Research mentor training is a valuable professional development activity. Options for training customization (by delivery mode, dosage, content) are needed to address the many critical attributes of effective mentoring relationships and to support mentors in different institutional settings.

We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to evaluate a hybrid mentor training approach consisting of an innovative, 90-minute, self-paced, online module (Optimizing the Practice of Mentoring, OPM) followed by workshops based on the Entering Mentoring (EM) curriculum. Mentors (n = 59) were randomized to intervention or control arms; the control condition was receipt of a two-page mentoring tip sheet. Surveys (pre, post, 3-month follow up) and focus groups assessed training impact (self-appraised knowledge, skills, behavior change) and participants’ perceptions of the blended training model.

The intervention (∼6.5 hours) produced significant improvements in all outcomes, including skills gains on par with those reported previously for the 8-hour EM model. Knowledge gains and intention-to-change mentoring practices were realized after completion of OPM and augmented by the in-person sessions. Mentors valued the synergy of the blended learning format, noting the unique strengths of each modality and specific benefits to completing a foundational online module before in-person engagement.

Findings from this pilot trial support the value of e-learning approaches, both as standalone curricula or as a component of hybrid implementation models, for the professional development of research mentors.

To mitigate the impact of racism, sexism, and other systemic biases, it is essential for organizations to develop strategies to address their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) climates. The objective of this formative evaluation was to assess Mayo Clinic Department of Health Sciences Research (HSR) faculty and staff perceptions toward a proposed departmental DEI plan and to explore findings by diversity and professional subgroups.

Key plan components include recruitment and support for diverse individuals; training for all HSR employees and leaders; and a review system to capture diversity and inclusion feedback for leaders. Additional activities include building inclusion “nudges” into existing performance reviews. To assess pre-implementation beliefs about specific plan components, we polled attendees at a departmental staff meeting in July 2020.

Overall, respondents (n = 162) commonly endorsed a blinded promotion review process and DEI training for all staff and leaders as most important. In contrast, respondents expressed less support for plan activities related to “nudges.” However, attitudes among certain diversity or professional groups toward specific plan activities diverged from their non-diversity group counterparts. Qualitative feedback indicated awareness of the need to address DEI issues.

Overall, HSR faculty and staff respondents conveyed support for the plan. However, some specific plan activities were perceived differently by members of certain diversity or professional subgroups.

These findings present a DEI framework on which other institutions can build and point to future directions for how DEI activities may be differentially perceived by impacted faculty and staff.

The translation of discoveries to drugs, devices, and behavioral interventions requires well-prepared study teams. Execution of clinical trials remains suboptimal due to varied quality in design, execution, analysis, and reporting. A critical impediment is inconsistent, or even absent, competency-based training for clinical trial personnel.

In 2014, the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) funded the project, Enhancing Clinical Research Professionals’ Training and Qualifications (ECRPTQ), aimed at addressing this deficit. The goal was to ensure all personnel are competent to execute clinical trials. A phased structure was utilized.

This paper focuses on training recommendations in Good Clinical Practice (GCP). Leveraging input from all Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs, the following was recommended to NCATS: all investigators and study coordinators executing a clinical trial should understand GCP principles and undergo training every 3 years, with the training method meeting the minimum criteria identified by the International Conference on Harmonisation GCP.

We anticipate that industry sponsors will acknowledge such training, eliminating redundant training requests. We proposed metrics to be tracked that required further study. A separate task force was composed to define recommendations for metrics to be reported to NCATS.

A new competency-based job framework was implemented for clinical research professionals at a large, clinical research-intensive academic medical center. This study evaluates the rates of turnover before and after implementation of the new framework. Turnover in this workforce (as with most) is costly; it contributes to wasted dollars and lost productivity since these are highly specialized positions requiring extensive training, regardless of experience in the field.

Trends in employee turnover for 3 years prior to and after the implementation of competency-based job framework for clinical research positions were studied using human resources data. Employee demographics, turnover rates, and comparisons to national statistics are summarized.

Employee turnover within the clinical research professional jobs has decreased from 23% to 16%, a 45% reduction, since the implementation of competency-based job framework.

The new jobs and career ladders, both of which are centered on a competency-based framework, have decreased the overall turnover rate in this employee population. Since little is known about the rates of turnover in clinical research, especially in the academic medical setting, the results of this analysis can provide important insights to other academic medical centers on both employee turnover rate in general and the potential impact of implementing large-scale competency-based job changes.

Many institutions are attempting to implement patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Because PROs often change clinical workflows significantly for patients and providers, implementation choices can have major impact. While various implementation guides exist, a stepwise list of decision points covering the full implementation process and drawing explicitly on a sociotechnical conceptual framework does not exist.

To facilitate real-world implementation of PROs in electronic health records (EHRs) for use in clinical practice, members of the EHR Access to Seamless Integration of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Consortium developed structured PRO implementation planning tools. Each institution pilot tested the tools. Joint meetings led to the identification of critical sociotechnical success factors.

Three tools were developed and tested: (1) a PRO Planning Guide summarizes the empirical knowledge and guidance about PRO implementation in routine clinical care; (2) a Decision Log allows decision tracking; and (3) an Implementation Plan Template simplifies creation of a sharable implementation plan. Seven lessons learned during implementation underscore the iterative nature of planning and the importance of the clinician champion, as well as the need to understand aims, manage implementation barriers, minimize disruption, provide ample discussion time, and continuously engage key stakeholders.

Highly structured planning tools, informed by a sociotechnical perspective, enabled the construction of clear, clinic-specific plans. By developing and testing three reusable tools (freely available for immediate use), our project addressed the need for consolidated guidance and created new materials for PRO implementation planning. We identified seven important lessons that, while common to technology implementation, are especially critical in PRO implementation.

Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is not a formal element of the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program, and D&I science activities across the CTSA Consortium are largely unknown.

The CTSA Dissemination, Implementation, and Knowledge Translation Working Group surveyed CTSA leaders to explore D&I science-related activities, barriers, and needed supports, then conducted univariate and qualitative analyses of the data.

Out of 67 CTSA leaders, 55.2% responded. CTSAs reported directly funding D&I programs (54.1%), training (51.4%), and projects (59.5%). Indirect support (e.g., promoted by CTSA without direct funding) for D&I activities was higher – programs (70.3%), training (64.9%), and projects (54.1%). Top barriers included funding (39.4%), limited D&I science faculty (30.3%), and lack of D&I science understanding (27.3%). Respondents (63.4%) noted the importance of D&I training and recommended coordination of D&I activities across CTSAs hubs (33.3%).

These findings should guide CTSA leadership in efforts to raise awareness and advance the role of D&I science in improving population health.

Electronic health record (EHR) data have emerged as an important resource for population health and clinical research. There have been significant efforts to leverage EHR data for research; however, given data security concerns and the complexity of the data, EHR data are frequently difficult to access and use for clinical studies. We describe the development of a Clinical Research Datamart (CRDM) that was developed to provide well-curated and easily accessible EHR data to Duke University investigators.

The CRDM was designed to (1) contain most of the patient-level data elements needed for research studies; (2) be directly accessible by individuals conducting statistical analyses (including Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design (BERD) core members); (3) be queried via a code-based system to promote reproducibility and consistency across studies; and (4) utilize a secure protected analytic workspace in which sensitive EHR data can be stored and analyzed. The CRDM utilizes data transformed for the PCORnet data network, and was augmented with additional data tables containing site-specific data elements to provide additional contextual information.

We provide descriptions of ideal use cases and discuss dissemination and evaluation methods, including future work to expand the user base and track the use and impact of this data resource.

The CRDM utilizes resources developed as part of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) program and could be replicated by other institutions with CTSAs.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the formation, operation, and evaluation of a Community Engagement Advisory Board (CEAB) that serves as a resource of the University of Illinois at Chicago’s (UIC) Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences (CCTS).

Current CEAB roles and functions, operating procedures for research consultations and program evaluation strategies were described. Investigators receiving a consultation from 2009 to 2017 (n=91, response rate 78%) were surveyed via an online survey immediately after the consultation and at 12-month follow-up.

Overall, CEAB members were viewed as having sufficient information (92%) and expertise (79%) to provide consultation. Satisfaction levels with the specific consultation received and the overall consultation service were high. The majority of investigators indicated that they would come back to the CEAB for a future consultation, if needed, and would recommend a consultation to others (93% and 96%, respectively). At 12-months, 87% of respondents indicated they had implemented at least some of the recommendations received and 93% said that the consultation influenced their subsequent research.

Data from recent annual evaluations highlight the benefits of CEAB for consulting investigators. Our model can be used to inform the development of future CEAB boards.

Dissemination of results to research participants is largely missing from the practices of most researchers. Few resources exist that describe best practices for disseminating information to this important stakeholder group.

Four focus groups were conducted with a diverse group of individuals. All participants were part of a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded survey study. Focus groups aimed to identify participants’ preferences about receiving research results and their reactions to three different dissemination platforms.

Four focus groups with 37 participants were conducted, including: (1) adults with one comorbidity, at least a college education, and high socioeconomic status (SES); (2) adults with one comorbidity, less than a college education, and lower SES; (3) adults with low health literacy and/or numeracy; and (4) Black or African American adults. Participants discussed their preferences for research results delivery and how each of the platforms met those preferences. This included information needs as they relate to content and scope, including a desire to receive both individual and aggregate results, and study summaries. Email, paper, and website were all popular avenues of presentation. Some desired a written summary, and others preferred videos or visual graphics. Importantly, participants emphasized the desire for having a choice in the timing, frequency, and types of results.

Research participants prefer to receive research results, including study impact and key findings, disseminated to them in an engaging format that allows choice of when and how the information is presented. The results encourage new standards whereby research participants are considered a critical stakeholder group.

We are developing the novel αIIbβ3 antagonist, RUC-4, for subcutaneously (SC)-administered first-point-of-medical-contact treatment for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

We studied the (1) pharmacokinetics (PK) of RUC-4 at 1.0, 1.93, and 3.86 mg/kg intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM), and SC in non-human primates (NHPs); (2) impact of aspirin on RUC-4 IC50 in human platelet-rich plasma (PRP); (3) effect of different anticoagulants on the RUC-4 IC50 in human PRP; and (4) relationship between αIIbβ3 receptor blockade by RUC-4 and inhibition of ADP-induced platelet aggregation.

(1) All doses of RUC-4 were well tolerated, but animals demonstrated variable temporary bruising. IM and SC RUC-4 reached dose-dependent peak levels within 5–15 minutes, with T1/2 s between 0.28 and 0.56 hours. Platelet aggregation studies in NHPs receiving IM RUC-4 demonstrated >80% inhibition of the initial slope of ADP-induced aggregation with all three doses 30 minutes post-dosing, with subsequent dose-dependent loss of inhibition over 4–5 hours. (2) The RUC-4 IC50 for ADP-induced platelet aggregation was unaffected by aspirin treatment (40±9 nM vs 37±5 nM; p = 0.39). (3) The RUC-4 IC50 was significantly higher in PRP prepared from D-phenylalanyl-prolyl-arginyl chloromethyl ketone (PPACK)-anticoagulated blood compared to citrate-anticoagulated blood using either thrombin receptor activating peptide (TRAP) (122±17 vs 66±25 nM; p = 0.05; n = 4) or ADP (102±22 vs 54±13; p<0.001; n = 5). (4) There was a close correspondence between receptor blockade and inhibition of ADP-induced platelet aggregation, with aggregation inhibition beginning with ~40% receptor blockade and becoming nearly complete at >80% receptor blockade.

Based on these results and others, RUC-4 has now progressed to formal preclinical toxicology studies.