Advancing translational science education

Developing a shared understanding of translational science within CTSA hubs through facilitated retreats: A case study

Translation of critical and broadly impactful health advancements is stymied by insufficient scientific scrutiny of barriers and roadblocks in the process. The Clinical & Translational Science Award (CTSA) funding opportunity announcement released in July 2021 makes clear the distinction between translational research and translational science (TS) and urges a shift from the former to the latter. This represents a significant shift in the overall scientific direction of the CTSA program and necessitates corresponding shifts in CTSA hub operations. To better support TS, the Team Science Core of the Duke CTSA hub designed and facilitated a virtual retreat for hub personnel that (1) enabled organizational learning about TS and (2) identified anticipated challenges and opportunities. A post-retreat survey was utilized to assess the degree to which the retreat met its stated goals. Our survey received a 62% response rate; 100% of respondents would recommend the session to others. Respondents also reported gains in all areas assessed, with evidence for greater understanding of TS and increased perspective of the value and relevance of TS. In this paper, we provide a roadmap for designing and implementing facilitated TS retreats, which we argue is a key step in TS capacity building through workforce development.

Research rigor and reproducibility in research education: A CTSA institutional survey

We assessed the rigor and reproducibility (R&R) activities of institutions funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCTSA) through a survey and website search (N = 61). Of 50 institutional responses, 84% reported incorporating some form of R&R training, 68% reported devoted R&R training, 30% monitored R&R practices, and 10% incentivized them. Website searches revealed 9 (15%) freely available training curricula, and 7 (11%) institutional programs specifically created to enhance R&R. NCATS should formally integrate R&R principles into its translational science models and institutional requirements.

Academic seminars as tool for clinical and translational science education and dissemination: Perceptions and priorities in the COVID-19 era

Academic seminars are an important venue through which investigators in health services research (HSR) and other clinical and translational science disciplines can share their work, gather feedback, and connect with colleagues. However, the format and focus of these seminars shifted abruptly when the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated social distancing and underscored the salience of health equity. Little is known about how contemporary academic seminars are meeting the evolving needs of the HSR community. We surveyed 2021-2022 participants in a virtual HSR seminar series to understand experiences of and priorities for the seminars. We also compared results stratified by self-reported under-represented minority (URM) status. Of 45 respondents (including 26 faculty members, 8 trainees, 9 staff members, and 2 community partners), 38% self-identified as URM. Participants reported high satisfaction with seminar quality, diversity of topics, and audience participation (median ≥4 for all outcomes in Likert-scaled items where 5 = very satisfied). Knowledge acquisition, understanding of research methods, and collaboration were commonly cited as benefits of seminar attendance. Implementation science content and external collaboration were most often endorsed as priorities for future seminars. URM participants were over three times more likely than non-URM participants to cite learning about engaging community stakeholders and historically excluded populations as a benefit of seminar participation. Virtual academic seminars can be an effective modality for knowledge sharing and collaboration worth continuing after COVID-19 restrictions are lifted. Emphasizing equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) values in these seminars may hold potential for advancing academic departments' own EDI goals.

Distinguishing between translational science and translational research in CTSA pilot studies: A collaborative project across 12 CTSA hubs

Introduction

The institutions (i.e., hubs) making up the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded network of Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) share a mission to turn observations into interventions to improve public health. Recently, the focus of the CTSAs has turned increasingly from translational research (TR) to translational science (TS). The current NIH Funding Opportunity Announcement (PAR-21-293) for CTSAs stipulates that pilot studies funded through the CTSAs must be "focused on understanding a scientific or operational principle underlying a step of the translational process with the goal of developing generalizable solutions to accelerate translational research." This new directive places Pilot Program administrators in the position of arbiters with the task of distinguishing between TR and TS projects. The purpose of this study was to explore the utility of a set of TS principles set forth by NCATS for distinguishing between TR and TS.

Methods

Twelve CTSA hubs collaborated to generate a list of Translational Science Principles questions. Twenty-nine Pilot Program administrators used these questions to evaluate 26 CTSA-funded pilot studies.

Results

Factor analysis yielded three factors: Generalizability/Efficiency, Disruptive Innovation, and Team Science. The Generalizability/Efficiency factor explained the largest amount of variance in the questions and was significantly able to distinguish between projects that were verified as TS or TR (t = 6.92, p < .001) by an expert panel.

Conclusions

The seven questions in this factor may be useful for informing deliberations regarding whether a study addresses a question that aligns with NCATS' vision of TS.

Building strong health and career trajectories through translational research

Translational research (TR) is the movement of fundamental scientific discoveries into healthcare settings and population health policy, and parallels the goals of DOHaD research. Unfortunately, there is little guidance on how to become a translational researcher. To understand the opinions of DOHaD trainees towards TR, we conducted a workshop at the DOHaD World Congress 2022. We found that trainees were enthusiastic for their work to have translational impact, and that they feel that holistic, multidisciplinary solutions may lead to more generalisable research. However, there lacks support for TR career pathways, which may stall the execution of the long-term vision of the DOHaD agenda. We put forward recommendations for trainees to clarify their purpose in pursuing TR and for seeking relevant people and patronages to support their training paths. For mentors, training institutions, and scientific societies, we recommend developing TR-specific programmes, and implementing training opportunities, networking events, and funding to support these endeavours.

Areas of strength and opportunities for growth in translational science education and training: Results of a scoping review from the NCATS Education Branch

Translational science education and training (E&T) aims to prepare the translational workforce to accelerate progress along the translational pipeline toward solutions that improve human health. In 2020-2021, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) Education Branch conducted a scoping review of the E&T literature with this focus. The review used the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. PubMed, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Embase were searched, and forward citations conducted. Screening of titles, abstracts, and full text identified 44 included articles. Data extraction facilitated analysis of E&T content, audiences, modalities, evaluations, and recommendations. The NCATS Translational Science Principles were used to identity described or recommended E&T content. Twenty-nine articles described a translational science E&T opportunity or its evaluation, and another 15 articles offered recommendations for translational science E&T. The most prevalent NCATS Translational Science Principles were boundary-crossing partnerships (77%) and cross-disciplinary team science (75%). Among publications describing E&T opportunities, the most reported modalities were experiential learning (64%) and courses (61%) and the most reported participants were graduate students (68%) and postdoctoral fellows (54%). About half of these articles (n = 15) reported an evaluation, covering a range of proximal to distal outcomes. Recommendations emphasized the value of translational science E&T across training and career stages and the use of varied modalities to reach diverse audiences. This review highlights strengths and opportunities for growth in translational science E&T. Enhancements to content, expansion of participants and modalities, and rigorous evaluations will contribute to building a highly qualified, diverse translational science workforce.

Inclusion of postdoctoral trainees in a translational science training TL1 program was associated with greater diversification of research across the translational science continuum: a bibliometric analysis of TL1 trainee publications

The NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) was established to support translational research that spans the entire TS Continuum, with the goal of bridging the gap between preclinical biomedical research and real-world applications to advance treatments to patients more quickly. In 2018, the Translational Science Training (TST) TL1 Program at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio implemented new strategies to better include and encourage research more broadly across the TS Continuum, including the addition of postdoctoral scientists and a clinically trained Program Co-Director, expansion of team science and community engagement programming, and targeted trainee recruitment from schools of nursing, dentistry, and allied health, in addition to medicine. The objective of this bibliometric analysis was to determine if the program exhibited a more diverse mix of T-types after the adjustments made in 2018. The TST/TL1 Program experienced a shift in T-type, from mostly T0 (preclinical) to more T3/T4 (clinical implementation/public health) research, after new strategies were implemented. This supports the conclusion that strategic programmatic adjustments by an NCATS-funded predoctoral training program resulted in outcomes that better align with NCATS priorities to develop Trainees who contribute across the entire TS Continuum.

Integrative approaches to methods training for early-career scientists: Rationale and process evaluation of the first cohort of the Michigan Integrative Well-Being and Inequality Training Program

Background

The Michigan Integrative Well-Being and Inequality (MIWI) Training Program aims to provide state-of-the-art, interdisciplinary training to enhance the methodological skills of early-career scientists interested in integrative approaches to understanding health disparities. The goals of this paper are to describe the scientific rationale and core design elements of MIWI, and to conduct a process evaluation of the first cohort of trainees (called "scholars") to complete this program.

Methods

Mixed methods process evaluation of program components and assessment of trainee skills and network development of the first cohort (n = 15 scholars).

Results

The program drew 57 applicants from a wide range of disciplines. Of the 15 scholars in the first cohort, 53% (n = 8) identified as an underrepresented minority, 60% (n = 9) were within 2 years of completing their terminal degree, and most (n = 11, 73%) were from a social/behavioral science discipline (e.g., social work, public health). In the post-program evaluation, scholars rated their improvement in a variety of skills on a one (not at all) to five (greatly improved) scale. Areas of greatest growth included being an interdisciplinary researcher (mean = 4.47), developing new research collaborations (mean = 4.53), and designing a research study related to integrative health (mean = 4.27). The qualitative process evaluation indicated that scholars reported a strong sense of community and that the program broadened their research networks.

Conclusions

These findings have implications for National Institutes of Health (NIH) efforts to train early-career scientists, particularly from underrepresented groups, working at the intersection of multiple disciplines and efforts to support the formation of research networks.

Development of a clinical and translational research curriculum for undergraduate students

Introduction

Research participation during undergraduate years has a powerful influence on career selection and attitudes toward scientific research. Most undergraduate research programs in academic health centers are oriented toward basic research or address a particular disease focus or research discipline. Undergraduate research programs that expose students to clinical and translational research may alter student perceptions about research and influence career selection.

Methods

We developed an undergraduate summer research curriculum, anchored upon a clinical and translational research study developed to address a common unmet needs in neonatal nurseries (e.g., assessment of neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome). Program topics reflected the cross-disciplinary expertise that contributed to the development of this "bedside to bench" study, including opioid addiction, vulnerable populations, research ethics, statistics, data collection and management, assay development, analytical laboratory analysis, and pharmacokinetics. The curriculum was delivered through three offerings over 12 months, using Zoom video-conferencing due to restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

Nine students participated in the program. Two-thirds reported the course enhanced their understanding of clinical and translational research. Over three-quarters reported the curriculum topics were very good or excellent. In open-ended questions, students reported that the cross-disciplinary nature of the curriculum was the strongest aspect of the program.

Conclusion

The curriculum could be readily adapted by other Clinical and Translational Science Award programs seeking to provide clinical and translational research-oriented programs to undergraduate students. Application of cross-disciplinary research approaches to a specific clinical and translational research question provides students with relevant examples of translational research and translational science.

DEIA is essential to advance the goals of translational science: Perspectives from NCATS

The National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) seeks to improve upon the translational process to advance research and treatment across all diseases and conditions and bring these interventions to all who need them. Addressing the racial/ethnic health disparities and health inequities that persist in screening, diagnosis, treatment, and health outcomes (e.g., morbidity, mortality) is central to NCATS' mission to deliver more interventions to all people more quickly. Working toward this goal will require enhancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) in the translational workforce and in research conducted across the translational continuum, to support health equity. This paper discusses how aspects of DEIA are integral to the mission of translational science (TS). It describes recent NIH and NCATS efforts to advance DEIA in the TS workforce and in the research we support. Additionally, NCATS is developing approaches to apply a lens of DEIA in its activities and research - with relevance to the activities of the TS community - and will elucidate these approaches through related examples of NCATS-led, partnered, and supported activities, working toward the Center's goal of bringing more treatments to all people more quickly.

The Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network: a model for clinical trial readiness

Background

The current road to developing treatments for rare diseases is often slow, expensive, and riddled with risk. Change is needed to improve the process, both in how we think about rare disease treatment development and the infrastructure we build to support ongoing science. The National Institutes of Health (NIH)-supported Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network (RDCRN) was established to advance the diagnosis, management, and treatment of rare diseases and to promote highly collaborative, multi-site, patient-centric, translational, and clinical research. The current iteration of the RDCRN intends to build upon and enhance successful approaches within the network while identifying innovative methods to fill gaps and address needs in the approach to the rare disease treatment development process through innovation, collaboration, and clinical trial readiness.

Objective

The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the productivity and influence of the RDCRN since it was first established 20 years ago.

Design and methods

Using a suite of tools available to NIH staff that provides access to a comprehensive, curated, extensively linked data set of global grants, patents, publications, clinical trials, and FDA-approved drugs, a series of queries were executed that conducted bibliometric, co-author, and co-occurrence analysis.

Results

The results demonstrate that the entire RDCRN consortia and network has been highly productive since its inception. They have produced 2763 high-quality publications that have been cited more than 100,000 times, expanded international networks, and contributed scientifically to eight FDA-approved treatments for rare diseases.

Conclusion

The RDCRN program has successfully addressed some significant challenges while developing treatments for rare diseases. However, looking to the future and being agile in facing new challenges that arise as science progresses is important.