Search

We report results of an 8-year process of stakeholder engagement aimed at building capacity in Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) research at the University of Wisconsin as part of the National Institutes of Health’s Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). Starting in 2008, annual individual interviews were held with leaders of the Wisconsin CTSA’s community engagement core for strategic planning purposes. Interviews were followed by annual planning meetings that employed a facilitated group decision-making process aimed at identifying and prioritizing gaps in the translational research spectrum. In 2011, the stakeholder engagement process identified D&I as a primary gap limiting overall impact of the institution’s research across the translational spectrum. Since that time, our CTSA has created an array of D&I resources falling into four broad categories: (1) relationship building with D&I partners, (2) D&I skill building, (3) translational research resources, and (4) resources to support D&I activities. Our systematic process of stakeholder engagement has increased the impact of research by providing D&I resources to meet investigator and community needs. CTSAs could engage with leaders of their community engagement cores, which are common to all CTSAs, to adapt or adopt these resources to build D&I capacity.

Abstract Background: The University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational Research hub supports multiple pilot award programs that engage cross-disciplinary Translational Teams. To support those teams, our Team Science group aims to offer a learning experience that is accessible, active, and actionable. We identified Collaboration Planning as a high-impact intervention to stimulate team-building activities that provide Translational Team members with the skills to lead and participate in high-impact teams. Methods: We adapted the published materials on Collaboration Planning to develop a 90-minute facilitated intervention with questions in 10 areas, presuming no previous knowledge of Science of Team Science (SciTS) or team-science best practices. Attendees received a short follow-up survey and submitted a written collaboration plan with their first quarterly progress report. Results: Thirty-nine participants from 13 pilot teams from a wide range of disciplines engaged in these sessions. We found that teams struggled to know who to invite, that some of our questions were confusing and too grounded in the language of SciTS, and groups lacked plans for managing their information and communications. We identified several areas for improvement including ensuring that the process is flexible to meet the needs of different teams, continuing to evolve the questions so they resonate with teams, and the need to provide resources for areas where teams needed additional guidance, including information and data management, authorship policies, and conflict management. Conclusions: With further development and testing, Collaboration Planning has the potential to support Translational Teams in developing strong team dynamics and team functioning.

Historically, a single research project involving numerous practice-based research networks (PBRNs) required multiple institutional review boards (IRBs) to be involved in approval of the project. However, to avoid redundancies, federal IRB regulations now allow cooperative research projects that involve more than one institution to use reasonable methods of cooperative IRB review and to cede authority for review and oversight of the project to a single lead IRB. Through ceding, a lead IRB has the authority for review and oversight of the project delegated by all participating sites’ IRBs and becomes the IRB of record for the ceded sites. In the conduct of cooperative research projects, each institution or primary care office site is still responsible for safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects and for complying with applicable regulations. The purpose of this report is to delineate the process, including cooperation and effort of personnel, for accomplishing IRB approval for the Implementing Networks’ Self-management Tools Through Engaging Patients and Practices (INSTTEPP) clinical trial. This process involved 4 PBRNs, 16 family physician offices, 4 academic institution’s IRBs, and 4 family practice office external IRBs ceding to the lead IRB. Once ceding was accomplished, subsequent IRB modifications and continuing reviews were the responsibility of the lead IRB, ultimately saving time for all participants and keeping the project on schedule.

Approximately 20% of veterans suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). NPs are well positioned to provide early detection and assist veterans with access to life-saving treatment. The PTSD Toolkit for Nurses helps nurses improve their skills in assessing PTSD and provides a specialized intervention and referral procedure that promotes help-seeking behavior among veterans.