scholarly journals A Community Translational Research Pilot Grants Program to Facilitate Community-Academic Partnerships: Lessons From Colorado's Clinical Translational Science Awards

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 381-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah S. Main ◽  
Maret C. Felzien ◽  
David J. Magid ◽  
B. Ned Calonge ◽  
Ruth A. O'Brien ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Translational Research ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Academic Partnerships

Translational Research: Why Nursing’s Interdisciplinary Collaboration Is Essential

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Fugate Woods ◽  
Diane L. Magyary
Keyword(s):  
Translational Research ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Interdisciplinary Collaboration ◽  
Nursing Leadership ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Critical Areas ◽  
Developing Area ◽  
Nih Roadmap

The heightened demand for benefit from scientific contributions has driven scientific initiatives such as the NIH Roadmap, the recently established Clinical Translational Science Awards, and requests for applications for funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) to support studies of translational efforts. Our article focuses on a rapidly developing area—translational research—and the value, if not necessity, of nursing’s contributions to interdisciplinary efforts. Our objectives are to: 1. Relate the changing nature of research (and clinical practice) to the need for interdisciplinary efforts in translational research; 2. Delineate the skills necessary for translation of research to clinical and community-based practice; 3. Review nursing’s contributions to national interdisciplinary initiatives; 4. Identify critical areas for nursing leadership in translational research and consequences of our absence from these efforts; and 5. Propose a translational research agenda for nursing.

scholarly journals 2305

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
pp. 47-47
Author(s):  
Gayathri Devi ◽  
Ranjan Sudan ◽  
Stephanie Freel ◽  
Laura Fish
Keyword(s):  
Focus Groups ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
Health Care Research ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Team Science ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Duke University ◽  
The Impact

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To improve translational research, we have developed a program called Duke Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Translational Sciences (Duke MERITS). Duke MERITS will facilitate cross-disciplinary collaboration among faculty involved in foundational, clinical and/or health care research and in turn also prepare them to train the next generation of translational researchers. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The program aims are (1) to define metrics and outcomes measures so faculty can track their progress and identify impact of their collaborative research in translational sciences; (2) to offer a multi-modal faculty development series to promote team science, improve didactic teaching, and incorporate innovative resources to promote interdisciplinary approach to translational research; (3) to provide module-based hands-on-training sessions in bench to bedside research and training in translational grant writing to facilitate the development of multidisciplinary research collaborations. The present study describes results from Aim 1 and includes (a) development of baseline outcome assessment tools necessary to gauge the impact of our programs on both the participating faculty and the research culture within Duke University, (b) impact of a specific course offering in Translational Medicine. In order to achieve this, we conducted multiple focus group sessions with faculty self-identified as junior-, mid-, or advanced-career, a mixed group at any career level and included a group of graduate students and postdoctoral trainees to study the impact of a graduate level course in Translational Aspects of Pathobiology. The activities during these translational science focus groups were designed to define what successful translational science is, to determine what resources support translational Science at Duke, and to decide what resources we need in order to enhance Duke’s position as a leader in research and scientific education. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We identified that translational science is changing standards while incorporating leadership, teamwork, collaborations, and movement primarily focusing on the overall goal of improving all aspects of health. Participants categorized their field of study and the fields of their coparticipants most frequently as basic discovery and a combination of intervention and health services. The most frequently identified pros/benefits of performing translational science at Duke include industry connections, collaborations with other departments resulting in disciplines being bridged, improving patient care, and access to resources as well as money. The most frequently identified cons/barriers of performing translational science includes the expensiveness, silos, and lack of resources willing to absorb risks. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The identification of these defined factors from the focus groups has allowed us to issue a comprehensive, sliding Likert scale-based anonymous survey from the secure RedCap system and is being rolled out throughout Duke University, including schools of medicine, nursing, Trinity, biomedical engineering. We envision that Duke MERITS education program will facilitate interprofessional efforts, which we define as a team science approach to identify the clinical “roadblock” and then seek an innovative approach or technology to help overcome this “roadblock”? It can facilitate institutional and departmental recognition in faculty career development. The common goal is to gain fundamental new insights that will result in significant improvement of the existing “standard of care” and meet the challenges of dwindling extramural support.

scholarly journals A team-based translational journal club: Understanding the translational research highway

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. 291-294
Author(s):  
Carol Feghali-Bostwick ◽  
Jillian Harvey ◽  
Carissa Hasseler ◽  
Diana Lee-Chavarria ◽  
Perry Halushka
Keyword(s):  
Translational Research ◽  
Basic Science ◽  
Journal Club ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Innovative Methods ◽  
Pivotal Study ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Science Paper ◽  
Training Grant

AbstractThe mission of the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) is to catalyze the generation of innovative methods and technologies that will enhance the development, testing, and implementation of diagnostics and therapeutics across a wide range of human diseases and conditions.1 NCATS funded a predoctoral TL1 training grant at our institution. We developed a novel team-based Translational Journal Club utilizing three-member teams to find a basic science paper and two clinical study papers that covered a single therapeutic, either a pivotal study or a dissemination and implementation study; one member of the team presented a paper on the above topics in successive weeks. In addition, the trainees attended lectures on: how to design a pivotal clinical trial, dissemination and implementation, and drug development from a basic science discovery through its approval. From these presentations, the trainees appreciated the T0 to T3/4 continuum and its challenges. They also attended sessions on how to present scientific concepts, making them better communicators. The trainees found the Translational Journal club to be very rewarding, illuminating, and providing a much better understanding of the translational research processes required to develop new therapies.

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

scholarly journals Toward a science of translational science

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 253-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caleb Smith ◽  
Roohi Baveja ◽  
Teri Grieb ◽  
George A. Mashour
Keyword(s):  
Translational Research ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Network Science ◽  
Systematic Investigation ◽  
Industrial Engineering ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Exponential Increase ◽  
Large Scale Networks ◽  
The Impact

Translational research as a discipline has experienced explosive growth over the last decade as evidenced by significant federal investment and the exponential increase in related publications. However, narrow project-focused or process-based measurement approaches have resulted in insufficient techniques to measure the translational progress of institutions or large-scale networks. A shift from traditional industrial engineering approaches to systematic investigation using the techniques of scientometrics and network science will be required to assess the impact of investments in 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document