scholarly journals The Rockefeller University Clinical Scholars (KL2) program 2006–2016

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 285-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah J. Schlesinger ◽  
Michelle Romanick ◽  
Jonathan N. Tobin ◽  
Donna Brassil ◽  
Rhonda G. Kost ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Practice ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Leadership Skills ◽  
Team Science ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Government Service ◽  
Content Expert ◽  
Foreign Government ◽  
Science Training

Introduction and MethodsThe Rockefeller Clinical Scholars (KL2) program began in 1976 and transitioned into a 3-year Master’s degree program in 2006 when Rockefeller joined the National Institute of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award program. The program consists of ∼15 trainees supported by the Clinical and Translational Science Award KL2 award and University funds. It is designed to provide an optimal environment for junior translational investigators to develop team science and leadership skills by designing and performing a human subjects protocol under the supervision of a distinguished senior investigator mentor and a team of content expert educators. This is complemented by a tutorial focused on important translational skills.ResultsSince 2006, 40 Clinical Scholars have graduated from the programs and gone on to careers in academia (72%), government service (5%), industry (15%), and private medical practice (3%); 2 (5%) remain in training programs; 39/40 remain in translational research careers with 23 National Institute of Health awards totaling $23 million, foundation and philanthropic support of $20.3 million, and foreign government and foundation support of $6 million. They have made wide ranging scientific discoveries and have endeavored to translate those discoveries into improved human health.ConclusionThe Rockefeller Clinical Scholars (KL2) program provides one model for translational science training.

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 KỸ NĂNG QUẢN LÝ, LÃNH ĐẠO CỦA CÁN BỘ QUẢN LÝ TRƯỜNG PHỔ THÔNG

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phuong huyen Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
High Schools ◽  
Basic Education ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Leadership Skills ◽  
Education And Training ◽  
Current Time ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Vice Principals ◽  
And Training ◽  
Management And Leadership

Abstract: This article presents a study on management and leadership skills of education managers (principals, vice principals) of high schools in Vietnam in the current time. By clarifying theories of skills and leadership skills, alongside with empricial study to explore the performance of these skills of the principals and vice principals from high schools. Research results have made specific contributions to the development of training programs for managers to contribute to the overall renovation of basic education and training to meet the needs of society.

scholarly journals Integrating data science into the translational science research spectrum: A substance use disorder case study

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Emily Slade ◽  
Linda P. Dwoskin ◽  
Guo-Qiang Zhang ◽  
Jeffery C. Talbert ◽  
Jin Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Substance Use ◽  
Big Data ◽  
Substance Use Disorder ◽  
Data Science ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Health Impact ◽  
Team Science ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Preclinical Research

Abstract The availability of large healthcare datasets offers the opportunity for researchers to navigate the traditional clinical and translational science research stages in a nonlinear manner. In particular, data scientists can harness the power of large healthcare datasets to bridge from preclinical discoveries (T0) directly to assessing population-level health impact (T4). A successful bridge from T0 to T4 does not bypass the other stages entirely; rather, effective team science makes a direct progression from T0 to T4 impactful by incorporating the perspectives of researchers from every stage of the clinical and translational science research spectrum. In this exemplar, we demonstrate how effective team science overcame challenges and, ultimately, ensured success when a diverse team of researchers worked together, using healthcare big data to test population-level substance use disorder (SUD) hypotheses generated from preclinical rodent studies. This project, called Advancing Substance use disorder Knowledge using Big Data (ASK Big Data), highlights the critical roles that data science expertise and effective team science play in quickly translating preclinical research into public health impact.

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 2474 Promoting collaboration among researchers: A team science training curriculum

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 59-59
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Knapke ◽  
Amy Short ◽  
Tamilyn Bakas ◽  
Jacinda Dariotis ◽  
Elizabeth Heubi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Team Leadership ◽  
Grant Writing ◽  
Team Science ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Graduate Level ◽  
Train The Trainer ◽  
Funding Program ◽  
Grand Rounds ◽  
Science Training

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: As multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary research has become imperative to solving the complex problems of contemporary healthcare, teaching researchers how to create and maintain high-functioning and innovative teams has also become paramount. In Fall 2016, the Center for Improvement Science (CIS) core, in collaboration with the Translational Workforce Development (TWD) core, at the Cincinnati Center for Clinical & Translational Science & Training (CCTST) began offering training in Team Science in an effort to better prepare researchers for collaborative work. Since then, the CIS has expanded Team Science education into a multifaceted and adaptable curriculum that includes workshops, team consultations, Grand Rounds, grant writing assistance, grant review, train-the-trainer, and a graduate-level course. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Over almost 2 years, we have offered 9 unique workshops attended by individuals from the University of Cincinnati, UCHealth, and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Recruitment was primarily accomplished via email invitations. Topics ranged from introductory team science issues such as Creating Teams, Team Effectiveness, and Team Leadership to more advanced team science areas such as Team Dysfunctions and Conflict Management. In addition, we have consulted with researchers on Team Science components of grant applications and served as grant reviewers for Team Science elements in a competitive, internal research funding program. We have developed tools and teaching strategies for faculty members tasked with teaching students about collaboration (train-the-trainer). And finally, we offered a graduate level course on Collaboration and Team Science. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Over 250 participants attended our workshops and Grand Rounds, many at the faculty level, but we also had research staff and graduate students register. Content was very well-received, with workshop evaluations typically scoring in the high 4.5 and above range (on a 5-point scale, with 5 being the highest rating). The CIS team received (and accepted) at least 2 follow-up invitations from workshop participants to provide training to an additional team or group. We are tracking data on long-term effects of team science training and consultation, both in research productivity and team satisfaction/longevity. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The goals of Team Science training at the Cincinnati CCTST are 2-fold: to provide practical knowledge, skills, and tools to enhance transdisciplinary collaboration and to promote systemic changes at UC, CCHMC, and UCHealth that support team science. After almost 2 years of training, team science is gaining traction among key leaders at our local institutions and a broader audience of researchers who see how collaborative practice can enhance their professions.

scholarly journals Expanding Research Capacity in Sub-Saharan Africa Through Informatics, Bioinformatics, and Data Science Training Programs in Mali

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey G. Shaffer ◽  
Frances J. Mather ◽  
Mamadou Wele ◽  
Jian Li ◽  
Cheick Oumar Tangara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Science ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
Science Training

scholarly journals Using bibliometrics to evaluate translational science training: evidence for early career success of KL2 scholars

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Kelli Qua ◽  
Clara M. Pelfrey
Keyword(s):  
Early Stage ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
Grant Funding ◽  
Federal Grant ◽  
Point Analysis ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Science Training ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

Abstract Introduction: Evaluating clinical and translational research (CTR) mentored training programs is challenging because no two programs are alike. Careful selection of appropriate metrics is required to make valid comparisons between individuals and between programs. The KL2 program provides mentored-training for early-stage CTR investigators. Clinical and Translational Awards across the country have unique KL2 programs. The evaluation of KL2 programs has begun to incorporate bibliometrics to measure KL2 scholar and program impact. Methods: This study investigated demographic differences in bibliometric performance and post-K award funding of KL2 scholars and compared the bibliometric performance and post-K award federal funding of KL2 scholars and other mentored-K awardees at the same institution. Data for this study included SciVal and iCite bibliometrics and National Institutions of Health RePORTER grant information for mentored-K awardees (K08, K23, and KL2) at Case Western Reserve University between 2005 and 2013. Results: Results showed no demographics differences within the KL2 program scholars. Bibliometric differences between KL2 and other mentored-K awardee indicated an initial KL2 advantage for the number of publications at 5 years’ post-matriculation (i.e., the start of the K award). Regression analyses indicated the number of initial publications was a significant predictor of federal grant funding at the same time point. Analysis beyond the 5-year post-matriculation point did not result in a sustained, significant KL2 advantage. Conclusions: Factors that contributed to the grant funding advantage need to be determined. Additionally, differences between translational and clinical bibliometrics must be interpreted with caution, and appropriate metrics for translational science must be established.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document