scholarly journals Building capacity for collaborative research on opioid and other substance use disorders through the Clinical and Translational Science Award Program

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda B. Cottler ◽  
Alan I. Green ◽  
Harold Alan Pincus ◽  
Scott McIntosh ◽  
Jennifer L. Humensky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Data Science ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Timely Response ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Science Community ◽  
Landscape Survey ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

AbstractThe opioid crisis in the USA requires immediate action through clinical and translational research. Already built network infrastructure through funding by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) provides a major advantage to implement opioid-focused research which together could address this crisis. NIDA supports training grants and clinical trial networks; NCATS funds the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program with over 50 NCATS academic research hubs for regional clinical and translational research. Together, there is unique capacity for clinical research, bioinformatics, data science, community engagement, regulatory science, institutional partnerships, training and career development, and other key translational elements. The CTSA hubs provide unprecedented and timely response to local, regional, and national health crises to address research gaps [Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program, Center for Leading Innovation and Collaboration, Synergy paper request for applications]. This paper describes opportunities for collaborative opioid research at CTSA hubs and NIDA–NCATS opportunities that build capacity for best practices as this crisis evolves. Results of a Landscape Survey (among 63 hubs) are provided with descriptions of best practices and ideas for collaborations, with research conducted by hubs also involved in premier NIDA initiatives. Such collaborations could provide a rapid response to the opioid epidemic while advancing science in multiple disciplinary areas.

scholarly journals KL2 mentored career development programs at clinical and translational science award hubs: Practices and outcomes

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine A. Sorkness ◽  
Linda Scholl ◽  
Alecia M. Fair ◽  
Jason G. Umans
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Development Programs ◽  
Graduate Degrees ◽  
Training Opportunities ◽  
Career Development Award ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

AbstractIntroduction:NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) include KL2 mentored career development awards for faculty commencing clinical and translational research. A survey of KL2 leaders revealed program practices, curricular elements and compelling data about scholar characteristics and outcomes.Methods:We conducted a literature review, framed the survey construct, and obtained input from across the CTSA consortium. A REDCap survey was emailed in fall 2016 to 61 active programs.Results:Fifty-five programs (90.2%) responded. Respondents had been funded from 3 to 11 years, including 22 “mature” hubs funded for ≥8 years. Program cohort sizes were 56% “small”, 22% “medium”, and 22% “large.” Hubs offer extensive competency-aligned training opportunities relevant to clinical and translational research, including graduate degrees, mentorship, and grant-writing. Seventy-two percent of hubs report parallel “KL2-equivalent” career development programs. All hubs share their training and facilitate intermingling with other early stage investigators. A total of 1,517 KL2 scholars were funded. KL2 awardees are diverse in their disciplines, research projects, and representation; 54% are female and 12% self-identified as underrepresented in biomedical research. Eighty-seven percent of scholars have 2–3 mentors and are currently supported for 2–3 years. Seventy-eight percent of alumni remain at CTSA institutions in translational science. The most common form of NIH support following scholars’ KL2 award is an individual career development award.Conclusions:The KL2 is a unique career development award, shaped by competency-aligned training opportunities and interdisciplinary mentorship that inform translational research pathways. Tracking both traditional and novel outcomes of KL2 scholars is essential to capture their career trajectories and impact on health.

scholarly journals Reengineering the National Clinical and Translational Research Enterprise: The Strategic Plan of the National Clinical and Translational Science Awards Consortium

2010 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 463-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven E. Reis ◽  
Lars Berglund ◽  
Gordon R. Bernard ◽  
Robert M. Califf ◽  
Garret A. FitzGerald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Translational Research ◽  
Strategic Plan ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

Impact of advanced clinical and translational research educational programs on oncology specialties and career development.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11026-11026
Author(s):  
Aron Simkins ◽  
Michael Lee ◽  
Wencesley A. Paez ◽  
Cecilia Arana Yi ◽  
Heidi E. Kosiorek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
Return On Investment ◽  
Career Advancement ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

11026 Background: The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program currently supports more than 50 leading medical research institutions in the U.S. with the aims of training, promoting and developing future translational science researchers, with particular emphasis on advanced Clinical and Translational Research (CTR) education. No prior studies have evaluated career development in oncologists who have completed CTR training. The objective of this study is to examine the impact of advanced CTR training on career development, return-on-investment and research productivity in Oncology specialties. Methods: With IRB approval, we conducted a survey study of U.S.-based Hematology/Oncology (H/O), Radiation Oncology (RO), and Surgical Oncology (SO) members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology who completed CTR training. Data was anonymized and collected through Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). Outcomes were compared using Chi-square test for frequency data. Results: We received 225 survey responses (62.1% H/O, 23.3% RO, 13.2% SO, 1.4% others). About 28.4% (n = 64) of the respondents had a PhD or Master's degree in CTR (Group A) compared to 71.6% (n = 161) with graduate certificates or non-degree granting courses in CTR (Group B). Specialty ratio was equally distributed between both groups. Overall, 79.7% vs 57.5%; P < 0.001 of respondents worked in academia, of which 55.2% had tenure track positions. Over 49 different CTSA Programs throughout the U.S. were represented. In terms of impact with new research projects, the ability to secure funding and opportunities for multidisciplinary collaboration, satisfaction with CTR training was higher among Group A compared with Group B (P < 0.001; P < 0.01; P < 0.01 respectively). In terms of research output, higher satisfaction was seen in Group A (67.2% vs 47.4%; P < 0.01), however total publications per year were not statistically significant (P = 0.135). Usefulness of a CTR degree on career advancement, a difference of 50.0% vs 19.1%; P < 0.001 was noted. Similarly, usefulness regarding new job opportunities and return-on-investment also favored Group A (P < 0.001). Overall satisfaction with training was significantly higher in Group A (73.4% vs 48.7%; P = 0.004). Conclusions: This study is the first to report satisfaction ratings for CTR training among oncology specialties. Although no significant difference was observed in terms of publication output, those with higher levels of advanced degrees were more satisfied with their CTR training, and viewed it as more impactful to career advancement and research productivity. The evidence presented is useful for informing career development for oncology residents and fellows offered CTR degrees during their training.

The views of privacy auditors regarding standards and methodologies

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 366-398
Author(s):  
Alan Toy ◽  
David Lau ◽  
David Hay ◽  
Gehan Gunasekara
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Data Privacy ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Privacy Rights ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Privacy Laws ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Privacy Issues ◽  
Organizational Issue

Purpose This paper aims to uncover the practices of different privacy auditors to reveal the extent of any similarities in such practices. The purpose is to investigate the drivers of practices used by privacy auditors and to identify potential for improvements in the practice of privacy auditing so that privacy audits may better serve stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach Six semi-structured interviews with seven privacy auditors and regulators and an analyst across Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA are used as the basis for our analysis. Findings The study shows that some privacy auditors view privacy as an organizational issue, which means that all staff within an organization should understand the privacy issues that are relevant to the organization and to its customers. Because this practice goes beyond a mere compliance approach to privacy auditing, it indicates that there is a way to avoid the approach of merely applying standards from national data privacy laws which is an approach that has been subject to criticism because it is not applicable to the current situation of global applications and cross-border data. The interview themes demonstrate that privacy audits face significant challenges, such as the lack of a privacy auditing profession and the difficulty of raising the awareness of organizations and individuals regarding information privacy rights and duties. Originality/value Privacy auditing is mostly unexplored by academic research and little is known about the drivers behind the practice of privacy auditing. This study is the first to document the views of privacy auditors regarding the practices that they use. It also presents novel results regarding the drivers of the practice of privacy auditing and the interests of the beneficiaries of privacy audits. It builds on research that argues for the existence of best practices for privacy (Toy, 2013; Toy and Hay, 2015) and it extends this argument by providing reasons why privacy auditors may benefit from the use of best practices for privacy.

scholarly journals Feasibility of common bibliometrics in evaluating translational science

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Schneider ◽  
C. M. Kane ◽  
J. Rainwater ◽  
L. Guerrero ◽  
G. Tong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Combined Analysis ◽  
Shared Data ◽  
Thomson Reuters ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

IntroductionA pilot study by 6 Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) explored how bibliometrics can be used to assess research influence.MethodsEvaluators from 6 institutions shared data on publications (4202 total) they supported, and conducted a combined analysis with state-of-the-art tools. This paper presents selected results based on the tools from 2 widely used vendors for bibliometrics: Thomson Reuters and Elsevier.ResultsBoth vendors located a high percentage of publications within their proprietary databases (>90%) and provided similar but not equivalent bibliometrics for estimating productivity (number of publications) and influence (citation rates, percentage of papers in the top 10% of citations, observed citations relative to expected citations). A recently available bibliometric from the National Institutes of Health Office of Portfolio Analysis, examined after the initial analysis, showed tremendous potential for use in the CTSA context.ConclusionDespite challenges in making cross-CTSA comparisons, bibliometrics can enhance our understanding of the value of CTSA-supported clinical and translational research.

scholarly journals Developing sustainable research careers for KL2 scholars: The importance of an inclusive environment and mentorship

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 226-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carrie L. Byington ◽  
Erin Rothwell ◽  
Trent Matheson ◽  
Rebecca Childs ◽  
Erin Wachs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Workforce Development ◽  
Junior Faculty ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Collaborative Project ◽  
University Of Utah ◽  
Research Careers ◽  
The University

IntroductionThe National Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium 2.0 has developed common metrics as a collaborative project for all participating sites. Metrics address several important aspects and functions of the consortium, including workforce development. The first workforce development metrics to be proposed for all CTSA hubs include the proportion of CTSA-supported trainees and scholars with sustainable careers in translational research and the diversity and inclusiveness of programs.Methods and resultsThe University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS), a CTSA hub, has been actively engaged in mentoring translational scientists for the last decade. We have developed programs, processes, and institutional policies that support translational scientists, which have resulted in 100% of our KL2 scholars remaining engaged in translational science and in increasing the inclusion of individuals under-represented in medicine in our research enterprise. In this paper, we share details of our program and what we believe are evidence-based best practices for developing sustainable translational research careers for all aspiring junior faculty members.ConclusionsThe University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science has been integral in catalyzing interactions across the campus to reverse the negative trends seen nationally in sustaining clinician scientists. Our programs and processes can serve as a model for other institutions seeking to develop translational scientists.

scholarly journals Eight practices for data management to enable team data science

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Andrew McDavid ◽  
Anthony M. Corbett ◽  
Jennifer L. Dutra ◽  
Andrew G. Straw ◽  
David J. Topham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Data Management ◽  
Data Science ◽  
Interdisciplinary Collaboration ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Organization And Management ◽  
Use Of Data ◽  
Effective Use ◽  
The University ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

Abstract Introduction: In clinical and translational research, data science is often and fortuitously integrated with data collection. This contrasts to the typical position of data scientists in other settings, where they are isolated from data collectors. Because of this, effective use of data science techniques to resolve translational questions requires innovation in the organization and management of these data. Methods: We propose an operational framework that respects this important difference in how research teams are organized. To maximize the accuracy and speed of the clinical and translational data science enterprise under this framework, we define a set of eight best practices for data management. Results: In our own work at the University of Rochester, we have strived to utilize these practices in a customized version of the open source LabKey platform for integrated data management and collaboration. We have applied this platform to cohorts that longitudinally track multidomain data from over 3000 subjects. Conclusions: We argue that this has made analytical datasets more readily available and lowered the bar to interdisciplinary collaboration, enabling a team-based data science that is unique to the clinical and translational setting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document