Clinical And Translational Science Award Research Articles

Faculty Perceptions of How Community‐Engaged Research Is Valued in Tenure, Promotion, and Retention Decisions

We assessed the perceptions of community core faculty in academic medical center institutions that received Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) about how these institutions consider community-engaged scholarship (CES) when tenure, promotion, and retention decisions are made. An assessment tool was adapted to create an 18-item survey that was sent during November and December 2011 via the Internet to the 369 members of the community-engagement core mailing list of the CTSA. Fifty-nine responses were received which represented 37 of the possible 60 different funded institutions. The mean score was 48.14 (SD = 11.18); range of 23-74; and Cronbach's alpha was .91 About half reported that support for CES and its inclusion in the academic decision process increased since the institution was awarded a CTSA. Open-ended responses indicated some confusion with terminology although a definition of CES had been provided in the instrument instructions. Respondents overall agreed there was moderate support for CES in tenure, promotion, and retention decisions which may have been influenced by the CTSA application requirements. This survey could be used to identify if there are differences in institutional and departments and measure changes over time.

IntheNEWS: A ROUNDUP OF NEWS AND INFORMATION FROM OUR COMMUNITY

In<i>the</i>NEWS: A ROUNDUP OF NEWS AND INFORMATION FROM OUR COMMUNITY

Research Mentor Training: Initiatives of the University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational Research

The University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW) has served as a hub of multidisciplinary expertise in both research mentor and mentee training and evaluation, with long-standing, federally-funded efforts to support innovative practice, training interventions, and research to improve training programs for diverse scholars in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM). Ten years ago, the Wisconsin Program for Scientific Teaching, co-directed by Drs. Pfund, Miller and Handelsman, led an effort to train future biology faculty to become more effective research mentors. Cohorts of biology graduate students, postdoctoral trainees, faculty, and staff met to discuss mentoring challenges and solutions, generating case studies and discussion questions along the way. Following evaluation and revision, these materials were published as Entering Mentoring,1 a manual to help others facilitate research mentor training seminars and workshops. Published evaluations of the Entering Mentoring seminars indicate that mentors who participate in training gain important skills.2 These trained mentors are more likely to consider issues of diversity, discuss expectations with their mentees, and to seek the advice of their peers. Entering Mentoring, since adapted to create nine different curricula that target specific STEM disciplines, has subsequently been used across the country to train hundreds of research mentors. All of these developed materials have been field-tested at UW in the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL, PI: Robert Mathieu) and are available at no charge on the project website (http://www.researchmentortraining.org). Entering Mentoring has served as a foundation and framework for the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA)-funded initiatives of the UW Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (ICTR). In 2010, a multidisciplinary team from five CTSA-funded institutions, supported by a CTSA Administrative Supplement awarded UW, sought to adapt Entering Mentoring to make it applicable for the mentors of clinical and translational researchers. Over a 6-month period, the curriculum team outlined, reviewed, and adapted learning objectives and core training activities to address six research mentoring competencies: (1) maintaining effective communication; (2) aligning expectations; (3) assessing understanding; (4) addressing diversity; (5) fostering independence; and (6) promoting professional development.3 Further adaptations and beta-testing followed, with the final curriculum published as Mentor Training for Clinical and Translational Researchers.4 Using this curriculum, as designed, allows small groups of mentors to engage in a discussion of case studies and activities intended to help them meet specific learning objectives, set forth for each of the six competencies. The curriculum is typically implemented in four 2-hour sessions, led by two trained facilitators. The Mentor Training for Clinical and Translational Researchers4 curriculum was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial conducted at 16 U.S. institutions (15 CTSA sites), between January 2010 and July 2011. A total of 283 mentor-mentee pairs were recruited, with 98% retention of participants through the trial. Mentors were allocated to the 8-hour training group (n = 144) or to the control group (n = 139). We hypothesized that this systematic, formal mentor training strategy would improve mentoring skills across the six core curriculum competencies, and positively influence behaviors. Baseline and six month post randomization interviews were conducted using the validated Mentoring Competency Assessment (MCA) tool5, newly developed for this trial. Follow-up surveys of mentors, who received training, documented statistically significant self-reported skill gains and self-reported changes in mentoring behaviors.6 In addition, interviewed mentees corroborated these positive changes. With this documented success, the most recent research mentor training initiative at UW, funded by a CTSA supplement, has been creation of a web-based Legacy Resource for mentoring development, which has been established to serve national and international mentors and mentees by dissemination of resources, most notably research mentor training curricula (https://mentoringresources.ictr.wisc.edu/). This website provides information on best mentoring practices, as well as access to mentor training curricula, such as Mentor Training for Clinical and Translational Researchers4. The website also offers facilitator training materials, assessment instruments, and centralized data collection for the evaluation of mentoring relationships and mentor training efforts, thus creating a mechanism for ongoing evaluation. Development of the new website consisted of three phases: 1) assembling and testing three new specialized curricula; 2) developing the web- based resources, and 3) integrating the assessment mechanism into the website.

The Quantitative Evaluation of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program Based on Science Mapping and Scientometric Analysis

The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program is one of the most important initiatives in translational medical funding. The quantitative evaluation of the efficiency and performance of the CTSA program has a significant referential meaning for the decision making of global translational medical funding. Using science mapping and scientometric analytic tools, this study quantitatively analyzed the scientific articles funded by the CTSA program. The results of the study showed that the quantitative productivities of the CTSA program had a stable increase since 2008. In addition, the emerging trends of the research funded by the CTSA program covered clinical and basic medical research fields. The academic benefits from the CTSA program were assisting its members to build a robust academic home for the Clinical and Translational Science and to attract other financial support. This study provided a quantitative evaluation of the CTSA program based on science mapping and scientometric analysis. Further research is required to compare and optimize other quantitative methods and to integrate various research results.

Spaces that support redefined roles of academic health sciences librarians

Libraries are clearly in a state of transition, and library space is also being shaped by new librarian roles. As illustrated in this year's building project column, space is rapidly being redefined in new and exciting ways. In some cases, library space is being transformed into community spaces such as cafes, galleries, and exhibit areas; health sciences libraries are quickly catching up to public and academic libraries that have pioneered these types of facilities and services. In others, library space is being used to solidify partnerships between library staff and other academic personnel collectively working on projects, grants, or other strategic alliances. In these cases, space is leveraged to the library's advantage by inviting in partners who share similar goals and objectives. Sharing space allows experts from different backgrounds and disciplines to share their knowledge and develop collaborative projects. Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) units and innovation centers are prime examples of these expert partnerships. Locating library staff adjacent to these experts has enabled them to share their knowledge and contribute to the shared projects as well. And finally, libraries can be spaces for discovery and creation of new knowledge in a much broader sense. They can be part of the larger learning or teaching center, providing study areas, test centers, laboratories, simulation centers, group collaboration facilities, and research evidence. Academic health sciences librarians and libraries need to remain agile as well as responsive to the needs of their organizations; for only then will they remain relevant. Four academic health sciences libraries exemplify the transformations that are underway. The University of Colorado is a fine example of a library that has created community space. They opened their library to the general community by establishing an art gallery for exhibits of works by local and visiting artists. The University of Utah invited their CTSA personnel into the library space to better support their researchers. The University of Alabama at Birmingham has an exciting new innovation center that encourages conversations about difficult or thorny topics. Their Edge of Chaos provides a place where all types of university personnel can collaborate to reach creative solutions to issues. All three descriptions of the resulting space supporting new roles for librarians can serve as models for how housing nonlibrary projects in library space can meet with success. Finally, the University of Arizona has strategically placed its new Phoenix library in a health sciences education building, next to an educational teaching lab, clinical education suites, and a simulation center. Their success in fully integrating their new library into a health education building provides a model of how a primarily electronic library collection complemented with librarian expertise can support the information needs of a new campus. Connecting community to campus through gallery space Submitted by Melissa De Santis, MLIS, AHIP, and Gerald J. Perry, MLS, AHIP; Health Sciences Library, Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO

Identifying translational science within the triangle of biomedicine

BackgroundThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) Roadmap places special emphasis on “bench-to-bedside” research, or the “translation” of basic science research into practical clinical applications. The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium is one example of the large investments being made to develop a national infrastructure to support translational science, which involves reducing regulatory burdens, launching new educational initiatives, and forming partnerships between academia and industry. However, while numerous definitions have been suggested for translational science, including the qualitative T1-T4 classification, a consensus has not yet been reached. This makes it challenging to tract the impact of these major policy changes.MethodsIn this study, we use a bibliometric approach to map PubMed articles onto a graph, called the Triangle of Biomedicine. The corners of the triangle represent research related to animals, cells and molecules, and humans; and, the position of a publication on the graph is based on its topics, as determined by its Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). We define translation as movement of a collection of articles, or the articles that cite those articles, towards the human corner.ResultsThe Triangle of Biomedicine provides a quantitative way of determining if an individual scientist, research organization, funding agency, or scientific field is producing results that are relevant to clinical medicine. We validate our technique using examples that have been previously described in the literature and by comparing it to prior methods of measuring translational science.ConclusionsThe Triangle of Biomedicine is a novel way to identify translational science and track changes over time. This is important to policy makers in evaluating the impact of the large investments being made to accelerate translation. The Triangle of Biomedicine also provides a simple visual way of depicting this impact, which can be far more powerful than numbers alone.

Mentor Training within Academic Health Centers with Clinical and Translational Science Awards

Multiple studies highlight the benefits of effective mentoring in academic medicine. Thus, we sought to quantify and characterize the mentoring practices at academic health centers (AHCs) with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA). Here we report findings pertaining specifically to mentor training at the level of the KL2 mentored award program, and at the broader institutional level. We found only four AHCs did not provide any form of training. One-time orientation was most prevalent at the KL2 level, whereas formal face-to-face training was most prevalent at the institutional level. Despite differences in format usage, there was general consensus at both the KL2 and institutional level about the topics of focus of face-to-face training sessions. Lower-resource training formats utilized at the KL2 level may reveal a preference for preselection of qualified mentors, while institutional selection of resource-heavy formats may be an attempt to raise the mentoring qualifications of the academic community as a whole. The present work fits into the expanding landscape of academic mentoring literature and sets the framework for future longitudinal, outcome studies focused on identifying the most efficient strategies to develop effective mentors.

Anecdotes from ITMAT: Building Capacity for Translational Science

Penn’s Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics (ITMAT) is the world’s first academic structure devoted to translational science. With programmatic, infrastructural, and educational components, it has more than 2,000 members drawn from all the schools of Penn, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), the Wistar and Monell Institutes, and the University of the Sciences. The conception, development, and features of ITMAT are discussed here along with lessons learned over the past nine years. What do we mean by translational science? It means so many different things to different people—and perhaps that partly explains why it has been controversial. I was initially asked to write an article in support of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium and its relevance to bioinnovation; this was to be the “pro” article in a debate format. When the editors were unsuccessful in recruiting a CTSA principal investigator (PI) to adopt the “con” position (in a public forum), it was suggested that I take the opportunity to argue with myself. Although perverse, this proposition was tempting; Dubliners have never formed a movement without rapidly progressing to the split. However, given that ITMAT was the world’s first academic entity designed specifically to foster translational science, I thought it might be more helpful to reflect on the evolution of the concept, its reduction to practice, and lessons learned. We could then consider the challenges and the opportunities confronting the CTSA program in the future—among them how best to foster bioinnovation. A word of caution: reflections on this Joycean journey are from a strictly personal perspective.

Promotion and Tenure for Community‐Engaged Research: An Examination of Promotion and Tenure Support for Community‐Engaged Research at Three Universities Collaborating through a Clinical and Translational Science Award

Community-engaged health research, an approach to research which includes the participation of communities, promotes the translation of research to address and improve social determinants of health. As a way to encourage community-engaged research, the National Institutes of Health required applicants to the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) to include a community engagement component. Although grant-funding may support an increase in community-engaged research, faculties also respond to the rewards and demands of university promotion and tenure standards. This paper measures faculty perception of how three institutions funded by a CTSA support community-engaged research in the promotion and tenure process. At three institutions funded by a CTSA, tenure track and nontenure track faculty responded to a survey regarding perceptions of how promotion and tenure committees value community-engaged research. Faculty view support for community-engaged research with some reserve. Only 36% agree that community-engaged research is valued in the promotion and tenure process. Encouraging community-engaged scholarship requires changing the culture and values behind promotion and tenure decisions. Institutions will increase community-engaged research and more faculty will adopt its principles, when it is rewarded by promotion and tenure committees.

Using AI to Understand Key Success Features in Evolving CTSAs

A vital role for Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) evaluators is to first identify and then articulate the necessary change processes that support the research infrastructures and achieve synergies needed to improve health through research. The use of qualitative evaluation strategies to compliment quantitative tracking measures (e.g., number of grants/publications) is an essential but under-utilized approach in CTSA evaluations. The Clinical and Translational Science Institute of Southeast Wisconsin implemented a qualitative evaluation approach using appreciative inquiry (AI) that has revealed three critical features associated with CTSA infrastructure transformation success: developing open communication, creating opportunities for proactive collaboration, and ongoing attainment of milestones at the key function group level. These findings are consistent with Bolman & Deal's four interacting hallmarks of successful organizations: structural (infrastructure), political (power distribution; organizational politics), human resource (facilitating change among humans necessary for continued success), and symbolic (visions and aspirations). Data gathered through this longitudinal AI approach illuminates how these change features progress over time as CTSA funded organizations successfully create the multiinstitutional infrastructures to connect laboratory discoveries with the diagnosis and treatment of human disease.

Evaluation Guidelines for the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs)

The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), a part of the National Institutes of Health, currently funds the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs), a national consortium of 61 medical research institutions in 30 states and the District of Columbia. The program seeks to transform the way biomedical research is conducted, speed the translation of laboratory discoveries into treatments for patients, engage communities in clinical research efforts, and train a new generation of clinical and translational researchers. An endeavor as ambitious and complex as the CTSA program requires high-quality evaluations in order to show that the program is well implemented, efficiently managed, and demonstrably effective. In this paper, the Evaluation Key Function Committee of the CTSA Consortium presents an overall framework for evaluating the CTSA program and offers policies to guide the evaluation work. The guidelines set forth are designed to serve as a tool for education within the CTSA community by illuminating key issues and practices that should be considered during evaluation planning, implementation, and utilization. Additionally, these guidelines can provide a basis for ongoing discussions about how the principles articulated in this paper can most effectively be translated into operational reality.

The Sharing Partnership for Innovative Research in Translation (SPIRiT) Consortium: A Model for Collaboration across CTSA Sites

In 2006, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) created the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program to “transform the local, regional and national environment for clinical and translational science, thereby increasing the efficiency and speed of clinical and translational research.”1 Since then, 61 CTSA-funded sites have reengineered their local research enterprises to develop cadres of highly trained translational scientists and provide them with a robust array of research resources. Now under the direction of the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS), the maturing CTSA program is poised to enter its second stage of development to provide “institutions with greater flexibility and more opportunities to build on institutional strengths.”2 This approach is supported by a new CTSA Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) that will enable CTSA sites to develop programs to address the specific needs of their investigators and local communities. As a result, institutional CTSA programs will likely evolve from a model that provides a set of common research resources locally to unique programs with a mix of core infrastructure (e.g., training, informatics) that is supplemented by institution-specific resources (e.g., drug discovery, comparative effectiveness research, and research implementation and dissemination cores). Leveraging complementary institutional capabilities through closer collaborations between CTSA sites is the logical next step for the National CTSA Consortium. During the formative years of the CTSA program, several sites forged collaborations by creating regional consortia based on geographic proximity to enable sharing of local resources and meetings of trainees.3 For example, the Chicago Consortium for Community Engagement represents a collaboration among the three Chicago CTSAs to advance coordinated and synergistic approaches to developing community-partnered research, disseminating research results, and providing training in community engagement methods to collaborators in academic and community-based organizations. The Ohio Consortium of three CTSA sites implemented a statewide central institutional review board model. In Texas, several institutions meet to exchange best practices. However, collaborative efforts that are constrained by geographic location may limit the benefits that can be derived from linking scientists, institutions, resources, and innovative tools across an array of institutions with complementary capabilities. Accordingly, six geographically dispersed CTSA sites (Johns Hopkins University, University of Chicago, University of Pennsylvania, University of Pittsburgh, Washington University at St. Louis, Yale University) formed a “virtual CTSA consortium” based on a shared vision for data sharing and prior collaborations focused on informatics initiatives. The initial goals of the six-site Sharing Partnership for Innovative Research in Translation (SPIRiT) Consortium were 1) to develop a data sharing infrastructure for biospecimen-based research and de-identified clinical research data, and 2) to establish inter-institutional collaborations related to pilot studies, regulatory support, core laboratory facilities, and education and career development. Over the past two years, the SPIRiT Consortium embarked on several initiatives to achieve these goals, including the deployment of an informatics software and regulatory infrastructure to enable discovery and sharing of banked pathology specimens, development of an inter-institutional pilot study program to link investigators, and validation of a novel technology to improve the diagnosis of malignant melanoma. These programs are described below.

145 LIMITED USE OF FOLLOW-UP IMAGING AMONG PATIENTS AFTER PARTIAL OR RADICAL NEPHRECTOMY FOR RENAL CELL CARCINOMA

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: While many recommended stage-specific and risk-adapted algorithms for postoperative surveillance in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are available, utilization of these recommendations remains unexplored. We evaluated use of follow-up imaging after partial or radical nephrectomy (P/RNx) in nationally representative data. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results data linked to Medicare records, we identified patients with RCC treated with P/RNx who were diagnosed from 1997-2007 with follow up through 2009 (N 5905). Patients were stratified by pathologic tumor stage (T1a n 1917, T1b n 1588, T2 n 1006, T3/4 n 1394) and overall survival ( 2 years, 2 to 3 years and 3 years). Postoperative abdominal (ultrasound or computed tomography [CT]) and chest (chest roentgenogram or CT) imaging for 3 years following P/RNx was identified for all patients. Imaging was ascertained through the year of cancer recurrence (algorithm based on receipt of secondary therapy for RCC or visits to medical or radiation oncology providers). Intensity of postoperative imaging, stratified by overall survival, was compared between patients with low (T1a) and high risk (T3/4) disease (Chisquare test). RESULTS: Abdominal and chest imaging stratified by tumor stage and overall survival are shown in figures 1 and 2. Across all survival strata, there were no differences in postoperative abdominal imaging between patients with T1a and T3/4 disease (p 0.05 for all). Use of postoperative chest imaging was different between patients with T1a and T3/4 disease only for those patients with an overall survival of 3 years (p 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis reveals that, contrary to suggested algorithms, most patients with RCC have limited use of follow-up imaging after surgery with less than 50% of patients receiving annual abdominal and chest imaging at 3 years. Further, we also found that the risk of disease recurrence was unlikely to affect the intensity of postoperative imaging. Source of Funding: 1. Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program of the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant Numbers UL1 RR024992 and KL2 RR024994. 2. American Cancer Society Institutional Review Grant IRG-58010-53.

Dissemination and implementation of comparative effectiveness evidence: key informant interviews with Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions

To identify ongoing practices and opportunities for improving national comparative effectiveness research (CER) translation through dissemination and implementation (D&I) via NIH-funded Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) institutions. Key informant interviews were conducted with 18 CTSA grantees sampled to represent a range of D&I efforts. The institutional representatives endorsed fostering CER translation nationally via the CTSA Consortium. However, five themes emerged from the interviews as barriers to CER D&I: lack of institutional awareness, insufficient capacity, lack of established D&I methods, confusion among stakeholders about what CER actually is and limited funding opportunities. Interviewees offered two key recommendations to improve CER translation: development of a centralized clearing house to facilitate the diffusion of CER D&I resources and methods across CTSA institutions; and formalization of the national CTSA network to leverage existing community engagement relationships and resources for the purpose of adapting and disseminating robust CER evidence locally with providers, patients and healthcare systems.

Public Participation in, and Awareness about, Medical Research Opportunities in the Era of Clinical and Translational Research

In the United States, levels of public participation in medical research in the era of Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) are unknown. In 2011, a household survey was administered to a sample of U.S. adults, asking whether they (and children <18 years old) had participated, or were aware of opportunities to participate, in medical research. Respondents living within 100 miles of CTSA sites were identified. Regression analyses of participation and awareness (PA) were performed, applying sampling weights to permit nationally representative inferences. Overall, 2,150 individuals responded (completion rate = 60%); 65% of adults and 63% of families with children resided within 100 miles of ≥1 CTSA location. Research participation rates were 11% among adults and 5% among children. Among nonparticipants, awareness rates were 64% among adults and 12% among parents of children. PA among adults was associated with higher income and education, older age, presence of chronic conditions, and living within 100 miles of four specific CTSA locations. For children, PA was associated with higher household income and parents' chronic health conditions. PA of medical research opportunities is substantially higher for adults than children. Higher PA levels near specific CTSAs merit investigation to identify their successful approaches.

Relationships Hold the Key to Trustworthy and Productive Translational Science: Recommendations for Expanding Community Engagement in Biomedical Research

Good relationships between research institutions and communities are an essential, but often neglected, part of the infrastructure of translational science. In an effort to create greater interest among translational science researchers in cultivating relationships with community members, we report the results of a workshop we convened to learn how relationships vital to research are best created and sustained. We highlight common barriers and challenges that hinder relationships. We also provide recommendations that individual research institutions and teams can use to expand and strengthen their relationships with community members. The improved relationships between universities and communities that could result from their implementation should build greater public trust in biomedical research, lead to a stronger commitment to see it succeed, and engender shared values and commitments that will give rise to new rewards, recognition and admonishment to sustain those values and commitments over time, all of which would facilitate translational science.

Assessing clinical researchers' information needs to create responsive portals and tools: My Research Assistant (MyRA) at the University of Utah: a case study

How can health sciences librarians and biomedical informaticians offer relevant support to Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) personnel? The Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library and the associate vice president for information technology for the health sciences office at the University of Utah conducted a needs assessment. Faculty and staff from these two units, with the services of a consultant and other CTSA partners, employed a survey, focus groups, interviews, and committee discussions. An information portal was created to meet identified needs. A directive white paper was created. The process employed to plan a virtual and physical collaborative, collegial space for clinical researchers at the university and its three inter-institutional CTSA partners is described. The university's model can assist other librarians and informaticians with how to become part of a CTSA-focused infrastructure for clinical and translational research and serve researchers in general.

Policies, Activities, and Structures Supporting Research Mentoring

To document the frequency of policies and activities in support of mentoring practices at institutions receiving a U.S. National Institutes of Health's Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). The study consisted of a 69-item survey with questions about the inclusion (formal or informal) of policies, activities, and structures supporting mentoring within CTSA-sponsored research (i.e., KL2 programs) and, more broadly, in the CTSA's home institution. The survey, conducted from November 2010 through January 2011, was sent to the 55 institutions awarded CTSAs at the time of the survey. Follow-up phone interviews were conducted to clarify responses as needed. Fifty-one of 55 (92%) institutions completed the survey for institutional programs and 53 of 55 (96%) for KL2 programs. Responses regarding policies and activities involving mentor criteria, mentor-mentee relationship, incentives, and evaluative mechanisms revealed considerable variability between KL2 and institutional programs in some areas, such as having mentor qualification criteria and processes to evaluate mentors. The survey also identified areas, such as training and women and minority mentoring programs, where there was frequent sharing of activities between the institutional and KL2 programs. KL2 programs and institutional programs tend to have different preferences for policies versus activities to optimize qualification of mentors, the mentor-mentee relationship, incentives, and evaluation mechanisms. Frequently, these elements are informal. Individuals in charge of implementing and maintaining mentoring initiatives can use the results of the study to consider their current mentoring policies, structures, and activities by comparing them with national patterns within CTSA institutions.

Biobanks in the United States: how to identify an undefined and rapidly evolving population.

As part of a larger organizational study, we sought to survey biobanks in the United States. However, we encountered two problems with this population. First, no common definition of biobanks exists. Second, no census is available of these facilities from which to sample in order to implement a survey. In light of these problems, we employed a multifaceted approach using electronic searches of PubMed, RePORTER, and Google. In addition, we systematically searched for biobanks housed within universities that have NIH-designated Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA). We expanded this part of the search by looking for biobanks among all members of the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC). Finally, we added banks to our database found previously by other researchers and banks found via correspondence with our colleagues. Our search strategy produced a database of 624 biobanks for which we were able to confirm contact information in order to conduct our online survey. Another 140 biobanks were identified but did not respond to our requests to confirm their existence or contact information. In order to maximize both the uniqueness of banks found and the greatest return on effort for each search, we suggest targeting resources that are already organized. In our work, these included the CTSA, AAMC, and part of the Google searches. We contend that our search provides a model for analysis of new fields of research and/or rapidly evolving industries. Furthermore, our approach demonstrates that with the appropriate tools it is possible to develop a systematic and comprehensive database to investigate undefined populations.

Abstract ED05-02: The Clinical and Translational Science Award Program: Transdisciplinary teams in cancer prevention research

Abstract National CTSA Program The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program supports a national consortium of 60 medical research institutions that are transforming the way biomedical research is conducted. Its goals are to accelerate the translation of laboratory discoveries into treatments for patients, to engage communities in clinical research efforts, and to train a new generation of clinical and translational researchers. www.ctsacentral.org/ctsa-consortium Launched in 2006 by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the CTSA program has enabled innovative research teams to speed discovery and advance science aimed at improving our nation's health. Led by NIH's National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the CTSA program encourages collaborative teams of investigators to tackle complex health and research challenges and then find ways to turn these discoveries into practical solutions for patients. These teams are already making progress across a broad range of diseases. Team Science The full complexities of the biological, technological and public health problems in cancer prevention are not effectively addressed by individual investigators working in isolation. It has been suggested that the challenges posed will require cross-disciplinary engagement and collaboration that extends to long term interactions among groups of investigators in an approach that has been termed team science. At UCLA, our Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) is the key to transforming our environment to establish transdisciplinary team science as our operating principle in clinical and translational investigation. CTSA Consortia Together, CTSAs are working on a national coordinated approach to recruit, educate, train and promote the development of clinical and translational investigators conducting research to improve human health. One example of this is the University of California Biomedical Research, Acceleration, Integration &amp; Development (UC BRAID). The five UC medical campus CTSAs, in collaboration with the UC Office of the President have identified system-wide collaboration in biomedical research as an opportunity to enhance clinical and translational research efforts. In response, they launched an initiative in 2010 to identify policy changes and areas of collaboration to accelerate biomedical research across the UC biomedical campuses. The UC BRAID program, is this effort to accelerate clinical and translational research. Working groups in 1) Biospecimen banking, 2) Contracting, 3) Drug and Devise Discovery and Development 4) Informatics, and 5) IRB harmonization have been developed to identify short- and long-term solutions to shared challenges. These groups have been working to identify policy changes, new infrastructure, or processes that will reduce the barriers to clinical and translational research. http://www.ucbraid.org/ Examples will be provided illustrating team science among investigators as well as institutional consortia that facilitate robust infrastructure for clinical and translational investigation. Citation Format: Steven M. Dubinett. The Clinical and Translational Science Award Program: Transdisciplinary teams in cancer prevention research. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual AACR International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research; 2012 Oct 16-19; Anaheim, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Prev Res 2012;5(11 Suppl):Abstract nr ED05-02.