Ideally, real-world data (RWD) collected to generate real-world evidence (RWE) should lead to impact on the care and health of real-world patients. Deriving from care in which clinicians and patients try various treatments to inform therapeutic decisions, N-of-1 trials bring scientific methods to real-world practice.

These single-patient crossover trials generate RWD and RWE by giving individual patients various treatments in a double-blinded way in sequential periods to determine the most effective treatment for a given patient.

This approach is most often used for patients with chronic, relatively stable conditions that provide the opportunity to make comparisons over multiple treatment periods, termed Type 1 N-of-1 trials. These are most helpful when there is heterogeneity of treatment effects among patients and no a priori best option. N-of-1 trials also can be done for patients with rare diseases, potentially testing only one treatment, to generate evidence for personalized treatment decisions, designated as Type 2 N-of-1 trials. With both types, in addition to informing individual’s treatments, when uniform protocols are used for multiple patients with the same condition, the data collected in the individual N-of-1 trials can be aggregated to provide RWD/RWE to inform more general use of the treatments. Thereby, N-of-1 trials can provide RWE for the care of individuals and for populations.

To fulfill this potential, we believe N-of-1 trials should be built into our current healthcare ecosystem. To this end, we are building the needed infrastructure and engaging the stakeholders who should receive value from this approach.

iLookOut, a web-based child abuse training for early childcare professionals (ECPs), has been shown to improve knowledge and attitudes related to correctly identifying and reporting suspected cases of child abuse. The overarching goal of the present study is to examine “what works for whom” for iLookOut in order to identify strategies for optimizing learner outcomes.

This prospective study enrolled 12,705 ECPs who completed iLookOut (November 2014–December 2018). We used structural equation models to test whether learner demographic and professional characteristics were differentially associated with implementation outcomes (i.e., acceptability and appropriateness) and whether these mediated subsequent indicators of training effectiveness (i.e., gains in knowledge).

Consistent with previous research, individuals with lower baseline knowledge scores showed greater knowledge gains (β = −.57; p < .001). Greater knowledge gains were seen for learners who reported higher acceptability (β = .08; p < .001) or appropriateness (β = .14; p < .001). Implementation outcomes strongly associated with knowledge gains included acceptability for female learners and appropriateness for learners who had not completed high school or had >15 years of experience in childcare settings. Where mediation was found, for the majority of groups, appropriateness emerged as the driving mediator.

Implementation outcomes emerged as important drivers of knowledge change for most groups. The iLookOut Core Training’s use of a multimedia learning environment, video-based storylines, and game-based techniques were endorsed by learners and correlated with increases in knowledge. Future work should explore why aspects of the iLookOut training are rated as less acceptable or appropriate by some groups and what changes would improve efficacy for low performing learners.

Real-world data, such as administrative claims and electronic health records, are increasingly used for safety monitoring and to help guide regulatory decision-making. In these settings, it is important to document analytic decisions transparently and objectively to assess and ensure that analyses meet their intended goals.

The Causal Roadmap is an established framework that can guide and document analytic decisions through each step of the analytic pipeline, which will help investigators generate high-quality real-world evidence.

In this paper, we illustrate the utility of the Causal Roadmap using two case studies previously led by workgroups sponsored by the Sentinel Initiative – a program for actively monitoring the safety of regulated medical products. Each case example focuses on different aspects of the analytic pipeline for drug safety monitoring. The first case study shows how the Causal Roadmap encourages transparency, reproducibility, and objective decision-making for causal analyses. The second case study highlights how this framework can guide analytic decisions beyond inference on causal parameters, improving outcome ascertainment in clinical phenotyping.

These examples provide a structured framework for implementing the Causal Roadmap in safety surveillance and guide transparent, reproducible, and objective analysis.

To conduct high-quality, rigorous research, and advance scientific knowledge, Translational Teams (TTs) engage in information behaviors, including seeking, using, creating, sharing, storing, and retrieving information, in ways specific to the translational context. Currently, little is known about TTs’ approach to information management. This qualitative pilot study explored how TTs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison interact with information, as well as the scientific and organizational impact of their interactions.

We conducted interviews with ten members of UW TTs. Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted.

Four themes emerged: (1) TT members did not recognize the centrality of information or information behaviors to their scientific work; (2) TT members engaged in similar information behaviors and used similar tools across disciplines and topics; (3) TT members did not receive support or guidance from their institution in managing information; and (4) Individualized choices of TT members conflicted at the team level, causing confusion and increasing the potential for data and information loss. Acting as freelance information management agents, TT members made individualized decisions about what tools to use and how to use them, often in a piecemeal manner and without communicating these decisions to other team members.

Research institutions should both encourage teams to discuss their information management approaches at the beginning of a project and provide leaders with training on how to have these conversations and what topics should be included. Additionally, institutions can provide researchers with guidelines for using software platforms to help mitigate information management challenges.

Clinical and Translational Research (CTR) requires a team-based approach, with successful teams engaging in skilled management and use of information. Yet we know little about the ways that Translational Teams (TTs) engage with information across the lifecycle of CTR projects. This qualitative study explored the challenges that information management imposes on the conduct of team-based CTR.

We conducted interviews with ten members of TTs at University of Wisconsin. Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted.

TTs’ piecemeal and reactive approaches to information management created conflict within the team and slowed scientific progress. The lack of cohesive information management strategies made it more difficult for teams to develop strong team processes like communication, scientific coordination, and project management. While TTs’ research was hindered by the institutional challenges of interdisciplinary team information sharing, TTs who had developed shared approaches to information management that foregrounded transparency, accountability, and trust, described substantial benefits to their teamwork.

We propose a new model for the Science of Team Science field – a Translational Team Science Hierarchy of Needs – that suggests interventions should be targeted at the appropriate stage of team development in order to maximize a team’s scientific potential.

Incorporating real-world data using “big data” analysis in healthcare are useful to extract specific information for healthcare delivery system improvement. All-cause mortality is an essential measure to enhance patient safety in clinical trial research, especially for underrepresented pediatric participants.

This study aimed to determine the associations between pediatric mortality and patient-specific factors using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) database.

Data from the 2019 the HCUP Kids’ Inpatient Database (KID) were used to conduct a logistic regression analysis to determine associations between pediatric patients’ the chance of survival and their demographic and socioeconomic background, discharge records, and hospital information.

Total number of diagnoses (OR = 0.84), total number of procedures (OR = 0.86), length of stay (OR = 1.04), age intervals greater than 1 year (OR > 1.0), transfer into the hospital from a different acute care (OR = 0.34), major diagnoses of multiple significant trauma (OR = 0.03) or hepatobiliary system and pancreas (OR = 0.10), region of hospital – west and midwest (OR > 1.0), and medium or larger hospital bed size (OR > 1.0) were all significantly associated with the chance of survival for patients participating in pediatric clinical trials (p < 0.05).

Real-world clinical trial data analysis showed the potential improvement area including reallocating trial resources to promote trial quality and safe participation for pediatric patients. Pediatric trials need tools that are developed using user-centered design approaches to satisfy the unique needs and requirements of pediatric patients and their caregivers. Safe intrahospital transfer procedures and active dissemination of successful trial best practices are crucial to trial management, adherence, quality, and safety.

The Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index, a simple index that includes age, liver enzymes, and platelet count has been studied as a tool to identify patients at a risk of requiring mechanical ventilation due to its high negative predictive value. It is unknown if FIB-4 remains useful to predict the severity of respiratory disease requiring mechanical ventilation amongst new Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) variants and whether a relationship also exists between FIB-4 and 30-day mortality. The main objective was to determine if FIB-4 can predict mechanical ventilation requirements and 30-day mortality from COVID-19 across variants including Alpha, Delta, and Omicron.

This was a population-based, retrospective cohort analysis of 232,364 hospitalized patients in the National COVID-19 Cohort Collaborative between the age of 18–90 who tested positive for COVID-19 between April 27, 2020 and June 25, 2022. The primary outcome was association between FIB-4 and need for mechanical ventilation. Secondary measures included the association of FIB-4 with 30-day mortality.

A FIB-4 > 2.67 had 1.8 times higher odds of requiring mechanical ventilation across all variants of COVID-19 (OR 1.81; 95% CI: [1.76, 1.86]). The area under the ROC curve showed high diagnostic accuracy with values ranging between 0.79 (Omicron wave) and 0.97 (delta wave). Increased FIB-4 was associated with 30-day mortality across the variates.

The FIB-4 was consistently associated with both increased utilization of mechanical ventilation and 30-day mortality among COVID-19 patients across all waves in both adjusted and unadjusted models. This provides a simple tool for risk-stratification for front-line health care professionals.

A recent literature review revealed no studies that explored teams that used an explicit theoretical framework for multiteam systems in academic settings, such as the increasingly important multi-institutional cross-disciplinary translational team (MCTT) form. We conducted an exploratory 30-interview grounded theory study over two rounds to analyze participants’ experiences from three universities who assembled an MCTT in order to pursue a complex grant proposal related to research on post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, also called “long COVID.” This article considers activities beginning with preliminary discussions among principal investigators through grant writing and submission, and completion of reviews by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, which resulted in the proposal not being scored.

There were two stages to this interview study with MCTT members: pre-submission, and post-decision. Round one focused on the process of developing structures to collaborate on proposal writing and assembly, whereas round two focused on evaluation of the complete process. A total of 15 participants agreed to be interviewed in each round.

The first round of interviews was conducted prior to submission and explored issues during proposal writing, including (1) importance of the topic; (2) meaning and perception of “team” within the MCTT context; and (3) leadership at different levels of the team. The second round explored best practices-related issues including (1) leadership and design; (2) specific proposal assembly tasks; (3) communication; and (4) critical events.

We conclude with suggestions for developing best practices for assembling MCTTs involving multi-institutional teams.