Clinical And Translational Science Award Consortium Research Articles

Understanding enterprise data warehouses to support clinical and translational research: impact, sustainability, demand management, and accessibility.

Healthcare organizations, including Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) hubs funded by the National Institutes of Health, seek to enable secondary use of electronic health record (EHR) data through an enterprise data warehouse for research (EDW4R), but optimal approaches are unknown. In this qualitative study, our goal was to understand EDW4R impact, sustainability, demand management, and accessibility. We engaged a convenience sample of informatics leaders from CTSA hubs (n = 21) for semi-structured interviews and completed a directed content analysis of interview transcripts. EDW4R have created institutional capacity for single- and multi-center studies, democratized access to EHR data for investigators from multiple disciplines, and enabled the learning health system. Bibliometrics have been challenging due to investigator non-compliance, but one hub's requirement to link all study protocols with funding records enabled quantifying an EDW4R's multi-million dollar impact. Sustainability of EDW4R has relied on multiple funding sources with a general shift away from the CTSA grant toward institutional and industry support. To address EDW4R demand, institutions have expanded staff, used different governance approaches, and provided investigator self-service tools. EDW4R accessibility can benefit from improved tools incorporating user-centered design, increased data literacy among scientists, expansion of informaticians in the workforce, and growth of team science. As investigator demand for EDW4R has increased, approaches to tracking impact, ensuring sustainability, and improving accessibility of EDW4R resources have varied. This study adds to understanding of how informatics leaders seek to support investigators using EDW4R across the CTSA consortium and potentially elsewhere.

A landscape assessment of CTSA evaluators and their work in the CTSA consortium, 2021 survey findings.

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

Translation in action: Influence, collaboration, and evolution of COVID-19 research with Clinical and Translational Science Awards consortium support.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH)'s Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium aims to accelerate translational processes that move discoveries from bench to bedside. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presented unmatched challenges and applications for CTSA hubs nationwide. Our study used bibliometrics to assess features of COVID-19 publications supported by the national CTSA program to characterize the consortium's response to the pandemic. Our goal was to understand relative scientific influence, collaboration across hubs, and trends in research emphasis over time. We identified publications from NIH's curated iSearch COVID-19 Publication Portfolio from February 2020 to February 2023; 3234 peer-reviewed articles relevant to COVID-19 cited a CTSA grant. All 66 CTSA hubs were represented, with large-size and longstanding hubs contributing more publications. Most publications cited UL1 grants, 457 cited KL2/TL1 training grants, and 164 cited multiple hub grants. Compared to a random sample of non-CTSA-supported COVID-19 publications, the CTSA portfolio exhibited greater clinical relevance, more human research, and higher altmetric and citation influence. Results were similar for multi-hub publications involving networked initiatives like multi-site clinical trials or the National COVID-19 Cohort Collaborative. Shifts from molecular/cellular-oriented research toward human-oriented research over time were evident, demonstrating translation in action. Results illuminate how the CTSA consortium confronted the pandemic through high-quality projects oriented toward human research, working across hubs on high-value collaborations, advancing along the translational spectrum over time. Findings validate CTSA hubs as critical support structures during health emergencies.

Utilizing the Un-Meeting model to advance innovative translational and team science.

Advances in translational science require innovative solutions, and engagement of productive transdisciplinary teams play a critical role. While various forms of scientific meetings have long provided venues for sharing scientific findings and generating new collaborations, many conferences lack opportunities for active discussions. We describe the use of an Un-Meeting to foster innovative translational science teams through engaged discussions across multidisciplinary groups addressing a shared theme. The Un-Meeting was delivered by the University of Rochester Center for Leading Innovation and Collaboration, the national coordinating center for the National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program. This pilot CTSA program Un-Meeting focused on engaging translational scientists, policy-makers, community members, advocates, and public health professionals to address the opioid crisis. The participant-driven format leveraged lightning talks, attendee-led idea generation, and extensive breakout discussions to foster multidisciplinary networking. Results indicated participation by a broad set of attendees and a high level of networking during the meeting. These results, coupled with the growth of the Un-Meeting across the CTSA Consortium, provide practices and models to potentially advance team and translational science. While future work will further assess the impact of Un-Meetings, this format presents a promising approach to enhance translational science.

The Evolve to Next-Gen ACT Network: An evolving open-access, real-world data resource primed for real-world evidence research across the Clinical and Translational Science Award Consortium.

The ACT Network was funded by NIH to provide investigators from across the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium the ability to directly query national federated electronic health record (EHR) data for cohort discovery and feasibility assessment of multi-site studies. NIH refunded the program for expanded research application to become "Evolve to Next-Gen ACT" (ENACT). In parallel, the US Food and Drug Administration has been evaluating the use of real-world data (RWD), including EHR data, as sources of real-world evidence (RWE) for its regulatory decisions involving drug and biological products. Using insights from implementation science, six lessons learned from ACT for developing and sustaining RWD/RWE infrastructures and networks across the CTSA Consortium are presented in order to inform ENACT's development from the outset. Lessons include intentional institutional relationship management, end-user engagement, beta-testing, and customer-driven adaptation. The ENACT team is also conducting customer discovery interviews with CTSA hub and investigators using Innovation-Corps@NCATS (I-Corps™) methodology for biomedical entrepreneurs to uncover unmet RWD needs. Possible ENACT value proposition hypotheses are presented by stage of research. Developing evidence about methods for sustaining academically derived data infrastructures and support can advance the science of translation and support our nation's RWD/RWE research capacity.

Attitudes towards diversity, equity, and inclusion across the CTSA Programs: Strong but not uniform support and commitment.

This study describes attitudes towards diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) among members of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program. It also explores associations between program members' roles and their perceived importance of and commitment to improving DEI and assesses the link between perceived importance of and commitment to improving DEI. Lastly, it ascertains barriers and priorities concerning health equity research, workforce development, CTSA consortium leadership, and clinical trials participation among respondents. A survey was administered to registrants of the virtual CTSA Program 2020 Fall Meeting. Respondents reported their roles, perceived importance of and commitment to improving DEI. Bivariate cross-tabulations and structural equation modeling examined associations between respondents' roles, perceived importance of DEI, and commitment to improving DEI. Grounded theory was used to code and analyze open-ended questions. Among 796 registrants, 231 individuals completed the survey. DEI was "extremely important" among 72.7 percent of respondents and lowest among UL1 PIs (66.7%). Being "extremely committed" to improving DEI was reported by 56.3 percent of respondents and lowest among "other staff" (49.6%). Perceived importance of DEI was positively associated with commitment to improve DEI. Institutional and CTSA Commitment, Support, and Prioritization of DEI represented a key theme for improving DEI among respondents. Clinical and translational science organizations must take bold steps to transform individual perceptions of DEI into commitment and commitment into action. Institutions must set visionary objectives spanning leadership, training, research, and clinical trials research to meet the promise and benefits of a diverse NIH-supported workforce.

The CTSA Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) Task Force's recommendations for the CTSA program consortium.

The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program recognizes that advancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) requires moving beyond statements of commitment to transformative actions. In 2021, the CTSA Program created a Task Force (TF) to initiate work in support of structural and transformational initiatives that advance DEIA for the consortium and its individual hubs. We describe the process of forming the expertise-driven (DEIA) TF and our activities to date. We 1) developed and adopted the DEIA Learning Systems Framework to guide our approach; 2) defined a set of recommendations across four focus areas (Institutional; Programmatic; Community-Centered; and Social, Cultural, Environmental); and 3) designed and disseminated a survey to capture the CTSA Program's baseline demographic, community, infrastructural, and leadership diversity. The CTSA Consortium also elevated the TF to a standing Committee to extend our understanding, development, and implementation of DEIA approaches to translational and clinical science. These initial steps provide a foundation for collectively fostering environment that support DEIA across the research continuum.

159 Community Engagement (CE) Brokers: Diversity and the Science of CE

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Since 2013, managers of community engagement (CE) programs across the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) have convened monthly to build connections, share knowledge, and enable collaboration. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Notable for focus on staff leadership, the CE Brokers group has been central to the ongoing success of CTSA community engagement partnerships and approaches to research. In early 2022, a survey of the 139-member group asked about their roles and responsibilities, the ways the CE Brokers network has contributed to their hubs adoption and development of best practices and innovations, resources and lessons learned, and the creation of opportunities for members to collaboratively conduct and disseminate original research, and research on the science of community engagement. The survey also asked CE Brokers if they or their community partners are part of an underrepresented community. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: These demographic data will be shared, along with analyses of data on growth of the group over time, evolving themes, and a SWOT analysis completed in 2021. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: This will provide a platform to explore new avenues for the CE Brokers and their impact within the NCATS CTSA consortium, in line with the evolving direction of the clinical and translational research enterprise.

Moving beyond annual data reports: A blueprint for communicating and disseminating actionable intelligence.

Identifying and disseminating actionable intelligence is a challenging task that requires thoughtful planning. The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences instituted the Common Metrics Initiative with the goal of evaluating the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Programs using a standard set of metrics. Initially managed by Tufts University, the Center for Leading Innovation and Collaboration (CLIC) at the University of Rochester began leading this initiative in 2017. In directing this work, CLIC created a framework for communicating and disseminating data insights. Insights to Inspire emerged from the need to share strategies and lessons learned to improve metric performance at the local level to a network of 60+ academic research institutions. Insights to Inspire employs a mixed methods approach for translating data into actionable intelligence. A series of blogs, webinars, and webcasts were designed to communicate metric-specific strategies used by individual sites to the broader CTSA consortium. A dissemination plan to expand the reach beyond metric stakeholders utilized focused communications including social media channels, network newsletters, and presentations at national meetings. This framework serves as a blueprint for other national evaluation programs interested in a systematic approach to using data insights for continuous improvement.

What does team science look like across the CTSA consortium? A qualitative analysis of the Great CTSA Team Science Contest submissions.

The Great CTSA Team Science Contest (GTSC) was developed to discover how Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs promote and support team science [1]. The purpose of this study was a secondary qualitative analysis of the GTSC submissions to better understand the diversity of team science initiatives across the CTSA consortium. Secondary qualitative analysis of the GTSC data addressed the following research questions, which defined the top-level coding: (1) What CTSA component sponsored it? (2) Who was the team doing the work? (3) Who were the intended beneficiaries? (4) What was the intended outcome? (5) What strategies did they use? (6) What translational science (TS) stage was addressed? (7) How do they align with the NCATS team science strategic goals? (8) How do the CTSA's team science efforts align with the National Academies Research Council (NRC) recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of team science? The GTSC received 170 submissions from 45 unique CTSA hubs. Qualitative analysis revealed a great variety of team science strategies for virtually all team science stakeholders. In addition to strategies to promote team science, results show successful examples that focus on outcomes and illustrate ways of measuring success. The GTSC shows that the CTSA consortium is involved in an extremely diverse array of team science activities, which align well with both the NRC recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of team science and the NCATS strategic goals for team science. Future research should evaluate the efficacy of team science strategies.

ReGARDD (Regulatory Guidance for Academic Research of Drugs and Devices): The evolution of a collaborative regional CTSA-funded forum and website for regulatory support.

Availability of trained professionals to assist researchers navigating regulatory pathways for new drug and device development is limited within academic institutions. We created ReGARDD (Regulatory Guidance for Academic Research of Drugs and Devices), a regional forum initially involving regulatory professionals from four Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA)-funded institutions, to build and capitalize on local expertise and to develop a regulatory guidance website geared toward academic researchers. Since 2015, members organized 15 forums covering topics such as FDA premarket submissions, gene therapy, and intellectual property for devices and therapeutics. Through user feedback, targeted surveys, and ongoing iterative processes, we refined and maintained a shared regulatory website, which reached 6000+ users in 2019. Website updates improved navigation to drug versus device topic areas, provided new educational content and videos to address commonly asked questions, and created a portal for posting upcoming training opportunities. Survey respondents rated the website favorably and endorsed expanding ReGARDD as a centralized resource. ReGARDD strengthened the regional regulatory workforce, increased regulatory efficiency, and promulgated best organizational and operational practices. Broad-scale deployment of the ReGARDD model across the CTSA consortium may facilitate the creation of a network of regional forums and reduce gaps in access to regulatory support.

Integrating dissemination and implementation sciences within Clinical and Translational Science Award programs to advance translational research: Recommendations to national and local leaders.

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.

Do common metrics add value? Perspectives from NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium hubs.

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. 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. 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. 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.

Pilot test of an accrual Common Metric for the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium: Metric usefulness.

The Common Metrics Initiative aims to develop and field metrics to improve research processes within the national Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium. A Median Accrual Ratio (MAR) common metric was developed to assess the results of efforts to increase subject accrual into a set of clinical trials within the expected time period. A pilot test of the MAR was undertaken at Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) with eight CTSA Consortium hubs. Post-pilot interviews were conducted with 9 CTSA Principal Investigators (PIs) and 23 pilot team members. Over three-quarters (78%) of respondents reported that the MAR could be useful for performance improvement, but also described limitations or concerns. The most commonly cited barrier to MAR use for performance improvement was difficulty in interpreting the single value that is produced. Most respondents were interested in using the MAR to assess recruitment at an individual trial level. Majority of respondents (63%) had mixed opinions about aggregating metric results across the CTSA Consortium for comparison or benchmarking. Collecting data about additional contextual factors, and comparing accrual between subgroups, were cited as potentially helping address concerns about aggregation. Significant challenges remain in ensuring that the MAR can be sufficiently useful for collaborative process improvement. We offer recommendations to potentially improve metric usefulness.

Pilot test of an accrual Common Metric for the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium: Metric feasibility and data quality.

Failure to accrue participants into clinical trials incurs economic costs, wastes resources, jeopardizes answering research questions meaningfully, and delays translating research discoveries into improved health. This paper reports the results of a pilot test of the Median Accrual Ratio (MAR) metric developed as a part of the Common Metrics Initiative of the NIH's National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium. Using the metric is intended to enhance the ability of the CTSA Consortium and its "hubs" to increase subject accrual into trials within expected timeframes. The pilot test was undertaken at Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) with eight CTSA Consortium hubs. We describe the pilot test methods, and results regarding feasibility of collecting metric data and the quality of data that was collected. Participating hubs welcomed the opportunity to assess accrual efforts, but experienced challenges in collecting accrual metric data due to insufficient infrastructure and inconsistent implementation of electronic data systems and lack of uniform data definitions. Also, the metric could not be constructed for all trial designs, particularly those using competitive enrollment strategies. We offer recommendations to address the identified challenges to facilitate progress to broad accrual metric data collection and use.

Scale-up of the Accrual to Clinical Trials (ACT) network across the Clinical and Translational Science Award Consortium: a mixed-methods evaluation of the first 18 months.

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. 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. 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. 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.

4436 A Content Analysis of CTSA Websites: The Identification and Evaluation of CTSA Program Hub Website Content Standards for Knowledge Management of NCATS CTSA Program Goals and Initiatives

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Introduction: Between 2014 and 2019 the National Institute of Health (NIH) through the National Center for the Advancement of Translational Science (NCATS) has awarded about $2.7 billion to U.S. Academic Medical Centers to build a national network of clinical and translational science program hubs that serve to meet their key goals and initiatives. Today there are about 60 Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program hubs. Each CTSA program hub has a corresponding website highlighting its clinical and translational science centered programs and activities. These websites are a critical communication gateway to promote NCATS goals and initiatives. Objective: The objective of this research is to evaluate the NIH funded Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program hub websites for NCATS goals and initiative content alignment, navigability, and interactivity. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Methods: Each CTSA program hub website was systematically evaluated for information or tools that align with the five NCATS / CTSA Goals and eight CTSA nationally identified program initiatives. Each NCATS goal and CTSA initiative was subsequently ranked by information diversity level (text, tool, interactivity) and navigation level (click distance from the home page). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Results: Four of the five NCATS goals are thoroughly and consistently represented among the CTSA Consortium with workforce development, patient and community engagement, and quality and efficiency of research being the top three. Informatics is thoroughly and consistently represented, but not always clearly identified on the home page. The most underrepresented goal is integration of special and underserved populations which was identified on only 60% of CTSA program hub websites. The most common focus of the eight CTSA program initiatives is the Trial Innovation Network in CTSA program hub websites. The Smart IRB comes in a distant second. The remaining six initiatives are severely underrepresented. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Discussion: The identification of these gaps among the CTSA program hubs presents an understanding of content management and website functionality among the consortium from 3 principal approaches. First it creates an understanding of CTSA program hub content alignment with its funding source goals and initiatives. Such an understanding presents an opportunity to promote ways to create a better aligned consortium with improved collaboration pathways by the funding source through program hub website content standards. Second, it creates an opportunity for program hubs to understand and respond to the messaging their websites are presenting as it relates to the funding source. Third, it provides an opportunity to identify specific program initiatives and goals the CTSA institutions independently chose to highlight which can open a dialog to the better understanding the value of the program initiatives as they relate to the needs of CTSA program hubs. Ultimately, CTSA websites through content alignment should lead to an improved user experience.

Bibliometrics approach to evaluating the research impact of CTSAs: A pilot study.

To enhance the performance evaluation of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs, we examined the utility of advanced bibliometric measures that go beyond simple publication counts to demonstrate the impact of translational research output. The sampled data included North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS)-supported publications produced between September 2008 and March 2017. We adopted advanced bibliometric measures and a state-of-the-art bibliometric network analysis tool to assess research productivity, citation impact, the scope of research collaboration, and the clusters of research topics. Totally, 754 NC TraCS-supported publications generated over 24,000 citation counts by April 2017 with an average of 33 cites per article. NC TraCS-supported research papers received more than twice as many cites per year as the average National Institute of Health-funded research publications from the same field and time. We identified the top productive researchers and their networks within the CTSA hub. Findings demonstrated the impact of NC TraCS in facilitating interdisciplinary collaborations within the CTSA hub and across the CTSA consortium and connecting researchers with right peers and organizations. Both improved bibliometrics measures and bibliometric network analysis can bring new perspectives to CTSA evaluation via citation influence and the scope of research collaborations.

KL2 mentored career development programs at clinical and translational science award hubs: Practices and outcomes.

NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) include KL2 mentored career development awards for faculty commencing clinical and translational research. A survey of KL2 leaders revealed program practices, curricular elements and compelling data about scholar characteristics and outcomes. We conducted a literature review, framed the survey construct, and obtained input from across the CTSA consortium. A REDCap survey was emailed in fall 2016 to 61 active programs. Fifty-five programs (90.2%) responded. Respondents had been funded from 3 to 11 years, including 22 "mature" hubs funded for ≥8 years. Program cohort sizes were 56% "small", 22% "medium", and 22% "large." Hubs offer extensive competency-aligned training opportunities relevant to clinical and translational research, including graduate degrees, mentorship, and grant-writing. Seventy-two percent of hubs report parallel "KL2-equivalent" career development programs. All hubs share their training and facilitate intermingling with other early stage investigators. A total of 1,517 KL2 scholars were funded. KL2 awardees are diverse in their disciplines, research projects, and representation; 54% are female and 12% self-identified as underrepresented in biomedical research. Eighty-seven percent of scholars have 2-3 mentors and are currently supported for 2-3 years. Seventy-eight percent of alumni remain at CTSA institutions in translational science. The most common form of NIH support following scholars' KL2 award is an individual career development award. The KL2 is a unique career development award, shaped by competency-aligned training opportunities and interdisciplinary mentorship that inform translational research pathways. Tracking both traditional and novel outcomes of KL2 scholars is essential to capture their career trajectories and impact on health.

Implementing Common Metrics across the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium.

The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium and the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) undertook a Common Metrics Initiative to improve research processes across the national CTSA Consortium. This was implemented by Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute at the 64 CTSA academic medical centers. Three metrics were collaboratively developed by NCATS staff, CTSA Consortium teams, and outside consultants for Institutional Review Board Review Duration, Careers in Clinical and Translational Research, and Pilot Award Publications and Subsequent Funding. The implementation program included training on the metric operational guidelines, data collection, data reporting system, and performance improvement framework. The implementation team provided small-group coaching and technical assistance. Collaborative learning sessions, driver diagrams, and change packages were used to disseminate best and promising practices. After 14 weeks, 84% of hubs had produced a value for one metric and about half had produced an initial improvement plan. Overall, hubs reported that the implementation activities facilitated their Common Metrics performance improvement process. Experiences implementing the first three metrics can inform future directions of the Common Metrics Initiative and other research groups implementing standardized metrics and performance improvement processes, potentially including other National Institutes of Health institutes and centers.