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 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 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.

scholarly journals Advancement of multidisciplinary education and research in translational sciences: MERITS program development at Duke University

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-62
Author(s):  
Stephanie A. Freel ◽  
Laura J. Fish ◽  
Benjamin Mirman ◽  
Ranjan Sudan ◽  
Gayathri R. Devi
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Program Development ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Health Impact ◽  
Career Stages ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Multidisciplinary Education ◽  
Duke University ◽  
Facilitators And Barriers

IntroductionThe Duke Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Translational Sciences Program provides educational resources for faculty and trainees in translational research.MethodsTo aid in program development, we assessed perceptions of translational science through focus groups targeting different career stages.ResultsIn total, 3 essential themes emerged: collaboration, movement toward application, and public health impact. Facilitators and barriers varied among groups.ConclusionTraining programs must provide specific strategies for collaboration and selectively accelerating discoveries to therapies.

scholarly journals Assessing Participant Group Affiliation and Attitudes Towards CTSI Services

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Behar-Horenstein ◽  
Huibin Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Sentiment Analysis ◽  
Frequency Function ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Group Affiliation ◽  
Survey Question ◽  
Participant Group ◽  
Participant Perspectives ◽  
The Impact

Analyzing open-ended survey text responses holds the capacity to yield greater insight about participants’ perceptions of clinical translational science institute (CTSI) initiatives. Few translational research studies have explored their effectiveness. The aim of this mixed methods analysis was to assess participant perspectives of the impact and effectiveness of our CTSI program and services. We selected two open-ended survey question items (how CTSI benefitted research, and the most important impact of the research facilitated by the CTSI) from a larger set and compared responses by participant affiliations (clinical/non-clinical; lab/non-lab). We used a three-step analysis. First, nodes were generated using NVivo word frequency function. Next, with the aid of Python, we used sentiment analysis to classify each node (as positive, negative, or neutral) to indicate participant ratings toward their experiences with the CTSI and computed the average differences between groups. Third, we selected nodes that met pre-established criteria and report the qualitative distinctions. We recommend using precisely worded open-ended questions in future annual surveys or administering a survey using only opened-ended questions every six months.

Mentoring college students with disabilities: experiences of the mentors

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashleigh Hillier ◽  
Jody Goldstein ◽  
Lauren Tornatore ◽  
Emily Byrne ◽  
Joseph Ryan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
University Students ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Student Mentors ◽  
Students With A Disability ◽  
The Impact

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to better understand the impact of peer mentoring on mentors working with university students with a disability. Research questions focused on how undergraduate student mentors evaluated their experience as a mentor, in what ways they benefited, the challenges they experienced and how these challenges could be addressed. Design/methodology/approach Quantitative and qualitative data examined the experiences, benefits and challenges experienced by the mentors across seven separate cohorts. Self-report measures were collected in a pre-post design, and qualitative analysis was conducted on focus groups at the end of the program. The paper also outlines the program model including training and support mechanisms, and the program curriculum implemented by mentors. Findings Responses on the measures showed that student mentors saw mentoring as a positive experience, and they felt more committed to their university after participating. Qualitative content analysis of focus groups supported this and also highlighted some of the unique challenges faced by mentors working with students with a disability. These included communication difficulties, trouble building rapport, not knowing how to help their mentee and feeling over-protective. Research limitations/implications While the findings are preliminary, results indicated that serving as a mentor to freshmen university students with a disability had an important impact on the personal growth and skills development of the mentors. In addition, similar program models should recognize that careful attention is needed to ensure mentors are fully supported in their role. Findings also highlight areas for improvement of the program such as examining longer term outcomes, including a comparison group, and seeking the perspectives of the mentees. Limitations included limited standardized assessment tools to assess impact more broadly. Originality/value The study is original in its focus on improving current understanding of outcomes for student mentors who are working with incoming university students with a disability status.

scholarly journals Enhancing reproducibility using interprofessional team best practices

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Betsy Rolland ◽  
Elizabeth S. Burnside ◽  
Corrine I. Voils ◽  
Manish N. Shah ◽  
Allan R. Brasier
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Team Science ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Preclinical Research ◽  
Minimal Impact ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The pervasive problem of irreproducibility of preclinical research represents a substantial threat to the translation of CTSA-generated health interventions. Key stakeholders in the research process have proposed solutions to this challenge to encourage research practices that improve reproducibility. However, these proposals have had minimal impact, because they either 1. take place too late in the research process, 2. focus exclusively on the products of research instead of the processes of research, and/or 3. fail to take into account the driving incentives in the research enterprise. Because so much clinical and translational science is team-based, CTSA hubs have a unique opportunity to leverage Science of Team Science research to implement and support innovative, evidence-based, team-focused, reproducibility-enhancing activities at a project’s start, and across its evolution. Here, we describe the impact of irreproducibility on clinical and translational science, review its origins, and then describe stakeholders’ efforts to impact reproducibility, and why those efforts may not have the desired effect. Based on team-science best practices and principles of scientific integrity, we then propose ways for Translational Teams to build reproducible behaviors. We end with suggestions for how CTSAs can leverage team-based best practices and identify observable behaviors that indicate a culture of reproducible research.

scholarly journals 4037 Assessing Leadership Skills in Translational Science Training: The Rockefeller University Leadership Survey

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (s1) ◽  
pp. 116-117
Author(s):  
Roger Vaughan ◽  
Michelle Romanick ◽  
Donna Brassil ◽  
Rhonda G Kost ◽  
Sarah Schlesinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Leadership Skills ◽  
Team Leadership ◽  
Return Of Results ◽  
Competency Assessment ◽  
Team Science ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Delphi Approach ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Science Leadership

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: There is universal recognition of the importance of team science and team leadership. We have developed a semi-quantitative translational science specific team leadership competency assessment tool and have begun implementation studies to assess the impact of personalized feedback on the team science leadership skills of KL2 Clinical Scholars. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To create the instrument, we employed a modified Delphi approach by conducting a thorough literature review on Leadership to concretize the relevant constructs, then used these extracted constructs as a springboard for the Rockefeller Team Science Educators (TSE’s) to discuss and refine the leadership domain areas, collectively create domain-specific survey items. Further discussion helped refined the number, grouping, and wording. Scholars also contributed feedback in item development. We piloted the Leadership Survey by having all of the Rockefeller TSEs rate Clinical Scholars, and having each Scholar rate themselves. Each item was answered using a six-point Likert scale where a low score indicated poor expression and a high score represented excellent expression of the specific leadership attribute. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Incorporation into a REDCap data base made consenting and rating process by TSE’s and the Scholars straightforward. The a priori domains (Foundational Leadership Competencies, Professionalism, Team Building and Team Sustainability, Appropriate Resource Use and Study Execution, and Regulatory Accountability) had high internal validity and good internal factor structure. The congruence between TSE and Scholar self-ratings were uniformly high, and discordance was often a function of “confidence” and “modesty” on the part of the scholar, rather than deficiency. Supporting comments were informative about performance barriers and mechanisms for improvement. Return of results allowed for the exploration of training gaps. Scholars were surveyed to gauge their reaction to the formal feedback. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This quantification of team science leadership constructs has allowed for A)- the articulation of constructs essential for successful Translational Scientists to acquire during their training, B)- identification of gaps in that training and skill set, and C)- mechanisms for bolstering any identified gaps in these essential leadership constructs. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DESCRIPTION: None

scholarly journals Improving clinical and translational research training: a qualitative evaluation of the Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute KL2-mentored research scholars program

2016 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawn L Comeau ◽  
Cam Escoffery ◽  
Ariela Freedman ◽  
Thomas R Ziegler ◽  
Henry M Blumberg
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Minority Group ◽  
Junior Faculty ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Underrepresented Minority ◽  
Science Institute ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

A major impediment to improving the health of communities is the lack of qualified clinical and translational research (CTR) investigators. To address this workforce shortage, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) developed mechanisms to enhance the career development of CTR physician, PhD, and other doctoral junior faculty scientists including the CTR-focused K12 program and, subsequently, the KL2-mentored CTR career development program supported through the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs). Our evaluation explores the impact of the K12/KL2 program embedded within the Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute (ACTSI), a consortium linking Emory University, Morehouse School of Medicine and the Georgia Institute of Technology. We conducted qualitative interviews with program participants to evaluate the impact of the program on career development and collected data on traditional metrics (number of grants, publications). 46 combined K12/KL2 scholars were supported between 2002 and 2016. 30 (65%) of the 46 K12/KL2 scholars are women; 24 (52%) of the trainees are minorities, including 10 (22%) scholars who are members of an underrepresented minority group. Scholars reported increased research skills, strong mentorship experiences, and positive impact on their career trajectory. Among the 43 scholars who have completed the program, 39 (91%) remain engaged in CTR and received over $89 000 000 as principal investigators on federally funded awards. The K12/KL2 funding provided the training and protected time for successful career development of CTR scientists. These data highlight the need for continued support for CTR training programs for junior faculty.

scholarly journals Assessing entrepreneurial competences: insights from a business model challenge

2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Bolzani ◽  
Elena Luppi
Keyword(s):  
Business Model ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
Entrepreneurship Education ◽  
Team Work ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Analytical Thinking ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Survey Responses ◽  
The Impact

PurposeWhile the number of entrepreneurship education programmes offered around the world is on the rise, research into the assessment of entrepreneurship education programmes is still lacking. The purpose of this paper is to take the stance that entrepreneurship education has to focus on a set of transversal competences aimed at teaching individuals to become more enterprising, and develop a framework and practical proposal for the teaching and assessment of entrepreneurial competences.Design/methodology/approachThe authors followed a three-pronged research design. First, the authors reviewed the literature and practices on the definition of entrepreneurial competences and measures for their assessment and identified a rubric of competences and a set of assessment tools. Second, the authors tested the identified tools to assess entrepreneurial competences through the development of an intensive extra-curricular initiative on entrepreneurship based on a business model challenge. Third, the authors evaluated the outcomes of this experience based on 72 student pre-test and post-test survey responses.FindingsThe authors assessed the impact of participation in a business model challenge with regard to five competence areas: positive attitude and initiative; communication and interaction; team-work and collaboration; critical and analytical thinking or problem solving, including risk assessment; creativity and innovation. The authors found no relevant changes across these dimensions, concluding that the mere exposure to the business challenge was not a sufficient condition for stimulating the development of entrepreneurial competences in our sample.Originality/valueThis work provides a relevant contribution to researchers, educators and policymakers by taking an interdisciplinary approach to reviewing previous literature and proposing ways of assessing transversal competences in the context of entrepreneurship education.

scholarly journals Measuring team science: Associations between a clinical-translational science institute and investigator ego networks

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
pp. 363-370
Author(s):  
Felichism W. Kabo ◽  
George A. Mashour
Keyword(s):  
Positive Impact ◽  
Grant Proposal ◽  
Team Science ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Ego Networks ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Indirect Impacts ◽  
The University ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThe National Institutes of Health’s Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) institutes have been created, in part, to have a positive impact on collaboration and team science. This study is the first to examine the associations between a CTSA hub, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR), and investigators’ ego networks. We ran cross-sectional and panel models of the associations between consulting with MICHR and the ego network measure of two-step reach (TSR) – that is, colleagues of colleagues reachable in two steps – from a network of 2161 investigators who had co-submitted a grant proposal to an external sponsor in 2006. Our analyses covered the period 2004–2012, although some model specifications covered the shorter time period 2006–2010. Consulting with MICHR had positive associations with the size of and changes in an investigator’s TSR across and over time, even controlling for research productivity and organizational affiliation. For example, over the period 2006–2010 an investigator who consulted with MICHR reached 44 more individuals than a non-consulting investigator. This study expands our understanding of the indirect impacts that clinical and translational science institutes have on investigators’ scientific networks. This network-based approach might be useful in quantifying the impact of team science initiatives at the university level.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document