Clinical And Translational Science Award Research Articles

154 Leveraging Implementation Science Competencies to Establish a D&I Science Core

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs are launching D&I Science cores to provide resources and services to promote the translation of clinical evidence into practice. We developed a D&I Science Core strategic plan reflecting our research community’s needs by assessing Implementation Science (IS) competencies. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Tufts CTSI D&I Science Core was launched in early 2023. To design services that meet research community needs, we conducted a survey and key informant interviews based on Padek etal.’s list of Implementation Science (IS) competencies. The competencies are organized into four domains (Definition, Background, and Rationale; Theory and Approaches; Design & Analysis; and Practice-Based Considerations) and categorized by expertise level (beginner, intermediate, advanced). Participants who had attended or expressed interest in a D&I interest group were asked via an email survey to rate their level of confidence in completing selected IS-related research activities, about their experience with IS research or practice, and the types of resources, services and training they desired. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Twenty researchers (20/65, 31%) submitted survey responses and six researchers participated in in-depth interviews. Survey respondents felt most confident in engaging stakeholders in IS research and least confident selecting a model or framework for a study. Results suggest that researcher capacity building is needed to: • Understand IS models and frameworks and their approaches, strengths, and limitations • Select and use models and frameworks in studies • Assemble IS teams and prepare grant proposals Suggestions for resources, services, and training, include: • Customized education to address diverse needs, knowledge levels, and learning styles • Promotion of D&I Core consultations and grant support services • Sharing of successful proposals to help researchers learn how to apply IS methods DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: A strategic workplan for the D&I Science Core was developed and implemented to address the findings. Initial emphasis is on developing easily accessible resources and timely consultations for investigators new to IS needing to apply these methods in current grant proposals, while also providing training resources for deeper skill building.

Neutralizing IFN-γ autoantibodies are rare and pathogenic in HLA-DRB1*15:02 or 16:02 individuals.

BACKGROUNDWeakly virulent environmental mycobacteria (EM) can cause severe disease in HLA-DRB1*15:02 or 16:02 adults harboring neutralizing anti-IFN-γ autoantibodies (nAIGAs). The overall prevalence of nAIGAs in the general population is unknown, as are the penetrance of nAIGAs in HLA-DRB1*15:02 or 16:02 individuals and the proportion of patients with unexplained, adult-onset EM infections carrying nAIGAs.METHODSThis study analyzed the detection and neutralization of anti-IFN-γ autoantibodies (auto-Abs) from 8,430 healthy individuals of the general population, 257 HLA-DRB1*15:02 or 16:02 carriers, 1,063 patients with autoimmune disease, and 497 patients with unexplained severe disease due to EM.RESULTSWe found that anti-IFN-γ auto-Abs detected in 4,148 of 8,430 healthy individuals (49.2%) from the general population of an unknown HLA-DRB1 genotype were not neutralizing. Moreover, we did not find nAIGAs in 257 individuals carrying HLA-DRB1* 15:02 or 16:02. Additionally, nAIGAs were absent in 1,063 patients with an autoimmune disease. Finally, 7 of 497 patients (1.4%) with unexplained severe disease due to EM harbored nAIGAs.CONCLUSIONThese findings suggest that nAIGAs are isolated and that their penetrance in HLA-DRB1*15:02 or 16:02 individuals is low, implying that they may be triggered by rare germline or somatic variants. In contrast, the risk of mycobacterial disease in patients with nAIGAs is high, confirming that these nAIGAs are the cause of EM disease.FUNDINGThe Laboratory of Human Genetics of Infectious Diseases is supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Rockefeller University, the St. Giles Foundation, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01AI095983 and U19AIN1625568), the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program (UL1 TR001866), the French National Research Agency (ANR) under the "Investments for the Future" program (ANR-10-IAHU-01), the Integrative Biology of Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratory of Excellence (ANR-10-LABX-62-IBEID), ANR-GENMSMD (ANR-16-CE17-0005-01), ANR-MAFMACRO (ANR-22-CE92-0008), ANRSECTZ170784, the French Foundation for Medical Research (FRM) (EQU201903007798), the ANRS-COV05, ANR GENVIR (ANR-20-CE93-003), and ANR AI2D (ANR-22-CE15-0046) projects, the ANR-RHU program (ANR-21-RHUS-08-COVIFERON), the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement no. 824110 (EASI-genomics), the Square Foundation, Grandir - Fonds de solidarité pour l'enfance, the Fondation du Souffle, the SCOR Corporate Foundation for Science, the Battersea & Bowery Advisory Group, William E. Ford, General Atlantic's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Gabriel Caillaux, General Atlantic's Co-President, Managing Director, and Head of business in EMEA, and the General Atlantic Foundation, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) and of Paris Cité University. JR was supported by the INSERM PhD program for doctors of pharmacy (poste d'accueil INSERM). JR and TLV were supported by the Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation and the MD-PhD program of the Imagine Institute. MO was supported by the David Rockefeller Graduate Program, the Funai Foundation for Information Technology (FFIT), the Honjo International Scholarship Foundation (HISF), and the New York Hideyo Noguchi Memorial Society (HNMS).

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.

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.

Advancing the Science of Mentorship: Future Directions for Sustainable Implementation and Evaluation of Mentorship Education for the Clinical and Translational Science Workforce.

The Advancing the Science of Mentorship: Future Directions for Sustainable Implementation and Evaluation of Mentorship Education for the Clinical and Translational Science Workforce conference was held in Madison, Wisconsin, in April 2023. The conference provided an engaging and scholarly forum for clinical and translational researchers from diverse backgrounds and career stages (including leaders at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs and affiliated institutions) with a professional interest and commitment to improving and diversifying workforce development and fostering a climate of inclusive excellence through best practices in mentorship. Outcomes from the conference include an online resource and a new Community of Practice.

Distinguishing between translational science and translational research in CTSA pilot studies: A collaborative project across 12 CTSA hubs.

The institutions (i.e., hubs) making up the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded network of Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) share a mission to turn observations into interventions to improve public health. Recently, the focus of the CTSAs has turned increasingly from translational research (TR) to translational science (TS). The current NIH Funding Opportunity Announcement (PAR-21-293) for CTSAs stipulates that pilot studies funded through the CTSAs must be "focused on understanding a scientific or operational principle underlying a step of the translational process with the goal of developing generalizable solutions to accelerate translational research." This new directive places Pilot Program administrators in the position of arbiters with the task of distinguishing between TR and TS projects. The purpose of this study was to explore the utility of a set of TS principles set forth by NCATS for distinguishing between TR and TS. Twelve CTSA hubs collaborated to generate a list of Translational Science Principles questions. Twenty-nine Pilot Program administrators used these questions to evaluate 26 CTSA-funded pilot studies. Factor analysis yielded three factors: Generalizability/Efficiency, Disruptive Innovation, and Team Science. The Generalizability/Efficiency factor explained the largest amount of variance in the questions and was significantly able to distinguish between projects that were verified as TS or TR (t = 6.92, p < .001) by an expert panel. The seven questions in this factor may be useful for informing deliberations regarding whether a study addresses a question that aligns with NCATS' vision of TS.

The Iowa Health Data Resource (IHDR): an innovative framework for transforming the clinical health data ecosystem.

This manuscript will be of interest to most Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) as they retool for the increasing emphasis on translational science from translational research. This effort is an extension of the EDW4R work that most CTSAs have done to deploy infrastructure and tools for researchers to access clinical data. The Iowa Health Data Resource (IHDR) is a strategic investment made by the University of Iowa to improve access to real-world health data. The goals of IHDR are to improve the speed of translational health research, to boost interdisciplinary collaboration, and to improve literacy about health data. The first objective toward this larger goal was to address gaps in data access, data literacy, lack of computational environments for processing Personal Health Information (PHI) and the lack of processes and expertise for creating transformative datasets. A three-pronged approach was taken to address the objective. The approach involves integration of an intercollegiate team of non-informatics faculty and staff, a data enclave for secure patient data analyses, and novel comprehensive datasets. To date, all five of the health science colleges (dentistry, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and public health) have had at least one staff and one faculty member complete the two-month experiential learning curriculum. Over the first two years of this project, nine cohorts totaling 36 data liaisons have been trained, including 18 faculty and 18 staff. IHDR data enclave eliminated the need to duplicate computational infrastructure inside the hospital firewall which reduced infrastructure, hardware and human resource costs while leveraging the existing expertise embedded in the university research computing team. The creation of a process to develop and implement transformative datasets has resulted in the creation of seven domain specific datasets to date. The combination of people, process, and technology facilitates collaboration and interdisciplinary research in a secure environment using curated data sets. While other organizations have implemented individual components to address EDW4R operational demands, the IHDR combines multiple resources into a novel, comprehensive ecosystem IHDR enables scientists to use analysis tools with electronic patient data to accelerate time to science.

Customized Career Development Platform (CCDP) for clinical and translational researchers: A pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Early-stage clinical and translational researchers who set and track career goals, milestones, and progress are successful in career development. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of the Customized Career Development Platform (CCDP), an online individual development plan (IDP), versus the traditional IDP template in improving research success and career satisfaction. We conducted a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial of 340 scholars and trainees at 27 US academic healthcare institutions. The primary outcome was number of published manuscripts 24 months post-intervention. Secondary outcomes included the number of grant proposals submitted and funded, job satisfaction, and level of communication with mentors. An analysis of CCDP participants assessed proficiency level for the 14 Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) competencies. Data were analyzed using intention-to-treat. Participants were mostly female (60.3%) and Caucasian (67.2%); mean age was 34 years. Twenty-four months following the intervention, the CCDP versus traditional IDP groups showed a similar number of publications (9.4 vs 8.6), grants submitted (4.1 vs 4.4) and funded (1.3 vs 2.0), and job satisfaction score (3.6 vs 3.7). The CCDP group had higher odds of discussing communication (OR = 2.08) and leadership skills (OR = 2.62) and broadening their network (2.31) than the traditional IDP group. The CCDP arm reported improvements in 9 of the 14 CTSA competencies. The CCDP offers CTSA hubs an innovative alternative to traditional IDP tools. Future studies are needed to elucidate why the CCDP users did not fully appreciate or adopt the functionality of the online platform.

Improving the Quality and Utility of Electronic Health Record Data through Ontologies.

The translational research community, in general, and the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) community, in particular, share the vision of repurposing EHRs for research that will improve the quality of clinical practice. Many members of these communities are also aware that electronic health records (EHRs) suffer limitations of data becoming poorly structured, biased, and unusable out of original context. This creates obstacles to the continuity of care, utility, quality improvement, and translational research. Analogous limitations to sharing objective data in other areas of the natural sciences have been successfully overcome by developing and using common ontologies. This White Paper presents the authors' rationale for the use of ontologies with computable semantics for the improvement of clinical data quality and EHR usability formulated for researchers with a stake in clinical and translational science and who are advocates for the use of information technology in medicine but at the same time are concerned by current major shortfalls. This White Paper outlines pitfalls, opportunities, and solutions and recommends increased investment in research and development of ontologies with computable semantics for a new generation of EHRs.

Learning health system benefits: Development and initial validation of a framework.

Implementation of research findings in clinical practice often is not realized or only partially achieved, and if so, with a significant delay. Learning health systems (LHSs) hold promise to overcome this problem by embedding clinical research and evidence-based best practices into care delivery, enabling innovation and continuous improvement. Implementing an LHS is a complex process that requires participation and resources of a wide range of stakeholders, including healthcare leaders, clinical providers, patients and families, payers, and researchers. Engaging these stakeholders requires communicating clear, tangible value propositions. Existing models identify broad categories of benefits but do not explicate the full range of benefits or ways they can manifest in different organizations. To develop such a framework, a working group with representatives from six Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs reviewed existing literature on LHS characteristics, models, and goals; solicited expert input; and applied the framework to their local LHS experiences. The Framework of LHS Benefits includes six categories of benefits (quality, safety, equity, patient satisfaction, reputation, and value) relevant for a range of stakeholders and defines key concepts within each benefit. Applying the framework to five LHS case examples indicated preliminary face validity across varied LHS approaches and revealed three dimensions in which the framework is relevant: defining goals of individual LHS projects, facilitating collaboration based on shared values, and establishing guiding tenets of an LHS program or mission. The framework can be used to communicate the value of an LHS to different stakeholders across varied contexts and purposes, and to identify future organizational priorities. Further validation will contribute to the framework's evolution and support its potential to inform the development of tools to evaluate LHS impact.

Translating Scientific Discovery Into Health Policy Impact: Innovative Bibliometrics Bridge Translational Research Publications to Policy Literature.

To understand how translational science efforts lead to outcomes, it is common to examine publications as a key step in the translational process. The National Institutes of Health's Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program aims to accelerate that process by providing support to investigators. Although it is challenging to measure the impact of such support on translational outcomes, CTSA-supported research that arises in research publications can advance translation through use of these publications in public policy and guideline documents from government health agencies, intergovernmental organizations, and other outlets. Using cutting-edge bibliometric tools, the authors evaluated how CTSA-supported research has extended its impact beyond academic silos to influence public policy literature. The authors identified approximately 118,490 publications that acknowledged receiving support from a CTSA hub, from the inception of the program in 2006 through 2021. Articles were queried in the Overton policy database, which indexes references to publications in global policy literature. The search revealed 13% of CTSA-supported articles were referenced in policy documents, significantly more than the expected proportion (10%) calculated by Overton. References came from 576 policy source outlets across 87 countries, predominantly the United States and Europe. The most frequent sources included guidelines in PubMed Central, the World Health Organization, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors illustrate the bridge from translational research to public policy with case studies of 6 articles based on CTSA-supported research and having notable policy impact. They found articles with greater clinical relevance, altmetric attention (i.e., nonacademic community/public attention), and academic citation influence were more likely to be referenced in policy literature. Study findings help to characterize the kinds of research that have influenced and may be expected to influence health policy in the future.

94 Evaluation of a grant writing workshop designed to increase submission and award rates for career development awards

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To improve early career faculty members’ NIH grant writing skills, Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) hubs have developed a variety of workshop-style programs. However, few articles have evaluated the impact of grant writing workshops on NIH grant submission and award rates. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The K Writing program was developed by the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR) at the University of Michigan. Since 2012, 435 scholars have participated in the program. The MICHR K Writing program is a three-part workshop series that prepares scholars by providing them with guidelines to write all sections of a career development grant application. Each session focuses on different sections of the K award proposal. During the workshop sessions, participants break into small groups and exchange drafts of their proposal sections and receive peer critique and feedback from senior faculty facilitators who have experience with NIH study sections. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Between 2012-2018, 273 scholars participated and 57% were female. Our two primary outcomes of interest are submission rates and success rates (the number of grants awarded divided by the number of applications). We plan to examine the effects of several characteristics, including number of sessions attended, cohort year, and faculty vs. postdoctoral status. We will also examine whether there were differences in submission and success rates between female and male researchers and between underrepresented minority scholars and those who identified as white or Asian. Lastly, we will report submission and success rates for each grant mechanism and compare them to the national averages. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Obtaining external research funding is an important part of a faculty career, especially at its early stages. This research has important implications for the design of similar programs intended to increase submission and success rates for federal grant applications.

Beyond Effectiveness: Implementation Science 101 for Clinicians and Clinical Researchers.

From the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI. Correspondence: Heidi W. Brown, MD, MAS. E-mail: [email protected]. The authors have declared they have no conflicts of interest. E.R.'s implementation science research is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant 1K01HS028926. W.W.B. receives salary support from the Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) Launchpad at University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, which is supported by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), grant 1UL1TR002373.

The rocky road to translational science: An analysis of Clinical and Translational Science Awards

Abstract Studies point out that the productivity decline in biomedicine is in significant part due to difficulties in translating basic science into clinical application. To promote translational research, the US NIH launched the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program in 2006. Prior evaluations of the CTSA program often assumed that the key to translation is inter-organizational collaboration or multidisciplinarity; hence, changes in either of these were measured as evidence of translational science. However, using novel measures of translational science, this study examines the relationship between CTSAs and translational science per se. We define ‘translational science’ as basic science that has translational features, and we employ two distinct, complementary measures of translational science based on publication data. Using 115 Carnegie R1 universities and their translational science publications, we find that receiving a CTSA does not obviously cause receiving institutions to conduct more translational science. Furthermore, our Principal Investigator-level analysis shows that those who received direct support from the CTSA program had already generated more translational science than others and that their research behavior did not change significantly after receiving a CTSA. Future evaluation research can adopt our novel measures of translational science and evaluation research design in the assessment of translational research activities. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings for science governance.

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 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.

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.

Challenges in catalyzing and sustaining research in translational science.

Advancing the new field of translational science and developing innovative solutions to overcome translational roadblocks are key priorities of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS). However, interpreting this emerging concept of "translational science" (TS) as a field of inquiry distinct from "translational research" (TR) and developing real-world investigations in TS can be challenging. The goal of this paper is to share the obstacles the Einstein-Montefiore CTSA hub has faced in generating institutional interest and research in TS and to present potential strategies for addressing them. The aim is to stimulate dialog within the wider CTSA community and beyond about the need to systematically examine how TS should be efficiently and effectively pursued, that is, the science of translational science. The collective sharing of experiences and innovative approaches to overcoming TS challenges that arise at CTSA hubs is critical if the field is to grow and gain wider recognition and acceptance by the scientific and broader communities.

The Trial Innovation Network Liaison Team: building a national clinical and translational community of practice.

In 2016, the National Center for Advancing Translational Science launched the Trial Innovation Network (TIN) to address barriers to efficient and informative multicenter trials. The TIN provides a national platform, working in partnership with 60+ Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs across the country to support the design and conduct of successful multicenter trials. A dedicated Hub Liaison Team (HLT) was established within each CTSA to facilitate connection between the hubs and the newly launched Trial and Recruitment Innovation Centers. Each HLT serves as an expert intermediary, connecting CTSA Hub investigators with TIN support, and connecting TIN research teams with potential multicenter trial site investigators. The cross-consortium Liaison Team network was developed during the first TIN funding cycle, and it is now a mature national network at the cutting edge of team science in clinical and translational research. The CTSA-based HLT structures and the external network structure have been developed in collaborative and iterative ways, with methods for shared learning and continuous process improvement. In this paper, we review the structure, function, and development of the Liaison Team network, discuss lessons learned during the first TIN funding cycle, and outline a path toward further network maturity.

Maturity in enterprise data warehouses for research operations: Analysis of a pilot study.

Enterprise data warehouses for research (EDW4R) is a critical component of National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs. EDW4R operations have unique needs that require specialized skills and collaborations across multiple domains which limit the ability to apply existing models of information technology (IT) performance. Because of this uniqueness, we developed a new EDW4R maturity model based on prior qualitative study of operational practices for supporting EDW4Rs at CTSA hubs. In a pilot study, respondents from fifteen CTSA hubs completed the novel EDW4R maturity index survey by rating 33 maturity statements across 6 categories using a 5-point Likert scale. Of the six categories, respondents rated workforce as most mature (4.17 [3.67-4.42]) and relationship with enterprise IT as the least mature (3.00 [2.80-3.80]). Our pilot of a novel maturity index shows a baseline quantitative measure of EDW4R functions across fifteen CTSA hubs. The maturity index may be useful to faculty and staff currently leading an EDW4R by creating opportunities to explore the index in local context and comparison to other institutions.