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.

In an era of complex, multi-institutional, team-based science, there is little guidance for the successful creation of effective, collaborative, multisite training programs.

We designed, implemented, and evaluated a multi-institutional Tobacco Regulatory Science (TRS) fellowship representing a scalable program that may be customized for other research areas.

Using a mixed-methods approach, we analyzed program evaluations from trainees enrolled in the first 7 years of the American Heart Association (AHA) Tobacco Regulation and Addiction Center (A-TRAC) fellowship (2014–2021). We also reported the program outcomes, including published TRS manuscripts, independent grant funding, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Docket comments submitted on TRS topics, TRS oral and poster presentations, research awards, and promotions in the TRS field.

Thirty-five unique trainees (49% [n = 17] female, 29% [n = 10] Black) from eight institutions within the A-TRAC network participated in the fellowship since its inception. The trainees reported 74 TRS publications, 78 TRS oral or poster presentations, 25 FDA Docket comment submissions, and 13 funded grant awards. Participant evaluations indicated six areas of programmatic strength: 1) blended instruction medium with webinars and in-person meetings, 2) curricular emphasis on theories of experiential learning, 3) focus on career and professional development, 4) integrated mentorship model, 5) culture of feedback and feedforward to foster successful learning, and 6) focus on recruiting diverse participants. The A-TRAC model stresses experiential education, feedback and feedforward, and peer learning.

Our resource-effective, needs-driven program is a reproducible model for institutions interested in developing multisite, virtual research education programs in the era of team science.