scholarly journals Research Performance Progress Report

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hye -Sook Park
Keyword(s):  
Research Performance ◽  
Progress Report

scholarly journals 3560 Using Research Performance Progress Report data to Explore CTSI-Stakeholder Engagement through Network Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 100-100
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Wayman ◽  
Eric P. Rubinstein ◽  
Camille Anne Martina ◽  
Ann Marie Dozier
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Progress Report ◽  
Clustering Coefficient ◽  
Network Nodes ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Report Data ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Average Vertex ◽  
And Function

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To develop a social network model of collaborations within and external to the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) CTSI using data from the annual Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) as well as other sources, to provide longitudinal evaluation of the CTSI’s engagement with key stakeholder groups. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The annually submitted RPPR follows a specific format with well-defined sections. The Highlights, Milestones and Challenges Report includes areas in which CTSI function leaders provide details about program integration and innovation, including collaborations with other functions or external groups. The Highlights, Milestones and Challenges Report was qualitatively coded to identify function-collaborator dyads. Each entity in the dyad became a node in the network. Nodes were connected by edges named by the dyads. The network included two types of nodes. The first were CTSI internal functions/programs, i.e. the entities that submitted RPPR sections and formed an interconnected sub-network. The second type of nodes were entities external to the CTSI (collaborators, internal or external to the CTSI site). These entities were named by functions submitting RPPR narratives. External nodes with similar meanings were consolidated. Duplicate edges were removed. CTSI-external nodes were grouped into five stakeholder categories: URMC, University of Rochester (UR), community, other CTSA institutions, CTSA consortium. Thus, these nodes were connected to the CTSI internal nodes, but not to each other. A second source of collaboration data was function-reported internal metrics. As part of the internal metric data collection, functions list partners who play a role in improving metric data or who are responsible for providing data. Partners identified in the internal metrics data, but not specified in the RPPR, were added to the network. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Twenty-three internal CTSI functions submitted an RPPR and represent the CTSI internal nodes. Internal CTSI functions identified 235 collaborations (edges): 125 collaborations with other CTSI internal functions, 57 collaborations with URMC entities, 14 with UR entities, 15 with the external community, 15 with other institutions (CTSA hubs and other universities), and 9 with CTSA consortium entities. Thirty-eight of the collaborations were identified in the internal metrics partners section. In total, the network comprised 104 nodes. Graph density was.022 for full network and.21 for the CTSI internal sub-network. The global clustering coefficient, a measure of connectivity, for the CTSI internal sub-network was.252. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The RPPR provides an underutilized source of data for annually repeated analyses of internal and external CTSI collaborations and is a way to enhance use of this routinely collected information. Analyses of the network yield metrics for measuring CTSI reach and impact on stakeholder groups over time. For example, measures such as number of nodes representing entities external to CTSI and average vertex degree of the CTSI Internal nodes track aspects of CTSI collaborations. Visualizations using different layouts or highlighting different sub-networks provide a representation of CTSI engagement with the communities of stakeholders as well as insights to relationships between functions, regions of collaboration, and areas of gaps. These data also provide an important new mechanism to engage the CTSI leadership and function leads in understanding how their work contributes to the overall network and synergies they have with each other.

scholarly journals Quarter 2 Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) - DOE Solar Program

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael D McMurtrey ◽  
Laura J Carroll ◽  
Mark Messner
Keyword(s):  
Research Performance ◽  
Progress Report

scholarly journals 4124 An innovative Tool for Completing the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) using REDCap

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (s1) ◽  
pp. 69-70
Author(s):  
Maran Subramain ◽  
DeAnna O’Quinn ◽  
Heath Davis
Keyword(s):  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Key Performance Indicators ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Progress Report ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Innovative Tool ◽  
Study Population ◽  
The University ◽  
User Friendly

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The RPPR Tool was created to accurately and systematically track our CTSA’s overall program goals and core’s progress in real time. It establishes and centralizes the continuous collection of key performance indicators and fosters accountability and transparency among cores and leadership. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Using the University of Chicago’s Annual Progress Report REDCap data dictionary, UI Institute for Clinical and Translational Science (ICTS) core managers convened to explore the adaptability of the reporting format for the CTSA. The team developed the more user friendly and easily accessible RPPR Reporting Tool using REDCap to better fit our CTSA. The RPPR in REDCap provides a central location to monitor the activities for each core, gather status updates, generate performance reports, and identify key performance indicators and challenges to prevent failures in the future. All data are transparent and accessible on-demand to individual core managers, evaluators, and ICTS leadership. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: UI’s RPPR Tool has improved the compliance with ongoing monitoring and reporting of CTSA program’s performance. Documenting all relevant information in a centralized space has eased the administrative and evaluation burden of preparing the RPPR. Furthermore, REDCap as a commonly used tool allows the core managers to complete this reporting with minimal guidance. This tool encourages each core to be accountable for documenting their respective progress. The transparency of the reporting allows the Co-PIs along with the leadership team to access the data at any given time to stay updated on the ICTS’ overall progress and to make the appropriate improvements as needed. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The RPPR is a required component of all CTSA grants. UI’s RPPR Tool has been instrumental in comprehensively tracking progress of the ICTS and its contributions to translational research. UI is collaborating with CTSA peers to improve the RPPR Tool, so it can become an asset for any CTSA to adapt.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document