open-access, real-world data resource primed for real-world evidence research across the Clinical and Translational Science Award Consortium

The ACT Network was funded by NIH to provide investigators from across the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium the ability to directly query national federated electronic health record (EHR) data for cohort discovery and feasibility assessment of multi-site studies. NIH refunded the program for expanded research application to become "Evolve to Next-Gen ACT" (ENACT). In parallel, the US Food and Drug Administration has been evaluating the use of real-world data (RWD), including EHR data, as sources of real-world evidence (RWE) for its regulatory decisions involving drug and biological products. Using insights from implementation science, six lessons learned from ACT for developing and sustaining RWD/RWE infrastructures and networks across the CTSA Consortium are presented in order to inform ENACT's development from the outset. Lessons include intentional institutional relationship management, end-user engagement, beta-testing, and customer-driven adaptation. The ENACT team is also conducting customer discovery interviews with CTSA hub and investigators using Innovation-Corps@NCATS (I-Corps™) methodology for biomedical entrepreneurs to uncover unmet RWD needs. Possible ENACT value proposition hypotheses are presented by stage of research. Developing evidence about methods for sustaining academically derived data infrastructures and support can advance the science of translation and support our nation's RWD/RWE research capacity.

Making the connection between health equity and sustainability

Sustainability and health inequities are key challenges in public health and healthcare. Research suggests that only about half of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are sustained over time, and settings and populations experiencing systemic and structural barriers to health (e.g., poverty, racism, stigma, and discrimination) experience even greater challenges to sustainability. In this article, we argue that an enhanced focus on sustainability in the field of implementation science is critical in order to maximize the long-term health benefits and broader societal impacts of EBIs for all populations and settings. From an equity perspective, a focus on sustainability is particularly critical to prioritize among population sub-groups that have not historically received the benefits of health-related EBIs. We discuss how a health equity framing is essential to sustaining EBIs in under-resourced communities, and requires moving away from a deficit mindset that focuses on why EBIs are challenging to sustain, to one that focuses more on identifying and nurturing existing assets within individuals and communities to increase the likelihood that EBIs are sustained. We conclude with a discussion of future directions as well as recommendations and resources (e.g., frameworks, tools) to advance and make progress toward sustainability from a health equity mindset, including: (1) Actively planning early for sustainability alongside key partners; (2) Tracking progress toward enhancing sustainability and being accountable in doing so equitably for all settings and populations; and (3) Focusing on both equity and engagement early and often throughout the research process and all implementation phases.

Process evaluation of an academic dissemination and implementation science capacity building program

The UC San Diego Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute Dissemination and Implementation Science Center (DISC) launched in 2020 to provide dissemination and implementation science (DIS) training, technical assistance, community engagement, and research advancement. DISC developed a program-wide logic model to inform a process evaluation of member engagement and impact related to DISC services. The DISC Logic Model (DLM) served as the framework for a process evaluation capturing quantitative and qualitative information about scientific activities, outputs, and outcomes. The evaluation involved a multimethod approach with surveys, attendance tracking, feedback forms, documentation of grant outcomes, and promotions metrics (e.g., Twitter engagement). There were 540 DISC Members at the end of year 2 of the DISC. Engagement in the DISC was high with nearly all members endorsing at least one scientific activity. Technical assistance offerings such as DISC Journal Club and consultation were most frequently used. The most common scientific outputs were grant submission (65, 39%), formal mentoring for career award (40, 24%), and paper submission (34, 21%). The DLM facilitated a comprehensive process evaluation of our center. Actionable steps include prioritizing technical assistance, strengthening networking opportunities, identifying streamlined approaches to facilitate DIS grant writing through writing workshops, as well as "office hours" or organized writing leagues.

Analysis of cognitive framework and biomedical translation of tissue engineering in otolaryngology

Tissue engineering is a relatively recent research area aimed at developing artificial tissues that can restore, maintain, or even improve the anatomical and/or functional integrity of injured tissues. Otolaryngology, as a leading surgical specialty in head and neck surgery, is a candidate for the use of these advanced therapies and medicinal products developed. Nevertheless, a knowledge-based analysis of both areas together is still needed. The dataset was retrieved from the Web of Science database from 1900 to 2020. SciMAT software was used to perform the science mapping analysis and the data for the biomedical translation identification was obtained from the iCite platform. Regarding the analysis of the cognitive structure, we find consolidated research lines, such as the generation of cartilage for use as a graft in reconstructive surgery, reconstruction of microtia, or the closure of perforations of the tympanic membrane. This last research area occupies the most relevant clinical translation with the rest of the areas presenting a lower translational level. In conclusion, Tissue engineering is still in an early translational stage in otolaryngology, otology being the field where most advances have been achieved. Therefore, although otolaryngologists should play an active role in translational research in tissue engineering, greater multidisciplinary efforts are required to promote and encourage the translation of potential clinical applications of tissue engineering for routine clinical use.

Measuring translational research impact requires reaching beyond current metrics

Translational impact assessment is key to selecting those biomedical research discoveries most likely to be converted into viable new products to improve human health. However, metrics for translational success are variable, are not limited to commercial success, and may not be relevant to every case or institution. Societal impact is a top translational priority in a globalized society.

Translating Scientific Discovery Into Health Policy Impact: Innovative Bibliometrics Bridge Translational Research Publications to Policy Literature

To understand how translational science efforts lead to outcomes, it is common to examine publications as a key step in the translational process. The National Institutes of Health's Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program aims to accelerate that process by providing support to investigators. Although it is challenging to measure the impact of such support on translational outcomes, CTSA-supported research that arises in research publications can advance translation through use of these publications in public policy and guideline documents from government health agencies, intergovernmental organizations, and other outlets. Using cutting-edge bibliometric tools, the authors evaluated how CTSA-supported research has extended its impact beyond academic silos to influence public policy literature. The authors identified approximately 118,490 publications that acknowledged receiving support from a CTSA hub, from the inception of the program in 2006 through 2021. Articles were queried in the Overton policy database, which indexes references to publications in global policy literature. The search revealed 13% of CTSA-supported articles were referenced in policy documents, significantly more than the expected proportion (10%) calculated by Overton. References came from 576 policy source outlets across 87 countries, predominantly the United States and Europe. The most frequent sources included guidelines in PubMed Central, the World Health Organization, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors illustrate the bridge from translational research to public policy with case studies of 6 articles based on CTSA-supported research and having notable policy impact. They found articles with greater clinical relevance, altmetric attention (i.e., nonacademic community/public attention), and academic citation influence were more likely to be referenced in policy literature. Study findings help to characterize the kinds of research that have influenced and may be expected to influence health policy in the future.

A leadership model supporting maturation of high-performance translational teams

Despite understanding its impact on organizational effectiveness, practical guidance on how to train translational team (TT) leaders is lacking. Previously, we developed an evolutionary learning model of TT maturation consisting of three goal-directed phases: (1). team assembly (Formation); (2). conducting research (Knowledge Generation); and (3). dissemination and implementation (Translation). At each phase, the team acquires group-level knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) that enhance its performance. Noting that the majority of team-emergent KSAs are promoted by leadership behaviors, we examine the SciTS literature to identify the relevant behaviors for each phase. We propose that effective team leadership evolves from a hierarchical, transformational model early in team Formation to a shared, functional leadership model during Translation. We synthesized an integrated model of TT leadership, mapping a generic "functional leadership" taxonomy to relevant leadership behaviors linked to TT performance, creating an evidence-informed Leadership and Skills Enhancement for Research (LASER) training program. Empirical studies indicate that leadership behaviors are stable across time; to enhance leadership skills, ongoing reflection, evaluation, and practice are needed. We provide a comprehensive multi-level evaluation framework for tracking the growth of TT leadership skills. This work provides a framework for assessing and training relevant leadership behaviors for high-performance TTs.

Supplemental educational program to heighten the impact of research - an opportunity for OA imaging

Objective

To develop and evaluate a supplementary educational program ("IMPACT") centered on enabling participants to consider specifically and articulate explicitly the best path for and potential impact of their research.

Design

Participants (trainees) and faculty mentors were from all areas of biomedical research. The group worked longitudinally in small, rotating groups, through a process of developing a written statement ("Impact Statement"), an overview ("Impact Storyline") and an oral presentation ("Impact Case") of their work.

Results

One hundred and eighty-seven Fellows enrolled in the program. Of the 179 (96%) Fellows who completed the program, 159 (89%) responded to a post-program survey; 94% indicated that IMPACT was a significant learning experience, 89% indicated that they were more able to identify the long-term potential of their research, 95% felt more able to talk about their work to diverse audiences.

Conclusion

This voluntary educational program was appreciated by the participants and led to increased confidence in their ability to drive their science towards a clear impact and communicating that potential to others. This type of program may aid in redirecting some of the efforts and resources of imaging in OA from the large focus on technical developments to more direct biological and clinical questions which might be resolved with current technology.

Addressing health disparities in the criminal legal system: Translational benefits, challenges, and facilitators of impactful research with incarcerated pregnant women

This in-depth analysis illuminates a translational journey of a community-university research collaboration that examined health disparities among incarcerated pregnant women and spanned the translational spectrum, with the initial collaboration in 2011 paving the way for consequent research grants, publications, practices, programs, and legislation passed years later. The case study utilized data from interviews with research stakeholders, institutional and governmental sources, peer-reviewed publications, and news stories. Identified research and translational challenges included cultural differences between research and prison system; the prison system's lack of transparency; politics of using and translating research to policy change; and issues of capacity, power, privilege, and opportunity when doing community-engaged research/science. Among the facilitators of translation were the Clinical and Translational Science Award and institutional support; engagement of key stakeholders and influencers; authentic collaboration and team science; researchers as translation catalysts; pragmatic scientific approach; and policies and legislative activities. The research contributed to a variety of community and public health, policy/legislative, clinical/medical, and economic benefits. The case study findings enhance our understanding of translational science principles and processes leading to improved wellbeing and serve as a call for advancing the research agenda addressing health disparities related to criminal and social justice issues.

A systematic review of dissemination and implementation science capacity building programs around the globe

BACKGROUND

Research centers and programs focused on dissemination and implementation science (DIS) training, mentorship, and capacity building have proliferated in recent years. There has yet to be a comprehensive inventory of DIS capacity building program (CBP) cataloging information about activities, infrastructure, and priorities as well as opportunities for shared resources, collaboration, and growth. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide the first inventory of DIS CBPs and describe their key features and offerings.

METHODS

We defined DIS CBPs as organizations or groups with an explicit focus on building practical knowledge and skills to conduct DIS for health promotion. CBPs were included if they had at least one capacity building activity other than educational coursework or training alone. A multi-method strategy was used to identify DIS CBPs. Data about the characteristics of DIS CBPs were abstracted from each program's website. In addition, a survey instrument was developed and fielded to gather in-depth information about the structure, activities, and resources of each CBP.

RESULTS

In total, 165 DIS CBPs met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final CBP inventory. Of these, 68% are affiliated with a United States (US) institution and 32% are internationally based. There was one CBP identified in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC). Of the US-affiliated CBPs, 55% are embedded within a Clinical and Translational Science Award program. Eighty-seven CBPs (53%) responded to a follow-up survey. Of those who completed a survey, the majority used multiple DIS capacity building activities with the most popular being Training and Education (n=69, 79%) followed by Mentorship (n=58, 67%), provision of DIS Resources and Tools (n=57, 66%), Consultation (n=58, 67%), Professional Networking (n=54, 62%), Technical Assistance (n=46, 52%), and Grant Development Support (n=45, 52%).

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first study to catalog DIS programs and synthesize learnings into a set of priorities and sustainment strategies to support DIS capacity building efforts. There is a need for formal certification, accessible options for learners in LMICs, opportunities for practitioners, and opportunities for mid/later stage researchers. Similarly, harmonized measures of reporting and evaluation would facilitate targeted cross-program comparison and collaboration.

Collaborative team dynamics and scholarly outcomes of multidisciplinary research teams: A mixed-methods approach

Introduction

Impactful, transdisciplinary scientific discoveries are created by teams of researchers spanning multiple disciplines, but collaboration across disciplines can be challenging. We examined how team dynamics and collaboration are related to successes and barriers faced by teams of researchers from multiple disciplines.

Methods

A mixed-methods approach was used to examine 12 research teams granted multidisciplinary pilot awards. Team members were surveyed to assess their team dynamics and individual views about transdisciplinary research. Forty-seven researchers (59.5%) responded, including two to eight members from each funded team. Associations were examined between collaborative dynamics and scholarly product outcomes, including manuscripts, grant proposals, and awarded grants. One member from each team was selected for an in-depth interview to contextualize and extend information about collaborative processes, successes, and barriers to performing transdisciplinary research.

Results

Quality of team interactions was positively associated with achievement of scholarly products (r = 0.64, p = 0.02). Satisfaction with team members (r = 0.38) and team collaboration scores (r = 0.43) also demonstrated positive associations with achievement of scholarly products, but these were not statistically significant. Qualitative results support these findings and add further insight into aspects of the collaborative process that were particularly important to foster success on multidisciplinary teams. Beyond scholarly metrics, additional successes from the multidisciplinary teams were identified through the qualitative portion of the study including career development and acceleration for early career researchers.

Conclusions

Both the quantitative and qualitative study results indicate that effective collaboration is critical to multidisciplinary research team success. Development and/or promotion of team science-based trainings for researchers would promote these collaborative skills.

Dissemination in Extension: Health Specialists' Information Sources and Channels for Health Promotion Programming

In the National Cooperative Extension System (herein: Extension), state-level specialists serve as key intermediaries between research, educators, and the community members they serve. There is a need to understand information seeking and sharing practices (i.e., dissemination) among specialists to increase the adoption of evidence-based health promotion programs. Specialists (N = 94) across 47 states were identified and invited to participate in this mixed methods study. A one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni corrections was used to analyze survey data. Data collected through semi-structured interviews were analyzed using an immersion crystallization approach. Forty-seven health specialists completed the survey representing 31 eligible states (65%) and were predominately female (89%), Caucasian (70%), had a doctorate (62%), and were employed within Extension for 10.2 + 9.7 years. The information sources used most frequently were academic journals and other specialists, and most used email and online meetings to communicate. Qualitative findings support the use of other specialists as a primary source of information and indicate specialists' desire for an on-demand, bi-directional, online national repository of Extension programs. This repository would facilitate the dissemination of evidence-based programming across the system and reduce program duplication as well as information burden on county-based educators.

Going beyond bibliometrics: A system to track the progress and impact of biomedical research funded by Susan G. Komen

Traditional metrics used to assess the outcomes and impact of biomedical research, such as publications, citations, and follow-up grant funding, do not measure the impact on changes in health practice (standard of care), policy, guidelines, or other societal outcomes and may not be meaningful to stakeholders, such as patients, donors, or the public. Susan G. Komen has developed a research product tracking system to monitor the progress of Komen-funded research products along the research pipeline and to measure the potential impact on patients more directly. In the Komen Product Tracking System, each funded grant is classified by product potential (e.g., treatment, biomarker, etc.) and by stage in the research pipeline (e.g., basic research, preclinical research, clinical trials, and regulatory approval/commercialization). Progress through the research pipeline is updated each year while the grant is active. The Komen Product Tracking System can be used to assess outcomes and the impact of Komen-funded research in several ways: by viewing snapshots at a given time to understand what research products are in the pipeline at that time and what stages they are in, viewing new products added during a defined funding period and, most importantly, assessing how many products have progressed in the research pipeline and have contributed to, or have potential to contribute to, practice changes that result in direct impacts on patients. The tracking system enables us to communicate the impact of our research to our donors, patients, the public, and other stakeholders in a more meaningful way.

Promises and pitfalls in implementation science from the perspective of US-based researchers: learning from a pre-mortem

BACKGROUND

Implementation science is at a sufficiently advanced stage that it is appropriate for the field to reflect on progress thus far in achieving its vision, with a goal of charting a path forward. In this debate, we offer such reflections and report on potential threats that might stymie progress, as well as opportunities to enhance the success and impact of the field, from the perspective of a group of US-based researchers.

MAIN BODY

Ten mid-career extramurally funded US-based researchers completed a "pre-mortem" or a group brainstorming exercise that leverages prospective hindsight to imagine that an event has already occurred and to generate an explanation for it - to reduce the likelihood of a poor outcome. We came to consensus on six key themes related to threats and opportunities for the field: (1) insufficient impact, (2) too much emphasis on being a "legitimate science," (3) re-creation of the evidence-to-practice gap, (4) difficulty balancing accessibility and field coherence, (5) inability to align timelines and priorities with partners, and (6) overly complex implementation strategies and approaches.

CONCLUSION

We submit this debate piece to generate further discussion with other implementation partners as our field continues to develop and evolve. We hope the key opportunities identified will enhance the future of implementation research in the USA and spark discussion across international groups. We will continue to learn with humility about how best to implement with the goal of achieving equitable population health impact at scale.

Motivators and barriers towards clinical research participation: A population-based survey from an Arab MENA country

Jordan was the first Arab country to enact clinical research regulations. The country has a well-flourished pharmaceutical industry that leans heavily on clinical research (CR) for drug development and post-marketing surveillance. In this cross-sectional study, we sought to assess the public's awareness and attitude towards CR as well as their perceived motivators and barriers to CR participation. A population-based, self-administered questionnaire was distributed to the general public in Jordan. Among the 1061 participants in this survey, 74% reported being aware of CR. The majority (70%) agreed to the role of CR in health promotion. Online information and healthcare staff were the two main sources of CR information for the participants. About 25% of the participants received prior invitations to participate in CR with 21% agreeing to participate. However, most participants of the current study (63%) were willing to participate in future CR. Contributing to science, benefiting others, and promoting one's own health were the top motivating factors for participating in CR; while time constraints, fear of research procedure, and lack of interest were the most cited reasons for rejecting participation. Filling out questionnaire surveys, donating blood samples, and participating in physical examinations were the main CR contributions of the participants. Nearly 31% of the participants believed that CR is conducted in a responsible and ethical manner, while 57% did not have an opinion regarding the same matter. In addition, 49% and 44% were neutral with regards to the degree of harm and confidentiality posed by CR. While only 27% disagreed that CR exposes participants to some form of harm, 48% either strongly agreed (15%) or agreed (33%) that it maintains high level of confidentiality for participants. The current study provides insight into the public's perception of CR in Jordan as well as its motivating factors and perceived barriers towards participating in CR. We envisage to utilize this insight as an aid in the design of vigilant future awareness campaigns and recruitment strategies.