Importance of Translational Research in GI Pharmacology: Lessons Learned from the Successes in History

Author(s):  
Duan Chen ◽  
Chun-Mei Zhao
2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 465-477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Houlfort ◽  
Mélanie Lefrançois ◽  
Stéphanie Bernstein ◽  
Karen Messing ◽  
Anne-Renée Gravel ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 79-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy LeClair ◽  
Jean J. Lim ◽  
Carolyn Rubin

IntroductionThe goal of this project was to document the current state of a community-academic partnership, identifying early successes and lessons learned.MethodsWe employed qualitative methods, semi-structured interviews and document analysis, from 2 data sources to (1) show how the principles of community-based participatory research are enacted through the activities of Addressing Disparities in Asian Populations through Translational Research (ADAPT) and (2) elucidate the barriers and facilitators to adhering to those principles from the perspectives of the members themselves.ResultsIn addition to established community-based participatory research values, understanding individuals’ motivations for participation, the challenges aligning the priorities of community organizations and academic partners, and definitions of success are themes that emerged as key to the process of maintaining this partnership.ConclusionAs the emphasis on community-academic partnerships grows, there is potential for clinical and translational science awards to use community engagement to facilitate translational research beyond the traditional medical spheres of influence and to forge relationships with affected communities.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-22
Author(s):  
Ralph Renger ◽  
Marc D Basson ◽  
Gary Hart ◽  
Rick Van Eck ◽  
Eric Souvannasacd ◽  
...  

This article shares lessons learned while evaluating the implementation of a Clinical and Translational Research Centre (CTR). To meet its overarching goals, the CTR consists of numerous research support units (e.g., biostatistics, community engagement, professional development) that are intended to work together collaboratively. It is then argued that an evaluation approach grounded in system thinking was the best fit to evaluate this key CTR design feature. The rationale for selecting systems evaluation theory (SET) as the evaluation framework best suited to evaluate the CTR infrastructure is then presented. The application of SET and the lessons learned are then shared. This article concludes that there are many similarly structured programmes worldwide to which the lessons learned can be applied and upfront investments in using a system approach are rewarded by providing meaningful and useful evaluation recommendations for system change.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (s1) ◽  
pp. 117-117
Author(s):  
Elaine A Borawski ◽  
Anna Thornton Matos ◽  
Meredith Goodwin ◽  
Rachel Ann Gardenhire ◽  
Briana McIntosh

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: As part of the Cleveland CTSA, “Collaborative Working Retreats” have been developed for the purpose of being a catalyst to move groups of interdisciplinary investigators and stakeholders to collaborative research teams with feasible and actionable translational research projects. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Groups of interdisciplinary investigators with engaged stakeholder(s) were invited to apply. Selected groups participated in a 4-hour, professionally facilitated retreat, tailored to the unique needs of each team. In addition to the facilitator, a graphic recorder was utilized to capture ideas and aid in decision making by creating a visual narrative linked to the team’s overall vision. Teams were charged with generating three translational research projects and writing a formal Team Action Plan (TAP) by two months post retreat. Retreat participants were asked to complete a survey to evaluate the retreat, and structured interviews were conducted with team leaders 4-6 months post retreat. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Six groups were awarded retreats, comprised of 48 investigators (representing all schools in the university and 3 of 4 affiliated hospital systems) and 28 stakeholders for a total of 76 participants. 45% completed the followup survey. 77% said they would recommend the service to other teams or would use it again themselves and 97% stated their team benefited from having a facilitator. At 2 month follow up, one team had completed the TAP and subsequently applied for federal funding. However, 4 of the remaining 5 teams indicated that they had made significant progress, attributing progress to their retreat time. Each teams’ progress is being tracked for 2 years, using a newly developed metric. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Facilitated retreats appear to serve as an important catalyst for progression of translational research projects, providing needed time and support for brainstorming and planning. Lessons learned, pre-retreat work, and tools for tailoring retreat content and tracking progress will be presented.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document