Funding agencies are increasingly seeking team-based approaches to tackling complex research questions, but there is a need to mobilize translational teams and create shared visions and strategic action plans long before specific funding opportunities are considered or even released. This is particularly evident for teams who want to pursue large-scale grants, where cross-disciplinary synergy is often required. In response, we created Research Jams, which are engaging yet structured brainstorming sessions that bring together groups for the first time to collectively generate novel research ideas, critically map the future of initiatives, prioritize opportunities and next steps, and build community. Research Jams leveraged various aspects of design thinking, including divergence and convergence, visual thinking, and amplifying diversity. We piloted seven Research Jams for a collective 129 researchers, staff, and partners across 50 University of Michigan units and external organizations. Feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with the vast majority of survey respondents indicating that the sessions were helpful for surfacing shared ideas or visions and that opportunities emerged they would like to pursue. Research Jams were ideal for cross-disciplinary groups who wanted to collaboratively ideate and strategize around complex problems in translational research. Importantly, these models have the potential for implementation with groups in any disciplinary domain who want to spur collaborations to address challenging problems. Our ultimate goal is for Research Jams to be the first intervention within a comprehensive support pathway that extends from early brainstorming all the way to grant submission.

The Master of Science in Clinical Research Management program at Rutgers Biomedical Health Sciences underwent significant restructuring aligned with the Clinical and Translational Science Award funding parameters. This evolution necessitated formal evaluation through accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs. The years-long accreditation process posed challenges, particularly regarding the collection of course learning outcomes data aligned with accreditation competency standards. The objective of this special communication is to report the rationale behind pursuing accreditation for clinical research degrees, the data collection challenges during the accreditation process, and a potential solution. In order to address existing university metric data gaps, Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) software was used to develop a data collection tool that streamlined the accreditation process and reduced the administrative burden. REDCap was effective in allowing faculty to self-report 3 years of course outcomes data for accreditation. There was an elevated level of user satisfaction compared to alternative data collection methods. A SWOT analysis identified the strengths and weaknesses of using REDCap, emphasizing strengths in functionality that include customizability, data validation, and compliance with regulatory standards. Overall, the advantages of leveraging REDCap for accreditation data collection, including customization, data security, and user-friendliness outweigh the key disadvantage of REDCap, which is its limited reporting capabilities.

The Building Up Trial is a cluster-randomized trial that aims to address the issue of the leaky career pathway for underrepresented (UR) faculty in biomedical fields. Regulatory approval and recruitment for the Building Up Trial took place during the COVID-19 pandemic and the anti-racism movement. The pandemic and anti-racism movement personally and professionally impacted the target population and made recruitment challenging at both the institution and participant level. The target sample size for this study was 208 postdoctoral fellows or early-career faculty across 26 predominately white institutions. Challenges and adaptations are described. The Building Up Trial was delayed by 3 months. In total, 225 participants from 26 institutions were enrolled. Participants are predominately female (80%), Hispanic/Latinx (34%) or non-Hispanic/Latinx Black (33%), and early-career faculty (53%). At the institution level, obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval through a single Institutional Review Board (sIRB) posed the biggest challenge. We adapted to COVID-19-related challenges through simplifying sIRB forms, modifying study practices, and increasing communication with institutions. Recruiting UR postdoctoral fellows and faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic and anti-racism movement was challenging but not impossible. Studies should be prepared to modify study and recruitment policies to overcome additional barriers posed by the pandemics.

Inefficiencies in the national clinical research infrastructure have been apparent for decades. The National Center for Advancing Translational Science—sponsored Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program is able to address such inefficiencies. The Trial Innovation Network (TIN) is a collaborative initiative with the CTSA program and other National Institutes of Health (NIH) Institutes and Centers that addresses critical roadblocks to accelerate the translation of novel interventions to clinical practice. The TIN’s mission is to execute high-quality trials in a quick, cost-efficient manner. The TIN awardees are composed of 3 Trial Innovation Centers, the Recruitment Innovation Center, and the individual CTSA institutions that have identified TIN Liaison units. The TIN has launched a national scale single (central) Institutional Review Board system, master contracting agreements, quality-by-design approaches, novel recruitment support methods, and applies evidence-based strategies to recruitment and patient engagement. The TIN has received 113 submissions from 39 different CTSA institutions and 8 non-CTSA Institutions, with projects associated with 12 different NIH Institutes and Centers across a wide range of clinical/disease areas. Already more than 150 unique health systems/organizations are involved as sites in TIN-related multisite studies. The TIN will begin to capture data and metrics that quantify increased efficiency and quality improvement during operations.

Evaluation of benefits beyond quantitative academic outputs is essential in determining translational research value. We used the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) to examine the impact of the QUARTET USA trial using 30 benefits across 4 domains: Clinical, Community, Economic, and Policy. We found that the QUARTET USA trial demonstrated impact in six areas within the Clinical, and Community domains and had potential impact in two additional areas within the Community and Economic domains. Use of the TSBM supports the value of the QUARTET USA trial, which can be used as a template for future cardiovascular trials.

Dental service providers have limited capacity to identify strategies to implement evidence-based practices (EBPs). We developed a rigorous yet parsimonious scoping review approach to identify, select, and rate implementation strategies based on an oral health system context. From 153 strategies identified, we selected the top 11 strategies, which had a moderate level of support of evidence and where managers were the main actors. The main actions were to educate, remind, structure, and influence. Targets included dentists, dental hygienists, and assistants and managers from a large prepaid dental care delivery system. This approach responds to calls for rapid and innovative methods to implement EBPs in oral health.

This report describes how stakeholder groups informed a web-based care planning tool’s development for addressing root causes of poor health. Stakeholders included community members (n = 6), researchers (n = 6), community care providers (n = 9), and patients (n = 17). Feedback was solicited through focus groups, semi-structured interviews, and user experience observations and then qualitatively analyzed to identify themes. Each group contributed a unique perspective. Researchers wanted evidence-based content; community members and providers focused on making goals manageable; patients wanted care team support and simple action-oriented language. Our findings highlight the benefits of stakeholder input. Blending perspectives from multiple groups results in a more robust intervention design.

Community-Research Advisory Councils (C-RAC) provide a unique mechanism for building sustainable community-academic partnership, fostering bidirectional understanding of complex research issues, disseminating timely research findings, and thereby improving public trust in science. Created in 2009, the Johns Hopkins C-RAC has a mission to achieve diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) of stakeholders across the entire research continuum. It has nurtured over a decade of partnership among community and academic stakeholders toward addressing health disparity, health equity, structural racism, and discrimination. Evidence of successful strategies to ensure DEI in partnership and lessons learned are illustrated in this special communication.

COVID-19 has forced medical research institutions to conduct clinical research remotely. Here, we describe how a university’s mHealth Research Core helped facilitate the shift to remote research during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2019 (pre-pandemic), we conducted stakeholder interviews and leadership group sessions to identify, create, and implement resources and core functions to support investigator-initiated mHealth research. Between April 2019 and February 2020, we identified four investigator needs: 1) a seminar series on trends in mHealth research, 2) mHealth case consultation services, 3) liaison services with institutional regulatory compliance groups, and 4) online navigation tools for implementation of mHealth methods (e.g., eConsent) and for building partnerships with technology vendors. To date, the mHealth Research Core has held seven seminars, completed 71 case consultations, assisted four COVID-related clinical studies, advised the IRB on shifting to remote research, and widely disseminated eConsent navigation tools. Although pre-pandemic stakeholder and investigator needs led to the creation of the mHealth Research Core, this institutional resource played a critical role in continuing clinical research during the pandemic by assisting investigators in rapidly shifting to remote study methodology.