Navigating the research domain at an academic medical center can be challenging, even for seasoned investigators. To address this, Duke University launched two initiatives: (1) a research navigation “hotline” to provide brief assistance with a variety of research questions; and (2) researcher onboarding and consultation, a one-to-one tailored offering to ensure that researchers are equipped to navigate research resources and processes effectively. The services are provided by the myRESEARCHnavigators (MRN) team, funded by Duke’s CTSA. The diverse scientific backgrounds of the six team members align well with those of the research community, allowing for a good match between the researcher and MRN team member. The MRN team answers approximately 30 questions per month, and has provided consultations to almost 400 researchers. Both services receive high satisfaction ratings (4 or 5 stars [out of 5 stars] given to 90% of hotline answers, and 99% of researcher onboarding/consultation sessions). As of July 2019, the School of Medicine has determined that the consultations are critical to their mission and have made them a requirement for new research faculty. The team will continue marketing both services to encourage adoption.

As the pace of biomedical innovation rapidly evolves, there is a need to train researchers to understand regulatory science challenges associated with clinical translation. We describe a pilot course aimed at addressing this need delivered jointly through the Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science and the Yale-Mayo Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation. Course design was informed by the Association for Clinical and Translational Science’s Regulatory Science Working Group’s competencies. The course used didactic, case-, and problem-based learning sessions to expose students to regulatory science concepts. Course evaluation focused on student satisfaction and learning. A total of 25 students enrolled in the first two course deliveries. Students represented several disciplines and career stages, from predoctoral to faculty. Students reported learning “an incredible amount” (7/19, 36.8%) or “a lot” (9/19, 47.4%); this was reflected in individual coursework and their course evaluations. Qualitative feedback indicated that assignments that challenged them to apply the content to their own research were appreciated. The heterogeneity of students enrolled, coupled with assessments and course evaluations, supports the statement that there is a growing need and desire for regulatory science-focused curricula. Future research will determine the long-term impact.

The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium and the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) undertook a Common Metrics Initiative to improve research processes across the national CTSA Consortium. This was implemented by Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute at the 64 CTSA academic medical centers. Three metrics were collaboratively developed by NCATS staff, CTSA Consortium teams, and outside consultants for Institutional Review Board Review Duration, Careers in Clinical and Translational Research, and Pilot Award Publications and Subsequent Funding. The implementation program included training on the metric operational guidelines, data collection, data reporting system, and performance improvement framework. The implementation team provided small-group coaching and technical assistance. Collaborative learning sessions, driver diagrams, and change packages were used to disseminate best and promising practices. After 14 weeks, 84% of hubs had produced a value for one metric and about half had produced an initial improvement plan. Overall, hubs reported that the implementation activities facilitated their Common Metrics performance improvement process. Experiences implementing the first three metrics can inform future directions of the Common Metrics Initiative and other research groups implementing standardized metrics and performance improvement processes, potentially including other National Institutes of Health institutes and centers.

Effectively addressing public health crises requires dynamic and nimble interdisciplinary collaborations across the translational spectrum, from bench to clinic to community. The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program hubs are uniquely suited to facilitate interdisciplinary collaborations across universities and academic medical centers. This paper describes the activities at the Columbia University CTSA Program hub to address a current public health crisis, the opioid epidemic. Columbia’s CTSA Program hub led a three-phase approach, based on the Conceptual Model of Transdisciplinary Scientific Collaboration as described by Stokols et al.: (1) a university-wide planning and brainstorming phase to identify key leaders across many domains who are influential in addressing the opioid epidemic, (2) a campus-wide and community outreach to identify all interested parties, and (3) ongoing targeted support for collaboration development. Preliminary metrics of success are interdisciplinary collaborations and grant funding. We describe recent examples of how interdisciplinary collaboration, academic-community partnership, and pilot funding contributed to the development and funding of innovative interdisciplinary research, including the New York site of the HEALing Communities initiative. The processes are now being used to support interdisciplinary approaches for other translational public health issues.

The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences has called for more comprehensive research with priority populations to reduce disparities and for the development of additional resources to assist researchers in implementing these recommendations. Here we report the development and initial evaluation of five Priority Populations Toolkits, which are resources developed by the University of Illinois Center for Clinical and Translational Science to meet these goals. Three aims guide the content: increasing knowledge, facilitating communication, and improving research design. Materials were curated from scientific literature reviews and Internet searches and revised iteratively. Analytics and user surveys provide information about usage. In 22 months, 387 unique users accessed the toolkits. The top reason for usage was to improve research recruitment. Comprehensive toolkits for working with priority populations show promising potential for increasing knowledge and readiness to work with underrepresented populations. Further toolkit development and evaluation of effectiveness are warranted.

In 2017, the NYU Clinical and Translational Science Institute’s Recruitment and Retention Unit created a Patient Advisory Council for Research (PACR) to provide feedback on clinical trials and health research studies. We collaborated with our clinical research informatics team to generate a random sample of patients, based on the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes and demographic factors, for invitation via the patient portal. This approach yielded in a group that was diverse with regard to age, race/ethnicity, sex, and health conditions. This report highlights the benefits and limitations of using an electronic health record-based strategy to identify and recruit members for a PACR.