Reference standards are vital for harmonizing heterogeneous clinical data for research, but little is known about their implementations or costs. We surveyed NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) hubs to assess operational dimensions of institutional implementation, maintenance, and use of the Logical Observation Identifiers, Names, and Codes (LOINC) standard. Respondents (n = 19,30%) exhibited substantial variability in approaches to implementation. Differences in number and training of staff and frequency of mapping updates make it difficult to estimate costs and comparability of data across sites. CTSA and other multi-site research can benefit from operational definitions and recommended processes for LOINC implementation.

Evaluation supports the translation of knowledge into practice by systematically assessing what works, for whom, and under what conditions. It generates evidence to guide improvements, inform decision-making, and identify how programs, research studies, or interventions should be scaled. Within a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hub, evaluation is typically focused on internal evaluation and administrative functions. However, expanding evaluation to also support efforts based outside of a CTSA hub (i.e., to the larger institution and community), akin to other CTSA cores and services, can support overarching translational goals. This paper outlines the process and benefits of institutionalizing a partnership between clinical and translational science and social science to provide expertise, resulting in evaluation as a translational resource. Herein, we describe developing the Duke Office of Evaluation and Applied Research Partnership, an organizational unit that, by bridging a university’s CTSA hub and interdisciplinary social science institute, expanded the scope and capacity of evaluation to advance clinical and translational science. We outline the specific activities supported by this initiative, facilitators involved in its establishment, and barriers to implementation and success. This model and lessons learned can inform broader opportunities to leverage multidisciplinary evaluation expertise to support clinical and translational science.

Mentorship is a vital part of the training provided in the K and T programs funded by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA). However, the inputs, indicators, and outcomes associated with a successful mentoring relationship remain poorly understood. In this review, we critically examine the current body of literature on mentorship in a CTSA context. We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature for relevant research articles. We included articles that were contextualized within a CTSA hub, examined a mentorship program, and conducted evaluation research. Through an initial search of online databases and by reviewing reference sections of relevant articles, we identified 141 potentially relevant articles. Twenty-five of these articles met our inclusion criteria. We identified three categories of research: nationwide institutional surveys of CTSA mentorship programs, mentored research training programs, and mentor training programs. While the findings highlighted the effectiveness of mentor training and mentored training programs, there is a notable lack of assessment of mentoring inputs and indicators. Based on our review, we propose a model for the evaluation of CTSA mentorship that includes measurable inputs, indicators, and outcomes. This model provides a holistic framework for evaluators and CTSA program directors to better understand their mentorship programs.

Recent years have seen increasing focus, including by the National Institutes for Health (NIH), on developing the field of translational science (TS). TS focuses on improving the process of translational research (TR), including generating knowledge that can facilitate TR across specific diseases or translational stages. With TS as an emerging field, research organizations have an increasing need to understand how to develop capacity for and support the advancement of TS. To support such institutional and infrastructural change, this paper outlines a Translational Science Promotion and Research Capacity (T-SPARC) Framework. The T-SPARC Framework provides a foundation to 1) inform the development of TS-creating and science-supporting interventions and programs, and 2) examine the effectiveness of said interventions and programs. The framework outlines organizational levels that T-SPARC programs can target; mechanisms, or intervention activities, that can foster change; and outcomes, including specific attitudinal or behavioral changes, institutional changes, and domains on which TS changes can focus. T-SPARC’s capacity-building focus builds upon earlier efforts focused on conceptualizing and defining TS. T-SPARC supports movement towards TS goals of reducing longstanding challenges in the TR process, thus accelerating the health impact of TR, and ultimately improving health outcomes.

This article describes the Implementation Science (IS) Scholars Program at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS). The program’s goal is to translate knowledge, approaches, and methods from IS to front-line clinicians in an academic medical center, thereby supporting its goals as a learning health system and promoting a dynamic workforce of IS-informed change leaders. Initiated in 2020, the program is relatively unique in that it attempts to translate concepts and knowledge from IS to clinicians to improve their skills as implementers and change agents. The program is supported by the Translational Research Institute, the UAMS’ awardee of the Clinical and Translational Science Award Program. The two-year program provides 20% salary coverage, bespoke didactics, and close mentoring on a Scholar-initiated project to improve care in their clinical context. The program has trained four cohorts of Scholars over the program’s initial five years. We describe the program, our evaluation of it thus far, and future plans. The program has contributed to numerous healthcare improvements and served as a gateway to future implementation and other research activities among some Scholars.

In 2009, the University of Michigan’s Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research developed a three-session K Writing workshop. Beginning in 2016, we implemented a non-attendance fee to encourage attendance across the three sessions. We examined whether this fee improved attendance, increased submission of an NIH K or R grant proposal, and improved success rates. Between 2012 and 2021, 373 participants attended the workshop. After the non-attendance fee was implemented, significantly more participants attended all three sessions of the workshop, and there was a statistical trend suggesting an increase in the success rate, while submission rates remained constant.

There is a general separation between medical and business education, despite the substantial intersection of these fields in hospital and industry settings. This separation hinders medical innovators, who rarely have opportunities to see how entrepreneurial concepts apply to the translation of medical innovation. To address this, the Office of Entrepreneurship at Mayo Clinic Florida provides experiential entrepreneurial training through an internal pitch competition: the alligator tank (AT). This study evaluates the impact and efficacy of the first seven years of the AT. Key metrics include a modified technology readiness level (TRL), determined by the presence of a disclosure, prototype, and preliminary data. A high TRL is not indicative of success in the pitch competition, leveling the playing field for early-stage inventions. The AT is characterized by broad representation across academic and professional ranks, departments, and genders, as well as strong participant retention. Innovators with prior disclosures are more likely to win the AT, presumably due to their experience. The AT serves as an institution-wide initiative that cultivates an inclusive, supportive innovation culture, fosters interdisciplinary medical innovation, and helps advance innovation maturity. Adopting the AT framework may help similar medical systems build an innovation ecosystem within their institutions.

Actively engaging community health centers (CHCs) in research is necessary to ensure evidence-based practices are relevant to all communities and get us closer to closing the health equity gap. We report here on the Boston HealthNet Research Collaborative, a partnership between health centers, Boston HealthNet and the Boston University Clinical, and Translational Science Institute with the explicit goal of supporting research partnerships early in the planning phase of the study lifecycle. We used the principles of community engagement guided by a collective impact framework to codesign, pilot, and evaluate a process for facilitating research partnerships. Accomplishments in the first 2 years include a web-based Toolkit with a step-by-step guide and an active learning collaborative with health center representatives to support research capacity building. The process resulted in 81 new research project partnerships across 50 individual research projects. Most research partnership requests were made later in the research lifecycle, after the planning phase. Partnership acceptance was largely driven by the Collaborative’s pre-defined Guiding Principles and Rules of Engagement. These lessons drive an iterative process to improve the longitudinal relationship between our translational research program and our CHC partners.

New education and training opportunities are critical for the development of a diverse and highly skilled translational science workforce. In this special communication, the authors consider how Narratives of Discovery, an initiative to interview leading scientists about the sources of their creativity, can serve as a novel translational science teaching tool. Reporting on a project to map translational science principles onto nine Narratives of Discovery conducted to date, the authors demonstrate how translational science principles are manifested in the career trajectories of these scientists and propose that the narratives can serve as a formative model for trainees. Findings from systematic coding of the Narratives of Discovery suggest that the narrative format is particularly well suited to highlight translational science principles not well-addressed by existing education opportunities, including what it means for scientists to be creative and innovative, use bold and rigorous approaches, and prioritize diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. Offering excerpts from the published Narratives of Discovery and quotations from the scientists themselves, the authors aim to create space for continued conversation about how to best crystallize the concepts of translational science and advance translational science education and training initiatives.

Converting knowledge from basic research into innovations that improve clinical care requires a specialized workforce that converts a laboratory invention into a product that can be developed and tested for clinical use. As the mandate to demonstrate more real-world impact from the national investment in research continues to grow, the demand for staff that specialize in product development and clinical trials continues to outpace supply. In this study, two academic medical institutions in the greater Houston–Galveston region termed this population the “bridge and clinical research professional” (B + CRP) workforce and assessed its turnover before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic . Both institutions realized growth (1.2 vs 2.3-fold increase) in B + CRP-specific jobs from 2017 to 2022. Turnover increased 1.5–2-fold after the onset of the pandemic but unlike turnover in the larger clinical and translational research academic workforce, the instability did not resolve by 2022. These results are a baseline measurement of the instability of our regional B + CRP workforce and have informed the development of a regional alliance of universities, academic medical centers, and economic development organizations in the greater Houston–Galveston region to increase this highly specialized and skilled candidate pool.

The Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) initiative, funded by the National Cancer Institute, called for the development of implementation laboratories to bolster implementation science, create research-ready environments, and expedite adoption and implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into practice. The Building Research in Implementation and Dissemination to close Gaps and achieve Equity in Cancer Control (BRIDGE-C2) Center is one of seven ISC3 centers. BRIDGE-C2 aims to identify strategies to improve implementation of cancer prevention EBIs and conduct research / develop pragmatic methods to tailor, enhance, and support the adoption and sustainability of these strategies; advance implementation science; and build capacity and training opportunities. Since its inception, the BRIDGE-C2 Center has been conducting research and training activities to advance knowledge on how to effectively implement strategies to improve cancer prevention EBIs in primary care clinics serving socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. The translational science benefits model (TSBM) provides a useful framework for organizing a description of the BRIDGE-C2 Center’s activities. In this paper, we describe examples of BRIDGE-C2 activities and the specific impact indicators within each relevant domain/subdomain of the TSBM, demonstrating that a single activity or project has multiple impacts on methods and capacity building, clinical domains, and community health.