Search

Introduction Many Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) focus their energy on operational aspects of running their hub, but may not devote enough energy and resources toward branding and effective communication. However, CTSAs have an important mission when it comes to communicating effectively with their stakeholders through social media. Using framing theory as the underpinning, the purpose of this content analysis is to investigate the ways in which CTSAs use Twitter to communicate with their various stakeholders, the type of content they post, and the type of engagement their tweets garner. Methods We examined 349 tweets posted from January 2019 to January 2020 from 19 CTSA Twitter accounts (sampled from a total of 35 CTSA accounts). A thematic codebook was generated using tweets randomly chosen from the sample. Content analysis was performed on the entire tweet sample by four coders using the codebook (alpha = 0.89). Results CTSAs tweeted the most about events (29.8%), and the least about study recruitment (2.01%). Most tweets included images (59.31%) and hashtags (51.29%), but received little user engagement on the average post (average: 4.38 likes and 1.94 retweets). CTSAs tweeted most from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. PST and received the most engagement. Most CTSAs had a dedicated person (e.g., manager, coordinator) handling their communications. Discussion Our analysis shows multiple opportunities for CTSAs to engage with stakeholders and the public, as well as standardize and improve their Twitter communications to effectively reach a broader audience.

Introduction:The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program is a Consortium of nearly 60 academic medical research centers across the USA and a natural network for evaluating the spread and uptake of translational research innovation across the Consortium.Methods:Dissemination of the Accrual to Clinical Trials (ACT) Network, a federated clinical informatics data network for population-based cohort discovery, began January 2018 across the Consortium. Diffusion of innovation theory guided dissemination design and evaluation. Mixed-methods assessed the spread and uptake across the Consortium through July 1, 2019 (n = 48 CTSAs). Methods included prospective time activity tracking (Kaplan–Meier curves), and survey and qualitative interviews.Results:Within 18 months, nearly 80% of CTSAs had joined the data network and two-thirds of CTSAs achieving technical readiness had initiated launch to local clinical investigators. Over 10,000 ACT Network queries are projected for 2019; and by 2020, nearly all CTSAs will have joined the network. Median time-from-technical-readiness-to-local-launch was 154 days (interquartile range: 87–225 days]. Quality improvement processes reduced time-to-launch by 35.2% (64 days, p = 0.0036). Lessons learned include: (1) conceptualize dissemination as two-stage adoption demonstrating value for both CTSA hub service providers and clinical investigators; (2) include institutional trial into dissemination strategies so CTSA hubs can refine internal workflows and gather local user feedback endorsement; (3) embrace designing-for-dissemination during technology development; and (4) sustain adaptive dissemination and customer relationship management to keep CTSA hubs and users engaged.Conclusions:Scale-up and spread of the ACT Network provides lessons learned for others disseminating innovation across the CTSA Consortium. The Network is primed for embedded implementation research.

Although highly involved in heart failure (HF) patients’ care, home care workers (HCWs) lack HF training and are poorly integrated into the healthcare team. For its potential to address these challenges, we examined the role of technology among HCWs caring for HF patients. We conducted 38 interviews with key stakeholders. Overall, four themes emerged. Participants reported that technology is critical for HF care, but existing systems are outdated and ineffective. HCWs also have limited access to electronic resources. Technology, training, and principles of implementation science can be leveraged to improve HCWs’ experience in caring for HF patients and home healthcare delivery.

Introduction:Many institutions are attempting to implement patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Because PROs often change clinical workflows significantly for patients and providers, implementation choices can have major impact. While various implementation guides exist, a stepwise list of decision points covering the full implementation process and drawing explicitly on a sociotechnical conceptual framework does not exist.Methods:To facilitate real-world implementation of PROs in electronic health records (EHRs) for use in clinical practice, members of the EHR Access to Seamless Integration of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Consortium developed structured PRO implementation planning tools. Each institution pilot tested the tools. Joint meetings led to the identification of critical sociotechnical success factors.Results:Three tools were developed and tested: (1) a PRO Planning Guide summarizes the empirical knowledge and guidance about PRO implementation in routine clinical care; (2) a Decision Log allows decision tracking; and (3) an Implementation Plan Template simplifies creation of a sharable implementation plan. Seven lessons learned during implementation underscore the iterative nature of planning and the importance of the clinician champion, as well as the need to understand aims, manage implementation barriers, minimize disruption, provide ample discussion time, and continuously engage key stakeholders.Conclusions:Highly structured planning tools, informed by a sociotechnical perspective, enabled the construction of clear, clinic-specific plans. By developing and testing three reusable tools (freely available for immediate use), our project addressed the need for consolidated guidance and created new materials for PRO implementation planning. We identified seven important lessons that, while common to technology implementation, are especially critical in PRO implementation.

Worldwide, early intervention services for young people with recent-onset psychosis have been associated with improvements in outcomes, including reductions in hospitalization, symptoms, and improvements in treatment engagement and work/school participation. States have received federal mental health block grant funding to implement team-based, multi-element, evidence-based early intervention services, now called coordinated specialty care (CSC) in the USA. New York State’s CSC program, OnTrackNY, has grown into a 23-site, statewide network, serving over 1800 individuals since its 2013 inception. A state-supported intermediary organization, OnTrackCentral, has overseen the growth of OnTrackNY. OnTrackNY has been committed to quality improvement since its inception. In 2019, OnTrackNY was awarded a regional hub within the National Institute of Mental Health-sponsored Early Psychosis Intervention Network (EPINET). The participation in the national EPINET initiative reframes and expands OnTrackNY’s quality improvement activities. The national EPINET initiative aims to develop a learning healthcare system (LHS); OnTrackNY’s participation will facilitate the development of infrastructure, including a systematic approach to facilitating stakeholder input and enhancing the data and informatics infrastructure to promote quality improvement. Additionally, this infrastructure will support practice-based research to improve care. The investment of the EPINET network to build regional and national LHSs will accelerate innovations to improve quality of care.

Translation of research to practice is challenging. In addition to the scientific challenges, there are additional hurdles in navigating the rapidly changing US health care system. There is a need for innovative health interventions that can be adopted in “real-world” settings. Barriers to translation involve misaligned timing of research funding and health system decision-making, lack of research questions aligned with health system and community priorities, and limited incentives in academia for health system and community-based research. We describe new programs from the US Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Programs that are building capacity for Learning Health System research. These programs help to incentivize adopting and adapting Learning Health System principles to ensure that, primarily in implementation science within academic/veterans affairs health systems, there is alignment of the research with the health system and community needs. Both HSR&D and NCATS CTSA Program encourage researchers to develop problem-focused research innovations in partnership with health systems and communities to ultimately facilitate design treatments that are feasible in “real-world” practice.

Introduction:A new competency-based job framework was implemented for clinical research professionals at a large, clinical research-intensive academic medical center. This study evaluates the rates of turnover before and after implementation of the new framework. Turnover in this workforce (as with most) is costly; it contributes to wasted dollars and lost productivity since these are highly specialized positions requiring extensive training, regardless of experience in the field.Methods:Trends in employee turnover for 3 years prior to and after the implementation of competency-based job framework for clinical research positions were studied using human resources data. Employee demographics, turnover rates, and comparisons to national statistics are summarized.Results:Employee turnover within the clinical research professional jobs has decreased from 23% to 16%, a 45% reduction, since the implementation of competency-based job framework.Conclusion:The new jobs and career ladders, both of which are centered on a competency-based framework, have decreased the overall turnover rate in this employee population. Since little is known about the rates of turnover in clinical research, especially in the academic medical setting, the results of this analysis can provide important insights to other academic medical centers on both employee turnover rate in general and the potential impact of implementing large-scale competency-based job changes.

The National Institutes of Health requires data and safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) for all phase III clinical trials. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute requires DSMBs for all clinical trials involving more than one site and those involving cooperative agreements and contracts. These policies have resulted in the establishment of DSMBs for many implementation trials, with little consideration regarding the appropriateness of DSMBs and/or key adaptations needed by DSMBs to monitor data quality and participant safety. In this perspective, we review the unique features of implementation trials and reflect on key questions regarding the justification for DSMBs and their potential role and monitoring targets within implementation trials.

Introduction:The NIH Inclusion Across the Lifespan policy has implications for increasing older adult (OA) participation in research. This study aimed to understand influential factors and facilitators to rural OA research participation.Methods:Thirty-seven rural adults aged ≥66 years participated in focus groups in community centers in four Oregon “non-metro” counties. Transcribed discussions were coded using open-axial coding by an interdisciplinary analytical team.Results:Ages were 66–96 (mean 82.2) years. Majority were women (64%) and white (86%). Primary, interrelated discussion themes were Motivation and Facilitators, Perceptions of Research, and Barriers to Research Participation. Participants were motivated to engage in research because they believed research had implications for improved longevity and quality of life and potentially benefited future generations. Motivational factors influencing participation included self-benefit and improving others’ lives, opportunities to socialize and learn about current research, research transparency (funding, time commitment, and requirements), and financial compensation. Perceptions influencing trustworthiness in research included funding source (industry/non-industry) and familiarity with the research institution. Barriers to research participation included transportation and concern about privacy and confidentiality. Suggestions for making research participation easier included researchers coming to rural communities and meeting participants in places where OAs gather and providing transportation and hotel accommodations.Conclusion:Lessons learned offer practical guidance for research teams as they address the new NIH Inclusion Across the Lifespan policy. Including OAs in research in ways that motivate and facilitate participation will be critical for a robust representation across the lifespan and in tailoring treatments to the specific needs of this population.

Background:Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) is a secure, web-based electronic data capture application for building and managing surveys and databases. It can also be used for study management, data transfer, and data export into a variety of statistical programs. REDcap was developed and supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Program and is used in over 3700 institutions worldwide. It can also be used to track and measure stakeholder engagement, an integral element of research funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Continuously and accurately tracking and reporting on stakeholder engagement activities throughout the life of a PCORI-funded trial can be challenging, particularly in complex trials with multiple types of engagement.Methods:In this paper, we show our approach for collecting and capturing stakeholder engagement activities using a shareable REDCap tool in one of the PCORI’s first large pragmatic clinical trials (the Comprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services) to inform other investigators planning cluster-randomized pragmatic trials. Benefits and challenges are highlighted for researchers seeking to consistently monitor and measure stakeholder engagement.Conclusions:We describe how REDCap can provide a time-saving approach to capturing how stakeholders engage in a PCORI-funded study and reporting how stakeholders influenced the study in progress reports back to PCORI.

Health disparities between Appalachia and the rest of the country are widening. To address this, the Appalachian Translational Research Network (ATRN) organizes an annual ATRN Health Summit. The most recent Summit was held online September 22–23, 2020, and hosted by Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science Institute in partnership with the Northwest Area Health Education Center. The Summit, titled “Community-Engaged Research in Translational Science: Innovations to Improve Health in Appalachia,” brought together a diverse group of 141 stakeholders from communities, academic institutions, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) to highlight current research, identify innovative approaches to translational science and community-engaged research, develop cross-regional research partnerships, and establish and disseminate priorities for future Appalachian-focused research. The Summit included three plenary presentations and 39 presentations within 12 concurrent breakout sessions. Here, we describe the Summit planning process and implementation, highlight some of the research presented, and outline nine emergent themes to guide future Appalachian-focused research.

A collaborative research model was developed and tested to enable regional healthcare systems to join multisite clinical trials emanating from the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Trial Innovation Network (TIN) by the Institute of Translational Health Sciences at the University of Washington and the Northwest Participant and Clinical Interactions (NW PCI) Network. The NW PCI is a collaborative group of regional research programs located at medical centers, healthcare systems, and universities across Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho. This article describes the purpose, development, barriers, and initial experience with feasibility assessment for TIN-supported studies in the NW PCI. The tools and processes of the NW PCI Network were adapted to enable network sites to assess studies for clinical relevance and feasibility. Seven of seventeen TIN-supported studies were reviewed for consideration; three of which resulted in successful completion of study documentation for site selection by NW PCI sites. The NW PCI/TIN model can be adapted by other CTSAs to increase involvement of regional research programs in national multisite clinical research studies. Barriers to expanding TIN-supported trials to regional networks include short timelines for study document submissions, insufficient site reimbursement rates, and non-feasible study designs.

Twelve evidence-based profiles of roles across the translational workforce and two patients were made available through clinical and translational science (CTS) Personas, a project of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program National Center for Data to Health (CD2H). The persona profiles were designed and researched to demonstrate the key responsibilities, motivators, goals, software use, pain points, and professional development needs of those working across the spectrum of translation, from basic science to clinical research to public health. The project’s goal was to provide reliable documents that could be used to inform CTSA software development projects, educational resources, and communication initiatives. This paper presents the initiative to create personas for the translational workforce, including the methodology, engagement strategy, and lessons learned. Challenges faced and successes achieved by the project may serve as a roadmap for others searching for best practices in the creation of Persona profiles.

Background:Opioids are more commonly prescribed for chronic pain in rural settings in the USA, yet little is known about how the rural context influences efforts to improve opioid medication management.Methods:The Six Building Blocks is an evidence-based program that guides primary care practices in making system-based improvements in managing patients using long-term opioid therapy. It was implemented at 6 rural and rural-serving organizations with 20 clinic locations over a 15-month period. To gain further insight about their experience with implementing the program, interviews and focus groups were conducted with staff and clinicians at the six organizations at the end of the 15 months and transcribed. Team members used a template analysis approach, a form of qualitative thematic analysis, to code these data for barriers, facilitators, and corresponding subcodes.Results:Facilitators to making systems-based changes in opioid management within a rural practice context included a desire to help patients and their community, external pressures to make changes in opioid management, a desire to reduce workplace stress, external support for the clinic, supportive clinic leadership, and receptivity of patients. Barriers to making changes included competing demands on clinicians and staff, a culture of clinician autonomy, inadequate data systems, and a lack of patient resources in rural areas.Discussion:The barriers and facilitators identified here point to potentially unique determinants of practice that should be considered when addressing opioid prescribing for chronic pain in the rural setting.

Academic medical centers (AMCs) face challenges in conducting research among traditionally marginalized communities due to long-standing community mistrust. Evidence suggests that some AMC faculty and staff lack an understanding of the history of distrust and social determinants of health (SDH) affecting their communities. Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science Institute Program in Community Engagement (PCE) aims to build bridges between communities and Wake Forest Baptist Health by equipping faculty, clinicians, administrators, and staff (FCAS) with a better understanding of SDH. The PCE collaborated with community partners to develop and implement community tours to improve cross-community AMC understanding and communication, enhance knowledge of SDH, and build awareness of community needs, priorities, and assets. Nine day-long tours have been conducted with 92 FCAS. Tours included routes through under-resourced neighborhoods and visits to community assets. Participant evaluations assessed program quality; 89% reported enhanced understanding of access-to-care barriers and how SDH affect health; 86% acknowledged the experience would improve future interactions with participants and patients; and 96% agreed they would recommend the tour to colleagues. This work supports the use of community tours as a strategy to improve cross-community AMC communication, build trust, and raise awareness of community needs, priorities, and assets.

Introduction:The purpose of this article is to describe the process of developing and implementing a transdisciplinary community-based research center, the Center for Health Equity Research (CHER) Chicago, to offer a model for designing and implementing research centers that aim to address structural causes of health inequality.Methods:Scholars from diverse backgrounds and disciplines formed a multidisciplinary team for the Center and adopted the structural violence framework as the organizing conceptual model. All Center activities were based on community partnership. The Center activities were organized within three cores: administrative, investigator development, and community engagement and dissemination cores. The key activities during the first year were to develop a pilot grant program for early-stage investigators (ESIs) and to establish community partnership mechanisms.Results:CHER provided more than 60 consultations for ESIs, which resulted in 31 pilot applications over the three application cycles. Over 200 academic and community partners attended the community symposium and discussed community priority. Some challenges encountered were to improve communication among investigators, to clarify roles and responsibilities of the three cores, and to build consensus on the definition and operationalization of the concept of structural violence.Conclusion:There is an increasing need for local hubs to facilitate transdisciplinary collaboration and community engagement to effectively address health inequity. Building consensus around a shared vision among partners is a difficult and yet important step toward achieving equity.

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.

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.

Introduction:Research opportunities associated with the proliferation of the electronic health record (EHR), big data initiatives, and innovative approaches to trial design can present challenges for obtaining and documenting informed consent. Broad-scale informed consent (a term used herein to describe institutional models, rather than the Common Rule’s strict regulatory definition for “broad consent”) may facilitate the use of existing data and samples and speed the pace of research by minimizing barriers to consent. We explored the use of broad-scale informed consent within the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program Network.Methods:We surveyed CTSA Hubs concerning policies, practices, experiences, and needs within three domains of broad-scale informed consent: (1) participant recontact; (2) biospecimens; and (3) clinical data sharing.Results:Of 61 CTSA Hubs surveyed, 37 (61%) indicated ongoing work related to at least 1 domain of broad-scale informed consent; 18 Hubs (30%) reported work in all 3 domains. The EHR predominated as the implementation system across all three domains. Research and IT leadership and the Institutional Review Board were most commonly endorsed as institutional drivers, while systems/technical issues and impact on clinical workflow were the most commonly reported barriers.Conclusions:While survey results indicate considerable variability in the implementation of broad-scale informed consent across the CTSA consortium, it is clear that all CTSA Hubs are actively considering policy and process related to these concepts. Next steps cluster within three areas: training and workforce development, streamlined policies and templates, and implementation strategies that facilitate integration into clinical workflow.

Explorations of workflow development within primary care allow us to understand initial steps in the pace of knowledge and practice acclimatization within clinics. This study describes use of practice facilitation as an implementation strategy to communicate shared project goals and monitor and support refinement of practice behavior. This study engaged eight health care organizations, including 55 primary care practices, ≈380 clinicians, and ≈620 nursing and support staff in a guideline implementation project regarding United States Preventive Services Task Force use of aspirin recommendations for primary prevention of cardiovascular events.

Introduction:Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is not a formal element of the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program, and D&I science activities across the CTSA Consortium are largely unknown.Methods:The CTSA Dissemination, Implementation, and Knowledge Translation Working Group surveyed CTSA leaders to explore D&I science-related activities, barriers, and needed supports, then conducted univariate and qualitative analyses of the data.Results:Out of 67 CTSA leaders, 55.2% responded. CTSAs reported directly funding D&I programs (54.1%), training (51.4%), and projects (59.5%). Indirect support (e.g., promoted by CTSA without direct funding) for D&I activities was higher – programs (70.3%), training (64.9%), and projects (54.1%). Top barriers included funding (39.4%), limited D&I science faculty (30.3%), and lack of D&I science understanding (27.3%). Respondents (63.4%) noted the importance of D&I training and recommended coordination of D&I activities across CTSAs hubs (33.3%).Conclusion:These findings should guide CTSA leadership in efforts to raise awareness and advance the role of D&I science in improving population health.

Single institutional review board (IRB) review of multisite research increased in frequency over a decade ago with a proliferation of master IRB reliance agreements supporting statewide and regional consortia and disease- and population-specific networks. Although successful, the increasing number of agreements presented significant challenges and illuminated potential benefits of a single, nationwide agreement. Anticipated changes in federal regulations highlighted the need to systematize and simplify IRB reliance. To address these challenges, the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences funded a project to establish a national IRB reliance network that would support national adoption of single IRB (sIRB) review. The Streamlined, Multisite, Accelerated Resources for Trials (SMART) IRB Platform launched in July 2016 to facilitate dissemination, adoption, and implementation of a collaboratively developed master IRB reliance agreement and supportive tools and resources. More than 580 institutions have joined SMART IRB’s Master Common Reciprocal Institutional Review Board Authorization Agreement and begun using the SMART IRB platform to support sIRB arrangements. Here, we describe the tenets of the agreement and operational benefits and challenges of its use. SMART IRB’s early success affirms the utility of collaborative, flexible, and centralized approaches to supporting sIRB review while highlighting the need for further national harmonization.

Over 80% of CTSA programs have a community advisory board (CAB). Little is known about how research discussed with CABs aligns with community priorities (bidirectionality). This program evaluation assessed researcher presentations from 2014 to 2018 to the CABs linked to our CTSA at all three sites (Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida) for relevance to local community needs identified in 2013 and/or 2016. From content analysis, of 65 presentations total, 41 (63%) addressed ≥1 local health needs (47% Minnesota, 60% Florida, and 80% Arizona). Cross-cutting topics were cancer/cancer prevention (physical activity/obesity/nutrition) and mental health. Results could help to prioritize health outcomes of community-engaged research efforts.

Accelerating innovation translation is a priority for improving healthcare and health. Although dissemination and implementation (D&I) research has made significant advances over the past decade, it has attended primarily to the implementation of long-standing, well-established practices and policies. We present a conceptual architecture for speeding translation of promising innovations as candidates for iterative testing in practice. Our framework to Design for Accelerated Translation (DART) aims to clarify whether, when, and how to act on evolving evidence to improve healthcare. We view translation of evidence to practice as a dynamic process and argue that much evidence can be acted upon even when uncertainty is moderately high, recognizing that this evidence is evolving and subject to frequent reevaluation. The DART framework proposes that additional factors – demand, risk, and cost, in addition to the evolving evidence base – should influence the pace of translation over time. Attention to these underemphasized factors may lead to more dynamic decision-making about whether or not to adopt an emerging innovation or de-implement a suboptimal intervention. Finally, the DART framework outlines key actions that will speed movement from evidence to practice, including forming meaningful stakeholder partnerships, designing innovations for D&I, and engaging in a learning health system.

The purpose of the article is to describe the progress of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program to address the evaluation-related recommendations made by the 2013 Institute of Medicine’s review of the CTSA Program and guidelines published in CTS Journal the same year (Trochim et al., Clinical and Translational Science 2013; 6(4): 303–309). We utilize data from a 2018 national survey of evaluators administered to all 64 CTSA hubs and a content analysis of the role of evaluation in the CTSA Program Funding Opportunity Announcements to document progress. We present four new opportunities for further strengthening CTSA evaluation efforts: (1) continue to build the collaborative evaluation infrastructure at local and national levels; (2) make better use of existing data; (3) strengthen and augment the common metrics initiative; and (4) pursue internal and external opportunities to evaluate the CTSA program at the national level. This article will be of significant interest to the funders of the CTSA Program and the multiple stakeholders in the larger consortium and will promote dialog from the broad range of CTSA stakeholders about further strengthening the CTSA Program’s evaluation.

The internal research program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) at the National Institutes of Health aims to fundamentally transform the preclinical translational research process to get more treatments to more people more quickly. The program develops and implements innovative scientific and operational approaches that accelerate and enhance translation across many diverse projects. Cross-disciplinary team science is a defining feature of our organization, with scientists at all levels engaged in multiple research teams. Here, we share our systems approach to nurturing cross-disciplinary team science, which leverages organizational policies, structures, and processes. Policies including the organizational mission statement, principles for ethical conduct of research, performance review criteria, and training program objectives and approaches reinforce the value of team science to achieve the program’s scientific goals. Structures including an organizational structure designed around solving translational problems, co-location of employees in a single state-of-the-art scientific facility, and shared-use laboratories, expertise and instrumentation facilitate collaboration. Processes including fluid team assembly, specialized project management, cross-agency partnerships, and decision making based on clear screening criteria and milestones enable effective team assembly and functioning. We share evidence of the impact of these approaches on the science and commercialization of findings and discuss pathways to broad adoption of similar approaches.

Objective:Clinical trials, which are mainly conducted in urban medical centers, may be less accessible to rural residents. Our aims were to assess participation and the factors associated with participation of rural residents in clinical trials.Methods:Using geocoding, the residential address of participants enrolled into clinical trials at Mayo Clinic locations in Arizona, Florida, and the Midwest between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017, was categorized as urban or rural. The distance travelled by participants and trial characteristics was compared between urban and rural participants. Ordinal logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate whether study location and risks were associated with rural participation in trials.Results:Among 292 trials, including 136 (47%) cancer trials, there were 2313 participants. Of these, 731 (32%) were rural participants, which is greater than the rural population in these 9 states (19%,P P= 0.004) and travelled further to the medical center (103 ± 104 vs 68 ± 88 miles,P P Conclusions:Approximately one in three clinical trial participants were rural residents versus one in five in the population. Rural residents travelled further to access clinical trials. The study-associated risks were not associated with the distribution of rural and urban participants in trials.

The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) has defined translation as the process of turning observations into interventions that are adopted, sustained, and improve health. Translation must attend to research and community systems and context at multiple levels, and to key stakeholders. Dissemination and implementation (D&I) sciences are informed by an understanding of the critical role of people and systems in disseminating, adopting, and sustaining innovations within real-world settings. Thus, the D&I sciences provides a set of principles that can guide the translational work of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) programs from basic research to public health. In this special communication, our cross-domain working group of the CTSA consortium, comprised of experts in methods and processes, workforce development, evaluation, stakeholder engagement, and D&I sciences, share a vision of how CTSAs can enhance translation across the translational spectrum through the integration of D&I sciences into the critical areas of methods and processes, workforce development, and evaluation. We propose a set of recommendations for NCATS national and local leaders that are intended to move D&I sciences out of a position of unfamiliarity and ancillary value and into the core identity of who CTSAs are, how they think, and what they do, to advance translation and health.

Over the last year, COVID-19 has emerged as a highly transmissible and lethal infection. As we address this global pandemic, its disproportionate impact on Black, Indigenous, and Latinx communities has served to further magnify the health inequities in access and treatment that persist in our communities. These sobering realities should serve as the impetus for reexamination of the root causes of inequities in our health system. An increased commitment to strategic partnerships between academic and nonacademic health systems, industry, local communities, and policy-makers may serve as the foundation. Here, we examine the impact of the recent COVID-19 pandemic on health care inequities and propose a strategic roadmap for integration of clinical and translational research into our understanding of health inequities.

In this paper, we address how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted informed consent for clinical research through examining experiences within Clinical and Translation Science Award (CTSA) institutions. We begin with a brief overview of informed consent and the challenges that existed prior to COVID-19. Then, we discuss how informed consent processes were modified or changed to address the pandemic, consider what lessons were learned, and present research and policy steps to prepare for future research and public health crises. The experiences and challenges for CTSA institutions offer an important perspective for examining what we have learned about informed consent and determining the next steps for improving the consent process.

Efforts to move community engagement in research from marginalized to mainstream include the NIH requiring community engagement programs in all Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs). However, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how little these efforts have changed the dominant culture of clinical research. When faced with the urgent need to generate knowledge about prevention and treatment of the novel coronavirus, researchers largely neglected to involve community stakeholders early in the research process. This failure cannot be divorced from the broader context of systemic racism in the US that has contributed to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities bearing a disproportionate toll from COVID-19, being underrepresented in COVID-19 clinical trials, and expressing greater hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccination. We call on research funders and research institutions to take decisive action to make community engagement obligatory, not optional, in all clinical and translational research and to center BIPOC communities in this process. Recommended actions include funding agencies requiring all research proposals involving human participants to include a community engagement plan, providing adequate funding to support ongoing community engagement, including community stakeholders in agency governance and proposal reviews, promoting racial and ethnic diversity in the research workforce, and making a course in community engaged research a requirement for Masters of Clinical Research curricula.

Introduction: In response to a call issued by the National Research Council to investigate the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of effective science teams, we designed a team training program for conducting science in collaborative contexts. Methods: We reviewed the literature to develop an evidence-based competency model for effective science teams along with exemplary behaviors that can be used for founding team training and evaluation. We discuss the progress of teamwork and team development research that serves as a foundation for this work, as well as previous research involving team-based competencies. Results: Three overarching competencies emerged from the literature as key for science team effectiveness: psychological safety, awareness and exchange, and self-correction and adaptation. These competencies are fully described, including their evidence base. Conclusions: We developed a competency model and implementation plan for a team training program specific to science teams – TeamMAPPS (Team Methods to Advance Processes and Performance in Science). This paper details steps in the implementation process, including plans for consortia dissemination, evaluation, and future development.

Introduction:Clinical and Translational Science Award Program (CTSA)-funded institutions were charged with developing clinical and translational science programs and transforming clinical research at their institutions. Community engagement (CE) was recognized as a key component and catalyst of that transformation. CE hub capacities for working with communities and translating knowledge into practice have been illustrated through their COVID-19 responses.Methods:CE hub leaders met and discussed their CTSA’s early responses regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2-hour discussion was distilled into themes which were sent to the CE hub leaders with a request for written accounts describing actions taken to engage local partners, communities, and institutions. The written reports form the basis for this compendium.Results:Eighteen institutions submitted written reports describing activities in relation to six themes: (1) listen to the community and respond to concerns, (2) collect data to understand the impact of COVID-19 on distinct communities and groups, (3) communicate science and address misinformation, (4) collaborate with health departments, (5) engage hubs and underrepresented populations in COVID-19 research, and (6) support our own well-being and that of others.Conclusions:Bidirectional interactions comprise the foundation of CE, which requires trusted partnerships that sustain communication through a series of activities and goals. The nimble responses to the pandemic substantiate the need for CE programs to maintain the infrastructure necessary to achieve the primary CTSA goals of improving health within and across communities and localities as well as expanding research participation of community members.

Introduction: Understanding, categorizing, and using implementation science theories, models, and frameworks is a complex undertaking. The issues involved are even more challenging given the large number of frameworks and that some of them evolve significantly over time. As a consequence, researchers and practitioners may be unintentionally mischaracterizing frameworks or basing actions and conclusions on outdated versions of a framework. Methods: This paper addresses how the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework has been described, summarizes how the model has evolved over time, and identifies and corrects several misconceptions. Results: We address 13 specific areas where misconceptions have been noted concerning the use of RE-AIM and summarize current guidance on these issues. We also discuss key changes to RE-AIM over the past 20 years, including the evolution to Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model, and provide resources for potential users to guide application of the framework. Conclusions: RE-AIM and many other theories and frameworks have evolved, been misunderstood, and sometimes been misapplied. To some degree, this is inevitable, but we conclude by suggesting some actions that reviewers, framework developers, and those selecting or applying frameworks can do to prevent or alleviate these problems.

Introduction: People aging with long-term physical disabilities (PAwLTPD), meaning individuals with onset of disability from birth through midlife, often require long-term support services (LTSS) to remain independence. The LTSS system is fragmented into aging and disability organizations with little communication between them. In addition, there are currently no evidence-based LTSS-type programs listed on the Administration for Community Living website that have been demonstrated to be effective for PAwLTPD. Because of these gaps, we have developed a community-based research network (CBRN), drawing on the practice-based research network model (PBRN), to bring together aging and disability organizations to address the lack of evidence-based programs for PAwLTPD. Materials and methods: Community-based organizations serving PAwLTPD across the state of Missouri were recruited to join the CBRN. A formative process evaluation of the network was conducted after a year to evaluate the effectiveness of the network. Results: Nine community-based organizations across the state of Missouri joined the CBRN. CBRN members include three centers for independent living (CILs), three area agencies on aging (AAAs), one CIL/AAA hybrid, one non-CIL disability organization, and one non-AAA aging organization. To date, we have held seven meetings, provided educational opportunities for CBRN members, and launched an inaugural research study within the CBRN. Formative evaluation data indicate that CBRN members feel that participation in the CBRN is beneficial. Conclusion: The PBRN model appears to be a feasible framework for use with community-based organizations to facilitate communication between agencies and to support research aimed at addressing the needs of PAwLTPD. Funding for this research was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR grant number 90DPCP0001) (SS, BM, MK, MD, MC, JD, SET). NIDILRR is a Center within the Administration for Community Living (ACL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research reported in this publication was also supported by the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (grant UL1TR002345) (SS, BM) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Introduction: Clinical trial participation among US Hispanics remains low, despite a significant effort by research institutions nationwide. ResearchMatch, a national online platform, has matched 113,372 individuals interested in participating in research with studies conducted by 8778 researchers. To increase accessibility to Spanish speakers, we translated the ResearchMatch platform into Spanish by implementing tenets of health literacy and respecting linguistic and cultural diversity across the US Hispanic population. We describe this multiphase process, preliminary results, and lessons learned. Methods: Translation of the ResearchMatch site consisted of several activities including: (1) improving the English language site’s reading level, removing jargon, and using plain language; (2) obtaining a professional Spanish translation of the site and incorporating iterative revisions by a panel of bilingual community members from diverse Hispanic backgrounds; (3) technical development and launch; and (4) initial promotion. Results: The Spanish language version was launched in August 2018, after 11 months of development. Community input improved the initial translation, and early registration and use by researchers demonstrate the utility of Spanish ResearchMatch in engaging Hispanics. Over 12,500 volunteers in ResearchMatch self-identify as Hispanic (8.5%). From August 2018 to March 2020, 162 volunteers registered through the Spanish language version of ResearchMatch, and over 500 new and existing volunteers have registered a preference to receive messages about studies in Spanish. Conclusion: By applying the principles of health literacy and cultural competence, we developed a Spanish language translation of ResearchMatch. Our multiphase approach to translation included key principles of community engagement that should prove informative to other multilingual web-based platforms.

Introduction: The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium, a network of academic health care institutions with CTSA hubs, is charged with improving the national clinical and translational research enterprise. The CTSA Consortium and the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences implemented the Common Metrics Initiative comprised of standardized metrics and a shared performance improvement framework. This article summarizes hubs’ perspectives on its value during the initial implementation. Methods: The value was assessed across 58 hubs. Survey items assessed change in perceived ability to manage performance and advance clinical and translational science. Semi-structured interviews elicited hubs’ perspectives on meaningfulness and value-added of the Common Metrics Initiative and hubs’ recommendations. Results: Hubs considered their abilities to manage performance to have improved, but there was no change in perceived ability to advance clinical and translational science. The initiative added value by providing a formal structured process, enabling strategic conversations, facilitating improvements in processes, providing an external impetus for improvement, and providing justification for funds invested. Hubs were concerned about the usefulness of the metrics chosen and whether the value-added was sufficient relative to the effort required. Hubs recommended useful benchmarking, disseminating best practices and promoting peer-to-peer learning, and expanding the use of data to inform the initiative. Conclusions: Implementing Common Metrics and a performance improvement framework yielded concrete short-term benefits, but concerns about usefulness remained, particularly considering the effort required. The Common Metrics Initiative should focus on facilitating cross-hub collaboration around metrics that address high-priority impact areas for individual hubs and the Consortium.

Clinical trials continue to face significant challenges in participant recruitment and retention. The Recruitment Innovation Center (RIC), part of the Trial Innovation Network (TIN), has been funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health to develop innovative strategies and technologies to enhance participant engagement in all stages of multicenter clinical trials. In collaboration with investigator teams and liaisons at Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions, the RIC is charged with the mission to design, field-test, and refine novel resources in the context of individual clinical trials. These innovations are disseminated via newsletters, publications, a virtual toolbox on the TIN website, and RIC-hosted collaboration webinars. The RIC has designed, implemented, and promised customized recruitment support for 173 studies across many diverse disease areas. This support has incorporated site feasibility assessments, community input sessions, recruitment materials recommendations, social media campaigns, and an array of study-specific suggestions. The RIC’s goal is to evaluate the efficacy of these resources and provide access to all investigating teams, so that more trials can be completed on time, within budget, with diverse participation, and with enough accrual to power statistical analyses and make substantive contributions to the advancement of healthcare.

Background/Objective:Although most research universities offer investigators help in obtaining patents for inventions, investigators generally have few resources for scaling up non-patentable innovations, such as health behavior change interventions. In 2017, the dissemination and implementation (D & I) team at the University of Wisconsin’s Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) created the Evidence-to-Implementation (E2I) award to encourage the scale-up of proven, non-patentable health interventions. The award was intended to give investigators financial support and business expertise to prepare evidence-based interventions for scale-up.Methods:The D & I team adapted a set of criteria named Critical Factors Assessment, which has proven effective in predicting the success of entrepreneurial ventures outside the health care environment, to use as review criteria for the program. In March 2018 and February 2020, multidisciplinary panels assessed proposals using a review process loosely based on the one used by the NIH for grant proposals, replacing the traditional NIH scoring criteria with the eight predictive factors included in Critical Factors Assessment.Results:two applications in 2018 and three applications in 2020 earned awards. Funding has ended for the first two awardees, and both innovations have advanced successfully.Conclusion:Late-stage translation, though often overlooked by the academic community, is essential to maximizing the overall impact of the science generated by CTSAs. The Evidence-to-implementation award provides a working model for supporting late-stage translation within a CTSA environment.

Effective mentoring is a key mechanism propelling successful research and academic careers, particularly for early career scholars. Most mentoring programs focus on models pairing senior and early career researchers, with limited focus on peer mentoring. Peer mentoring may be especially advantageous within emerging areas such as implementation science (IS) where challenges to traditional mentoring may be more prevalent. This special communication highlights the value of peer mentoring by describing a case study of an early career IS peer mentoring group. We delineate our curriculum and structure; support and processes; and products and outcomes. We highlight important group member characteristics to consider during group formation and continuation. The group’s long-term (6 years) success was attributed to the balance of similarities and differences among group members. Members were in a similar career phase and used similar methodologies but studied different health topics at different institutions. Group members gave and received instrumental and psychosocial support and shared resources and knowledge. Peer mentoring can serve an important function to provide emotional, logistical, and professional development support for early career scholars. Our case study highlights strategies to foster peer mentoring groups that provide a generalizable blueprint and opportunity for improved outcomes for early career professionals.

Introduction: Participants and research professionals often overestimate how well participants understand and appreciate consent information for clinical trials, and experts often vary in their determinations of participant’s capacity to consent to research. Past research has developed and validated instruments designed to assess participant understanding and appreciation, but the frequency with which they are utilized is unknown. Methods: We administered a survey to clinical researchers working with older adults or those at risk of cognitive impairment (N = 1284), supplemented by qualitative interviews (N = 60). Results: We found that using a validated assessment of consent is relatively uncommon, being used by only 44% of researchers who had an opportunity. Factors that predicted adoption of validated assessments included not seeing the study sponsor as a barrier, positive attitudes toward assessments, and being confident that they had the resources needed to implement an assessment. The perceived barriers to adopting validated assessments of consent included lack of awareness, lack of knowledge, being unsure of how to administer such an assessment, and the burden associated with implementing this practice. Conclusions: Increasing the use of validated assessments of consent will require educating researchers on the practice and emphasizing very practical assessments, and may require Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or study sponsors to champion the use of assessments.

Few studies have explored the challenges that the COVID-19 pandemic has presented for Clinical Research Units (CRUs), the solutions that have been implemented, and the changes that have been made in the operational guidelines for these entities. This study sought to identify and document common practices implemented by CRUs around the United States of America (USA) when addressing the unique challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. This descriptive study utilized a non-experimental mixed-methods approach and gathered data from representatives of 43 CRUs across the USA. An online survey was followed by in-depth interviews. The findings show that challenges faced from the COVID-19 pandemic, changes made to daily operations, and lessons learned are very similar across CRUs. Although most CRUs never stopped performing essential clinical research, many adapted to the pandemic by engaging in virtual visits, and many played key roles in administering and supporting both COVID-19 therapeutic and vaccine trials. Follow-up interviews showed that processes for formal approval and reopening were similar across CRUs. In addition to highlighting the significance of the role played by CRUs during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study addresses the relevance of CRUs and lays the groundwork for future conversations on the importance of these units.

Background: Understanding how to translate research discoveries into solutions for healthcare improvement is a priority of NIH-funded Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA). This study, supported by one CTSA, aims to capture one process of shaping and implementing innovations to advance the timeliness and patient-centeredness of cardiovascular care. Specifically, we sought to understand a partnership between a private digital health startup company, a university innovation lab, and an academic health system’s cardiology program pursuing this goal. Findings: The collaboration proceeded through clear phases to address the questions and challenges: problem definition, exploration and formalization of the partnership, innovation co-creation and pilot test, and scale-up planning. Phases were punctuated by key decisions, such as forming the partnership, negotiating terms of the partnership, iterating form and features of the innovation, and exploring sufficiency of its value-add for scale-up and sustainment. Key implementation concepts were apparent, including implementation strategies (e.g., champions and iterative trialing) and the implementation outcomes of acceptability, sustainment, and scale-up. Participants identified potential risks of collaboration, reflected on their co-creation process, and the value of engaging stakeholders in innovation design. Findings may inform subsequent collaborations between innovators and translational researchers. Methods: We conducted a case study to understand the partnership; characterize the questions they pursued, their decision points, information and data sources; and identify the challenges and risks. Data were collected through a series of four focus groups with members of each partnering organization. A transdisciplinary research team iteratively worked to condense and synthesize data from audio recorded transcripts into a case narrative.

Introduction. Unmet social needs contribute to growing health disparities and rising health care costs. Strategies to collect and integrate information on social needs into patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) show promise for connecting patients with community resources. However, gaps remain in understanding the contextual factors that impact implementing these interventions in clinical settings. Methods. We conducted qualitative interviews with patients and focus groups with providers (January−September 2020) in two primary care clinics to inform the implementation of a module that collects and integrates patient-reported social needs information into the EHR. Questions addressed constructs within the Theoretical Framework for Acceptability and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Data were coded deductively using team-based framework analysis, followed by inductive coding and matrix analyses. Results. Forty patients participated in interviews, with 20 recruited at the clinics and 20 from home. Two focus groups were conducted with a total of 12 providers. Factors salient to acceptability and feasibility included patients’ discomfort answering sensitive questions, concerns about privacy, difficulty reading/understanding module content, and technological literacy. Rapport with providers was a facilitator for patients to discuss social needs. Providers stressed that limited time with patients would be a barrier, and expressed concerns about the lack of available community resources. Conclusion. Findings highlight the need for flexible approaches to assessing and discussing social needs with patients. Feasibility of the intervention is contingent upon support from the health system to facilitate social needs assessment and discussion. Further study of availability of community resources is needed to ensure intervention effectiveness.

Background and Purpose: Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) accounts for around 10% of stroke, but carries 50% of stroke mortality. ICH characteristics and prognostic factors specific to the Stroke Belt are not well defined by race. Methods: Records of patients admitted to the University of Alabama Hospital with ICH from 2017 to 2019 were reviewed. We examined the association of demographics; clinical and radiographic features including stroke severity, hematoma volume, and ICH score; and transfer status with in-hospital mortality and discharge functional status for a biracial population including Black and White patients. Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality and functional outcome were examined using logistic regression. Results: Among the 275 ICH cases included in this biracial analysis, Black patients (n = 114) compared to White patients (n = 161) were younger (60.6 vs. 71.4 years, P < 0.0001), more often urban (81% vs. 64%, P < 0.01), more likely to have a history of hypertension (87% vs. 71%, P < 0.01), less often transferred (44% vs. 74%, P < 0.01), and had smaller median initial hematoma volumes (9.1 vs. 12.6 mL, P = 0.041). On multivariable analysis, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) for White patients (OR 13.0, P < 0.0001), hyperlipidemia for Black patients (OR 13.9, P = 0.019), and ICH volume for either race (Black patients: OR 1.05, P = 0.03 and White patients: OR 1.04, P < 0.01) were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. Conclusions: Hypertension is more prevalent among Black ICH patients in the Stroke Belt. The addition of hyperlipidemia to the ICH score model improved the prediction of mortality for Black ICH patients. No differences in in-hospital mortality or poor functional outcome were observed by race.

Youth are an understudied population requiring additional safeguards when participating in research. Their input is necessary to facilitate participation and interest in studies. To address this, Mayo Clinic established one of the first pediatric advisory boards (PAB) comprised of 18 diverse youth aged 11–17. The PAB members participated in quarterly meetings (in person and then by video conference with the advent of COVID-19) where they provided feedback to researchers on recruitment strategies, study materials, and procedures. The PAB meetings fostered bidirectional conversations with researchers on several health research topics, including mental health. Youth advisory boards can promote engagement in pediatric research.

Introduction:Incentivizing the development of interdisciplinary scientific teams to address significant societal challenges usually takes the form of pilot funding. However, while pilot funding is likely necessary, it is not sufficient for successful collaborations. Interdisciplinary collaborations are enhanced when team members acquire competencies that support team success.Methods:We evaluated the impact of a multifaceted team development intervention that included an eight-session workshop spanning two half-days. The workshop employed multiple methods for team development, including lectures on empirically supported best practices, skills-based modules, role plays, hands-on planning sessions, and social interaction within and across teams. We evaluated the impact of the intervention by (1) asking participants to assess each of the workshop sessions and (2) by completing a pre/postquestionnaire that included variables such as readiness to collaborate, goal clarity, process clarity, role ambiguity, and behavioral trust.Results:The content of the team development intervention was very well received, particularly the workshop session focused on psychological safety. Comparison of survey scores before and after the team development intervention indicated that scores on readiness to collaborate and behavioral trust were significantly higher among participants who attended the workshop. Goal clarity, process clarity, and role ambiguity did not differ among those who attended versus those who did not.Conclusions:Multicomponent team development interventions that focus on key competencies required for interdisciplinary teams can support attitudes and cognitions that the literature on the science of team science indicate are predictive of success. We offer recommendations for the design of future interventions.

Introduction: Human-centered design (HCD) training offers the potential to improve both team processes and products. However, the use of HCD to improve the quality of team science is a relatively recent application, and its benefits and challenges have not been rigorously evaluated. We conducted a qualitative study with health sciences researchers trained in HCD methods. We aimed to determine how researchers applied HCD methods and perceived the benefits and barriers to using HCD on research teams. Methods: We conducted 1-hour, semi-structured interviews with trainees from three training cohorts. Interviews focused on perceptions of the training, subsequent uses of HCD, barriers and facilitators, and perceptions of the utility of HCD to science teams. Data analysis was conducted using Braun and Clarke’s process for thematic analysis. Results: We interviewed nine faculty and nine staff trained in HCD methods and identified four themes encompassing HCD use, benefits, challenges, and tensions between HCD approaches and academic culture. Conclusions: Trainees found HCD relevant to research teams for stakeholder engagement, research design, project planning, meeting facilitation, and team management. They also described benefits of HCD in five distinct areas: creativity, egalitarianism, structure, efficiency, and visibility. Our data suggest that HCD has the potential to help researchers work more inclusively and collaboratively on interdisciplinary teams and generate more innovative and impactful science. The application of HCD methods is not without challenges; however, we believe these challenges can be overcome with institutional investment.

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.