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.

While clinical research intends to improve health outcomes for all, access to research participation is often limited and inequitable. Geographic proximity is a recognized barrier, thus, systemic infrastructure solutions through federal programs including General Clinical Research Centers and Clinical and Translational Science Awards have sought to improve accessibility. Even with such support, academic medical centers often have limited clinical research-dedicated space apart from shared exam rooms in difficult-to-navigate hospitals or clinics. In 2019, the Duke University School of Medicine looked beyond its medical center campus to identify free-standing sites within Durham communities for participant study visits. Catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic, Duke Research at Pickett, a 22 000-square-foot building with a laboratory, 30 exam rooms, and on-site parking, opened in October 2020 to support vaccine and treatment trials. Upon the lifting of many COVID-19 restrictions, and in partnership with the Research Equity and Diversity Initiative (READI) Community Advisory Council, the building was transformed to encourage community gatherings, education, and training programs. To date, Duke Research at Pickett has hosted 2692 participants in 78 research trials and 14 community-engaged activities.

This article presents a landscape assessment of the findings from the 2021 Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Evaluators Survey. This survey was the most recent iteration of a well established, national, peer-led systematic snapshot of the CTSA evaluators, their skillsets, listed evaluation resources, preferred methods, and identified best practices. Three questions guided our study: who are the CTSA evaluators, what competencies do they share and how is their work used within hubs. We describe our survey process (logistics of development, deployment, and differences in historical context with prior instruments); and present its main findings. We provide specific recommendations for evaluation practice in two main categories (National vs Group-level) including, among others, the need for a national, strategic plan for evaluation as well as enhanced mentoring and training of the next generation of evaluators. Although based on the challenges and opportunities currently within the CTSA Consortium, takeaways from this study constitute important lessons with potential for application in other large evaluation consortia. To our knowledge, this is the first time 2021 survey findings are disseminated widely, to increase transparency of the CTSA evaluators' work and to motivate conversations within hub and beyond, as to how best to leverage existent evaluative capacity.

The Advancing the Science of Mentorship: Future Directions for Sustainable Implementation and Evaluation of Mentorship Education for the Clinical and Translational Science Workforce conference was held in Madison, Wisconsin, in April 2023. The conference provided an engaging and scholarly forum for clinical and translational researchers from diverse backgrounds and career stages (including leaders at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs and affiliated institutions) with a professional interest and commitment to improving and diversifying workforce development and fostering a climate of inclusive excellence through best practices in mentorship. Outcomes from the conference include an online resource and a new Community of Practice.

We assessed the rigor and reproducibility (R&R) activities of institutions funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCTSA) through a survey and website search (N = 61). Of 50 institutional responses, 84% reported incorporating some form of R&R training, 68% reported devoted R&R training, 30% monitored R&R practices, and 10% incentivized them. Website searches revealed 9 (15%) freely available training curricula, and 7 (11%) institutional programs specifically created to enhance R&R. NCATS should formally integrate R&R principles into its translational science models and institutional requirements.

Translation is the process of turning observations in the research laboratory, clinic, and community into interventions that improve people’s health. The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program is a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) initiative to advance translational science and research. Currently, 64 “CTSA hubs” exist across the nation. Since 2006, the Houston-based Center for Clinical Translational Sciences (CCTS) has assembled a well-integrated, high-impact hub in Texas that includes six partner institutions within the state, encompassing ∼23,000 sq. miles and over 16 million residents. To achieve the NCATS goal of “more treatments for all people more quickly,” the CCTS promotes diversity and inclusion by integrating underrepresented populations into clinical studies, workforce training, and career development. In May 2023, we submitted the UM1 application and six “companion” proposals: K12, R25, T32-Predoctoral, T32-Postdoctoral, and RC2 (two applications). In October 2023, we received priority scores for the UM1 (22), K12 (25), T32-Predoctoral (20), and T32-Postdoctoral (23), which historically fall within the NCATS funding range. This report describes the grant preparation and submission approach, coupled with data from an internal survey designed to assimilate feedback from principal investigators, writers, reviewers, and administrative specialists. Herein, we share the challenges faced, the approaches developed, and the lessons learned.

The National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) is a public–private–government partnership established during the Coronavirus pandemic to create a centralized data resource called the “N3C data enclave.” This resource contains individual-level health data from participating healthcare sites nationwide to support rapid collaborative analytics. N3C has enabled analytics within a cloud-based enclave of data from electronic health records from over 17 million people (with and without COVID-19) in the USA. To achieve this goal of a shared data resource, N3C implemented a shared governance strategy involving stakeholders in decision-making. The approach leveraged best practices in data stewardship and team science to rapidly enable COVID-19-related research at scale while respecting the privacy of data subjects and participating institutions. N3C balanced equitable access to data, team-based scientific productivity, and individual professional recognition – a key incentive for academic researchers. This governance approach makes N3C research sustainable and effective beyond the initial days of the pandemic. N3C demonstrated that shared governance can overcome traditional barriers to data sharing without compromising data security and trust. The governance innovations described herein are a helpful framework for other privacy-preserving data infrastructure programs and provide a working model for effective team science beyond COVID-19.

In 2016, the National Center for Advancing Translational Science launched the Trial Innovation Network (TIN) to address barriers to efficient and informative multicenter trials. The TIN provides a national platform, working in partnership with 60+ Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs across the country to support the design and conduct of successful multicenter trials. A dedicated Hub Liaison Team (HLT) was established within each CTSA to facilitate connection between the hubs and the newly launched Trial and Recruitment Innovation Centers. Each HLT serves as an expert intermediary, connecting CTSA Hub investigators with TIN support, and connecting TIN research teams with potential multicenter trial site investigators. The cross-consortium Liaison Team network was developed during the first TIN funding cycle, and it is now a mature national network at the cutting edge of team science in clinical and translational research. The CTSA-based HLT structures and the external network structure have been developed in collaborative and iterative ways, with methods for shared learning and continuous process improvement. In this paper, we review the structure, function, and development of the Liaison Team network, discuss lessons learned during the first TIN funding cycle, and outline a path toward further network maturity.

Improving the quality and conduct of multi-center clinical trials is essential to the generation of generalizable knowledge about the safety and efficacy of healthcare treatments. Despite significant effort and expense, many clinical trials are unsuccessful. The National Center for Advancing Translational Science launched the Trial Innovation Network to address critical roadblocks in multi-center trials by leveraging existing infrastructure and developing operational innovations. We provide an overview of the roadblocks that led to opportunities for operational innovation, our work to develop, define, and map innovations across the network, and how we implemented and disseminated mature innovations.

New technologies and disruptions related to Coronavirus disease-2019 have led to expansion of decentralized approaches to clinical trials. Remote tools and methods hold promise for increasing trial efficiency and reducing burdens and barriers by facilitating participation outside of traditional clinical settings and taking studies directly to participants. The Trial Innovation Network, established in 2016 by the National Center for Advancing Clinical and Translational Science to address critical roadblocks in clinical research and accelerate the translational research process, has consulted on over 400 research study proposals to date. Its recommendations for decentralized approaches have included eConsent, participant-informed study design, remote intervention, study task reminders, social media recruitment, and return of results for participants. Some clinical trial elements have worked well when decentralized, while others, including remote recruitment and patient monitoring, need further refinement and assessment to determine their value. Partially decentralized, or “hybrid” trials, offer a first step to optimizing remote methods. Decentralized processes demonstrate potential to improve urban-rural diversity, but their impact on inclusion of racially and ethnically marginalized populations requires further study. To optimize inclusive participation in decentralized clinical trials, efforts must be made to build trust among marginalized communities, and to ensure access to remote technology.

Enterprise data warehouses for research (EDW4R) is a critical component of National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs. EDW4R operations have unique needs that require specialized skills and collaborations across multiple domains which limit the ability to apply existing models of information technology (IT) performance. Because of this uniqueness, we developed a new EDW4R maturity model based on prior qualitative study of operational practices for supporting EDW4Rs at CTSA hubs. In a pilot study, respondents from fifteen CTSA hubs completed the novel EDW4R maturity index survey by rating 33 maturity statements across 6 categories using a 5-point Likert scale. Of the six categories, respondents rated workforce as most mature (4.17 [3.67–4.42]) and relationship with enterprise IT as the least mature (3.00 [2.80–3.80]). Our pilot of a novel maturity index shows a baseline quantitative measure of EDW4R functions across fifteen CTSA hubs. The maturity index may be useful to faculty and staff currently leading an EDW4R by creating opportunities to explore the index in local context and comparison to other institutions.

Persistent barriers exist to engage rural providers in research and training. Provider shortages exacerbate these challenges, leading to a scarcity of time and limiting motivation to participate in research. We present application of an innovative engagement model to increase rural primary care provider participation in research. Using our Community Engagement and Research Core, we demonstrate that fundamental principles of training and expertise, attention to efficiency and multitasking, and commitment to community are important for addressing provider recruitment barriers. We encourage other Clinical and Translational Science Centers to provide similar services to their local investigators to enhance provider engagement in research.

Expanded access (EA) provides a pathway for the clinical use of investigational products (drugs, biologics, and medical devices) for patients who are without satisfactory therapeutic options and for whom a clinical trial is not available. Academic medical centers (AMCs) are likely to encounter EA requests, but it is unknown what support is available at these institutions for physicians seeking EA for patients. Methods: A landscape assessment was conducted at AMCs, focused on those within the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium. Results: Forty-seven responses were evaluated including 42 CTSA hubs. The large majority (43 of 47 respondents) reported using single-patient EA, while 37 reported multi-patient industry sponsored EA and 37 reported multi-patient investigator-initiated EA. Only half reported central tracking of EA requests. Support was available at 89% of sites for single-patient EA but less often for multi-patient EA. Types of support varied and were focused largely on the initial submission to the FDA. Conclusion: Use of and support for EA is widespread at AMCs, with support focused on single-patient requests. Gaps in support are common for activities after initial submission, such as FDA reporting and data collection.

Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hub websites are a critical communication gateway to assist the clinical and translational science community and promote CTSA hub offerings. The objective of this funded pilot project was to create a website and online database for the CTSA consortium that allows users to conduct structured searches among the 50 + CTSA hub websites. The result is CTSA Search Solutions, an online, searchable database that includes access to 50 + CTSA hub websites with 80+ structured search term options and over 800 links collected, organized, and published. Hubs can be searched by name and filtered by a specific CTSA topic, state, region, or even number of years funded to make detailed comparisons with the data identified. The home page for each hub can be accessed directly from the search page. The CTSA Search Solutions online database will allow for a wide breadth of CTSA personnel (core leads, researchers, administrators, communicators, and evaluators) to find consolidated information to learn about specific CTSA hub program highlights, as well as conduct research into program hub outputs and best practices across the nationwide CTSA consortium.