scholarly journals 2292 Evaluating the impact of a K-award on clinical and translational research

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 55-55
Author(s):  
Elias M. Samuels ◽  
Thomas E. Perorazio ◽  
Ellen Champagne ◽  
Brenda Eakin
Keyword(s):  
Translational Research ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Research Experiences ◽  
Research Careers ◽  
Study Population ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research ◽  
Research Service

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Identify the impact of the provision of clinical and translational research training awards on investigators’ pursuit of clinical and translational research careers. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Propensity score matching and qualitative analysis/investigators receiving MICHR’s KL2 research training awards. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: While the evaluations of the impact of this service have shown participants find them to be valuable it is expected that participation in the workshop may be more beneficial to investigators with certain types of prior research experiences and who utilize more CTSA research support. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Because this evaluation of a research service incorporate data representing investigator’s receipt of different CTSA resources, the findings can be used to inform the ongoing coordination of these services in ways that optimize their impact on the production of clinical and translational research. There is an enduring need for evaluations of CTSA programs to account for investigators’ use of different constellations of research services in order to identify what combinations of services over time are most effective at fostering successful clinical and translational research careers.

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.

Trends in Treatment of Uterine Serous Cancer in the Medicare Population

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 1023-1030 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain ◽  
Sarah C. Connor ◽  
Joel T. Clemmer ◽  
Olivia W. Foley ◽  
Rachel M. Clark ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Proportional Hazards ◽  
Proportional Hazards Model ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards Model ◽  
Serous Carcinoma ◽  
Medicare Population ◽  
Study Population ◽  
Uterine Serous Carcinoma ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were to evaluate the rates of chemotherapy and radiotherapy delivery in the treatment of uterine serous carcinoma in the Medicare population and to compare clinical outcomes in treated and untreated patients.MethodsThe linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and Medicare databases were queried to identify patients with a diagnosis of uterine serous carcinoma between 1992 and 2009. The impact of chemotherapy on survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Factors predictive of outcome were compared using the Cox proportional hazards model.ResultsA total of 2188 patients met study eligibility criteria. Stages I, II, III, and IV diseases accounted for 890 (41%), 174 (8%), 470 (21%), and 654 (30%) of the study population, respectively. Chemotherapy, radiotherapy, both, or none, were administered as adjuvant therapy in 635 (29%), 536 (24%), 308 (14%), and 709 (32%) of the study population, respectively. Use of chemotherapy became more frequent over time. Over the study period, and after adjusting for race, time of diagnosis, SEER registry, marital status, stage, age, surgery, lymph node dissection, socioeconomic status, and comorbidity index, there was an association between receipt of radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.04–1.67) and not receiving any treatment (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2–2.01) and worst survival. Survival was not improved over time.ConclusionAlthough adjuvant chemotherapy and combination treatment with chemotherapy and radiation were associated with improved survival in our model, there was no significant improvement in survival over time.

scholarly journals 2174 Building the next generation of translational researchers in health disparities

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 52-52
Author(s):  
Carlamarie Noboa ◽  
Zulmarie de Pedro-Serbía ◽  
Lourdes E. Soto de Laurido ◽  
Aracelis H. Chardon
Keyword(s):  
Health Disparities ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Online Course ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Working Together ◽  
Study Population ◽  
Research Consortium ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Translational research involves researchers’ teams working together to address health issues. However, successful translational researchers in health disparities require a set of competencies and skills. In order to increase the number of new minority investigators in translational research focused on health disparities, the Hispanics-in-Research Capability: SoHP & SoM Partnership and the Puerto Rico Clinical and Translational Research Consortium designed and implemented a webinar series “Fostering the Next Generation of Researchers in Health Disparities.” METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: From March 31 to July 14, 2017, this webinar series offered the theoretical perspectives of health disparities, research methodology specific to its study, and intervention strategies to address health disparities in communities through minority investigators. National and local interdisciplinary experts were the presenters. Participants’ experience and impact were assessed through a self-administrated questionnaire. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 78 minority investigators participated in this webinar. Overall, participants indicated that the webinar improved their knowledge and skills about health disparities research. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Results guide the programs actions plans to enhance and support the translational researchers’ capacity. Diverse capacity building initiatives including peer-to-peer education, online course, tailored coaching, and other interventions have been designed to address researchers’ needs. This webinar was a pathway to build the next generation of translational researchers in health disparities.

scholarly journals NIH Grant Awards as a Metric of Clinical and Translational Research Training Effectiveness

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline M. Knapke ◽  
Erin N. Haynes ◽  
Pierce Kuhnell ◽  
Joel Tsevat
Keyword(s):  
Translational Research ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Training Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

scholarly journals 3566 Longitudinal analysis of research collaborations and emerging networks

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 132-133
Author(s):  
Ann Marie Dozier ◽  
Elizabeth Wayman ◽  
Camille Anne Martina ◽  
Nicole O’Dell ◽  
Eric P. Rubinstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Research Networks ◽  
Network Growth ◽  
Part Time Faculty ◽  
Research Collaborations ◽  
Part Time ◽  
Study Population ◽  
Changes Over Time ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To longitudinally track emerging research collaborations and assess their development and productivity. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: In four administrations (2011, 2013, 2015, 2017), all full- and part-time University of Rochester Medical Center faculty received an email invitation to complete a research collaborators survey. Respondents indicated whether they were involved in research, and if involved in research, identified collaborators from a drop-down list of investigators in the institution. Space was provided for write-ins. Full- and part-time status, faculty rank, and departmental affiliation was associated with each investigator. Grant data were obtained from a grant management database maintained by the institution’s Office of Research and Project Administration. Grant data included all submissions (funded and not funded), award number, award effective data, award final expiration date, funding amounts, principal investigator and co-investigators. Using Mathematica SNA software, for each year we identified collaborator dyads (including their characteristics such as inter/intradepartmental; investigator characteristics) and networks (e.g. size, density). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: On average, 1800 (range 1730-2034) full- and part-time faculty received email invitations to complete the survey. An average of 403 respondents (range 385-441) completed the survey each administration. While the response rate seems low, the survey was distributed to every faculty member regardless of their primary appointment. Thus it included a large number of individuals whose role is exclusively clinical. Grant data included 4429 awards received between 2011 and 2018, involving 1395 investigators as principal or co-investigators. Survey respondents naming collaborators ranged from 233 to 280 (average 257) with 1594 to 2265 (average 1988) collaborations named each year. Overall density increased from.0204 in 2011 to.0342 in 2017. Density within the group of female investigators increased from.0219 in 2011 to.0412 in 2017. Within the group of male investigators, density increase from.0226 to.0333 in the same time span. Analysis by rank, changes over time and those with grant funding is underway. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This methodology captured a consistent number of collaborations over an 8 year period. Analyses reveal network growth over time and of increasing heterogeneity (by gender). Analyzing research networks overtime provides an important metric to assess how research networks evolve and devolve and the characteristics of those that grow or stagnate. Further these analyses can demonstrate the impact of support provided to networks or teams by the CTSI, department or other institutional mechanism.

scholarly journals 4145 Stepping Stones for Success in T3-T4 Translation: Building Collective Impact

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (s1) ◽  
pp. 145-145
Author(s):  
Kishore Athreya ◽  
Terry Nakazono ◽  
Jim Morrison ◽  
Pamela Davidson
Keyword(s):  
Stages Of Change ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Delivery Systems ◽  
Collective Impact ◽  
Stepping Stones ◽  
Study Population ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Depth Interviews ◽  
Cross Project

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We will investigate the influence of multisector partnerships in T3-T4 research associated with advances in delivery systems, patient/population outcomes and health policy and the translational processes linked to these improvements. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We are using both quantitative and qualitative data to measure and analyze partnership characteristics linked to successful translation into practice & policy. We aim to complete 100 surveys of investigators who have conducted CTSA-supported T3-T4 research to examine partnerships, conditions of collective impact, and quantifiable changes in delivery systems, health outcomes, and policy. Using rigorous criteria, we will select projects for more in-depth interviews to understand the practices of successful translation and roadblocks and barriers that challenge translation. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The anticipated research products include: (i) an analytic report on partnership structure and processes and the statistical associations to stages of change outcomes, (ii) a series of vignettes to describe the impact stories and translational processes, (iii) cross-project analysis of the data and vignettes to produce generalizable information to improve T3-T4 translation, and (iv) peer-reviewed manuscript(s) for publication. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The study will inform and improve researcher competencies and accelerate translation in CTSA hubs that emphasize T3-T4 research. We will develop novel definitions of the T3-T4 research impact. Ultimately, the results will inform research training to better address real-world priorities and needs.

scholarly journals 2332

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
pp. 74-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis P. Scanlon ◽  
Laura J. Wolf ◽  
Cynthia Chuang ◽  
Jen Kraschnewski ◽  
Eugene Lengerich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Research Committee ◽  
Literature Synthesis ◽  
Individual Project ◽  
Study Population ◽  
Effective Community ◽  
Major Factors ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Community engagement is a commonly used term, but is complex in both meaning and application. In order to help academic institutions and administrators develop infrastructure to promote and support community engagement and to help investigators work productively with communities, this analysis discusses the major components of community engagement in research on both the institutional and individual project levels as well as the interplay between them. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A literature synthesis conducted by a community engagement in research committee at 1 CTSA institution that examined the myriad factors related to effective community engagement in research identified across multiple disciplines was used to distill the major factors identified, assesses the interplay of the identified factors, and produce a conceptual model to help administrators and investigators apply best practices in engaging communities in clinical and translational research. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: This work takes a concept—community engagement in research—that is often stated and discussed, but is highly complex and challenging to implement—and identifies and discusses the multiple, interrelated factors germane to it. The model illustrates that while community engagement in research is implemented in the context of individual projects, a deep and continual interplay between individual projects and the goals, capacity, and policies of research institutions is needed for rigorous, ethical, and effective community engagement. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Results are presented through a conceptual framework which displays the major components needed for rigorous, ethical, and effective community engagement in clinical and translational research. In addition, the conceptual framework presented will provide assistance to those developing approaches to measure and evaluate institutional readiness for community engagement in research as well as the effectiveness of individual community engagement efforts.

scholarly journals 2531 Phase II award: Evaluation of outcomes in preparing independent researchers by continued mentoring and career development support (2006–2016)

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 59-59
Author(s):  
Maria T. San Martin ◽  
Ruth Rios ◽  
Barbara Segarra ◽  
Karen G. Martinez ◽  
Estela Estape ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Time Management ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Development Program ◽  
Semistructured Interview ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The Hispanic Clinical and Translational Education and Career Development program entails formal research training (Phase I) through an established post-doctoral Master of Science in Clinical and Translational Research. The most qualified graduates from Phase I compete to receive 1–2 years support for continued mentoring and career development (Phase II program) aiming to apply for a regular research grant or career award (K or R series). OBJECTIVE: This project aims to present an evaluation of the Phase II program and Scholars outcomes. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: METHODS: Participants (n=12) responded to a semistructured interview including 43 questions about program’s processes and outcomes. Descriptive and content analysis was done. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: RESULTS: Results show that 83% are women, 42% are MD, and 67% are affiliated to the University of Puerto Rico-Medical Sciences Campus and 67% were able to fulfill their career development expectations during the Phase II Award. At present (92%) are conducting clinical research in their current position. Outcomes include new selection of research line, K Awards, and enhanced skills in clinical and translational research DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: DISCUSSION: Challenges identified were: time management, better coaching and a more structured mentoring experience. The main benefit of the program were protected time, research budget, and the opportunity to acquire more research experience.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document