Translational Science Award Research Articles

A content analysis of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) strategies for communicating about clinical research participation online.

There is a dearth of literature providing guidance on how to effectively communicate about clinical research (CR). Using the transactional model of communication, a content analysis of the investigator (n=62) and participant (n=18) Web sites of institutions funded through the National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) was conducted to identify their strategies (e.g., messages) for communicating about CR participation. CTSAs targeted investigators with CR participation content across the main Web sites, although most CTSAs (n=55; 88.7%) also included CR participation content for participants. In total, 18 CTSAs (29%) hosted participant Web sites. Participant sites included 13 message types about CR participation (e.g., registry enrollment) and 5 additional channels (e.g., email, phone number) to communicate about CR. However, many CTSA participant Web sites excluded information explaining the CR process and offered CR content exclusively in English. CTSAs should identify their target audience and design strategies (e.g., messages, channels) accordingly.

Using publication data to evaluate a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) career development program: Early outcomes from KL2 scholars.

This study uses KL2 scholars' publications to evaluate the types of research the KL2 program supports and to assess the initial productivity and impact of its scholars. We illustrate the feasibility of 3 different approaches to bibliometrics, one viable method for determining the types of research a program or hub supports, and demonstrate how these data can be further combined with internal data records. Gender differences were observed in the types of research scholars undertake. Overall KL2 scholars are performing well, with their publications being cited more than the norm for National Institutes of Health publications. Favorable results were also observed in scholars' continued engagement in research. This study illustrates that linking bibliometric data and data categorizing publications along the translational spectrum with a Clinical and Translational Science Award hub's internal data records is feasible and offers a number of innovative possibilities for the evaluation of a Clinical and Translational Science Award hub's programs and investigators.

Systemic inflammation is associated with exaggerated skeletal muscle protein catabolism in maintenance hemodialysis patients.

Systemic inflammation and muscle wasting are highly prevalent and coexist in patients on maintenance hemodialysis (MHD). We aimed to determine the effects of systemic inflammation on skeletal muscle protein metabolism in MHD patients. Whole body and skeletal muscle protein turnover were assessed by stable isotope kinetic studies. We incorporated expressions of E1, E214K, E3αI, E3αII, MuRF-1, and atrogin-1 in skeletal muscle tissue from integrin β1 gene KO CKD mice models. Among 129 patients with mean (± SD) age 47 ± 12 years, 74% were African American, 73% were male, and 22% had diabetes mellitus. Median high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) concentration was 13 (interquartile range 0.8, 33) mg/l. There were statistically significant associations between hs-CRP and forearm skeletal muscle protein synthesis, degradation, and net forearm skeletal muscle protein balance (P < 0.001 for all). The associations remained statistically significant after adjustment for clinical and demographic confounders, as well as in sensitivity analysis, excluding patients with diabetes mellitus. In attempting to identify potential mechanisms involved in this correlation, we show increased expressions of E1, E214K, E3αI, E3αII, MuRF-1, and atrogin-1 in skeletal muscle tissue obtained from an animal model of chronic kidney disease. These data suggest that systemic inflammation is a strong and independent determinant of skeletal muscle protein homeostasis in MHD patients, providing rationale for further studies using anticytokine therapies in patients with underlying systemic inflammation. This study was in part supported by NIH grants R01 DK45604 and 1K24 DK62849, the Clinical Translational Science Award UL1-TR000445 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the Veterans Administration Merit Award I01 CX000414, the SatelliteHealth Normon Coplon Extramural Grant Program, and the FDA grant 000943.

Long-term effect of critical illness after severe paediatric burn injury on cardiac function in adolescent survivors: an observational study

BackgroundSepsis, trauma, and burn injury acutely depress systolic and diastolic cardiac function; data on long-term cardiac sequelae of pediatric critical illness are sparse. This study evaluated long-term systolic and diastolic function, myocardial fibrosis, and exercise tolerance in survivors of severe pediatric burn injury.MethodsSubjects at least 5 years after severe burn (post-burn:PB) and age-matched healthy controls (HC) underwent echocardiography to quantify systolic function (ejection fraction[EF%]), diastolic function (E/e′), and myocardial fibrosis (calibrated integrated backscatter) of the left ventricle. Exercise tolerance was quantified by oxygen consumption (VO2) and heart rate at rest and peak exercise. Demographic information, clinical data, and biomarker expression were used to predict long-term cardiac dysfunction and fibrosis.FindingsSixty-five subjects (PB:40;HC:25) were evaluated. At study date, PB subjects were 19±5 years, were at 12±4 years postburn, and had burns over 59±19% of total body surface area, sustained at 8±5 years of age. The PB group had lower EF% (PB:52±9%;HC:61±6%; p=0.004), E/e′ (PB:9.8±2.9;HC: 5.4±0.9;p<0.0001), VO2peak (PB:37.9±12;HC: 46±8.32 ml/min/kg; p=0.029), and peak heart rate (PB:161±26;HC:182±13bpm;p=0.007). The PB group had moderate (28%) or severe (15%) systolic dysfunction, moderate (50%) or severe diastolic dysfunction (21%), and myocardial fibrosis (18%). Biomarkers and clinical parameters predicted myocardial fibrosis, systolic dysfunction, and diastolic dysfunction.InterpretationSevere pediatric burn injury may have lasting impact on cardiac function into young adulthood and is associated with myocardial fibrosis and reduced exercise tolerance. Given the strong predictive value of systolic and diastolic dysfunction, these patients might be at increased risk for early heart failure, associated morbidity, and mortality.FundingConflicts of Interest and Sources of Funding: The authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare. This work was supported by NIH (P50 GM060338, R01 GM056687, R01 HD049471, R01 GM112936, R01-GM56687 and T32 GM008256), NIDILRR (H133A120091, 90DP00430100), Shriners Hospitals for Children (84080, 79141, 79135, 71009, 80100, 71008, 87300 and 71000), FAER (MRTG CON14876), and the Department of Defense (W81XWH-14-2-0162 and W81XWH1420162). It was also made possible with the support of UTMB’s Institute for Translational Sciences, supported in part by a Clinical and Translational Science Award (UL1TR000071) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NIH).

The innovation scorecard for continuous improvement applied to translational science.

This paper reports on the baseline stage of a qualitative evaluation of the application of the Innovative Scorecard (ISC) to the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) at Galveston. The ISC is adopted from the established Balanced Scorecard system for strategic planning and performance management. In formulating the evaluation, we focused on the organizational identity literature. The initial evaluation consisted of a series of semi-structured interviews with 22 participants of the ISC Boot Camp conducted in July 2015. The logic of grounded theory pointed to the clustering of perceptions of the ISC around respondents' occupational locations at UTMB. Administrators anticipate the expansion of planning activities to include a wider range of participants under the current CTSA award period (2015-2020) than under our first CTSA approval period (2009-2014). A common viewpoint among the senior scientists was that the scientific value of their work will continue to speak for itself without requiring the language of business. Junior scientists looked forward to the ISC's emphasis on increasingly horizontal leadership that will give them more access to and more control over their work and resources. Postdocs and senior staff welcomed increased involvement in the total research process at UTMB. The report concludes with strategies for future follow-up.

Towards a practical model for community engagement: Advancing the art and science in academic health centers.

Community engagement (CE) has become more prevalent among academic health centers (AHCs), with significant diversity in practices and language. The array of approaches to CE contributes to confusion among practitioners. We have reviewed multiple models of CE utilized by AHCs, Clinical and Translational Science Awards, and higher education institutions overall. Taking these models into consideration, we propose a comprehensive model of CE that encompasses a broader spectrum of activities and programs. The CE Components Practical Model includes 5 components: Community Outreach and Service, Education, Clinical Care, Research, and Policy and Advocacy. The components are supported by the foundational elements within administrative functions and infrastructure. This model will accomplish the following: (1) reduce confusion about CE; (2) provide a broader understanding of CE; and (3) increase the ability of CE practitioners to interact with each other through this common reference and engage in advancing CE scholarship.

All nurses need to be research nurses.

Nurses are critical to the research enterprise. However all nurses are not prepared to participate as members of the research team since education and training in clinical research nursing and nurse-specific Good Clinical Practice are not consistently included in nursing curricula. The lack of nurse education and training in clinical research and Good Clinical Practice leaves research participants vulnerable with a nursing workforce that is not prepared to balance fidelity to protocol and patient quality care and safety. A collaborative network of nurses within Clinical and Translational Science Awards and beyond was established to address this education and training need. Over a 2-year period, using expert opinion, Delphi methods, and measures of validity and reliability the team constructed curriculum and knowledge test items. A pilot modular electronic curriculum, including knowledge pretest and post-tests, in clinical research nursing and nurse-specific Good Clinical Practice competencies was developed. As the scope and setting of clinical research changes, it is likely that all practicing nurses, regardless of their practice setting or specialty, will care for patients on research protocol, making all nurses, in essence, clinical research nurses. The curriculum developed by this protocol will address that workforce education and training need.

The Rockefeller University Clinical Scholars (KL2) Program 2006-2016.

The Rockefeller Clinical Scholars (KL2) Program began in 1976 and transitioned into a 3-year Master's degree program in 2006 when Rockefeller joined the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program. The program consists of ~15 trainees supported by the CTSA KL2 award and University funds. It is designed to provide an optimal environment for junior translational investigators to develop team science and leadership skills by designing and performing a human subjects protocol under the supervision of a distinguished senior investigator mentor and a team of content expert educators. This is complemented by a tutorial focused on important translational skills. Since 2006, 40 Clinical Scholars have graduated from the programs and gone on to careers in academia (72%), government service (5%), industry (15%), and private medical practice (3%); two (5%) remain in training programs. 39/40 remain in translational research careers with 23 NIH awards totaling $23 million, foundation and philanthropic support of $20.3 million, and foreign government and foundation support of $6 million. They have made wide ranging scientific discoveries and have endeavored to translate those discoveries into improved human health. The Rockefeller Clinical Scholars (KL2) program provides one model for translational science training.

FastPACE Train-the-Trainer: A scalable new educational program to accelerate training in biomedical innovation, entrepreneurship, and commercialization.

The Institute of Medicine recommended the advance of innovation and entrepreneurship training programs within the Clinical & Translational Science Award (CTSA) program; however, there remains a gap in adoption by CTSA institutes. The University of Michigan's Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research and Fast Forward Medical Innovation (FFMI) partnered to develop a pilot program designed to teach CTSA hubs how to implement innovation and entrepreneurship programs at their home institutions. The program provided a 2-day onsite training experience combined with observation of an ongoing course focused on providing biomedical innovation, commercialization and entrepreneurial training to a medical academician audience (FFMI fastPACE). All 9 participating CTSA institutes reported a greater connection to biomedical research commercialization resources. Six launched their own version of the FFMI fastPACE course or modified existing programs. Two reported greater collaboration with their technology transfer offices. The FFMI fastPACE course and training program may be suitable for CTSA hubs looking to enhance innovation and entrepreneurship within their institutions and across their innovation ecosystems.

The Evolving Collaborative Relationship between Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs) and Clinical and Translational Science Awardees (CTSAs).

Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) and Practice-based Research Networks (PBRNs) have complementary missions. We replicated a 2008 survey of CTSA-PBRN leaders to understand how organizational relationships have evolved. We surveyed 60 CTSA community engagement (CE) Directors and 135 PBRN Directors and analyzed data using between and within-group comparisons. Forty-three percent of CTSA CE Directors (26/60) and forty-two percent of PBRN Directors (57/135) responded. Quantitative responses revealed growing alignment between CTSA/PBRN perceptions, with a few areas of discordance. CE Directors noted declining financial support for PBRNs. PBRN Directors identified greater CTSA effectiveness in PBRN engagement, consultation, and collaborative grant submissions. Qualitative data revealed divergent experiences across CTSA/PBRN programs. Relationships between CTSAs and PBRNs are maturing; for some that means strengthening and for others a growing vulnerability. Findings suggest a mutual opportunity for PBRNs and CTSAs around applied research. Studies to characterize exemplar CTSA-PBRN collaborations are needed.

2268

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Stakeholder and community engagement (SCE) is a national priority for the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS). An established framework for stakeholder engagement exists for the latter stages (T2-T4) of translational, but no such framework currently exists for early stages of translational science (T1). Four Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs launched a collaboration to develop a new framework for engaging communities and stakeholders in T1 research. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We led structured individual and group discussions with T1 investigators to learn about: (1) the health decisions they seek to inform with research evidence, (2) the actors who make those decisions, and (3) the individuals and organizations that are affected by those decisions. In total, 18 individuals connected to 4 CTSA hubs participated in the discussions. Participants came from the fields ranging from basic chemistry and drug development to infectious disease and pediatrics and represented both methodological and topical experts. Focus groups lasted, on average, 1 hour, were audio recorded. Interviews lasted ~30 minutes. Audio recordings were transcribed and deidentified, and transcripts were coded using Dedoose™. We used a deductive-inductive procedure to develop the framework for stakeholder engagement in T1 research. A deductive codebook was development from the focus group and interview guides; emergent themes were added and the codebook was revised after preliminary inductive analysis. Two coders analyzed all transcripts using a constant comparison approach. We used an inductive process to identify themes and form them into a framework that could be used by T1 researchers in their work. The framework was developed through sequential reviews with coauthors and research participants. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Preliminary findings suggest that stakeholders in early stage translational research (T1) do not fit into the same framework as those further down the translational spectrum (T2-T4). Basic scientists can identify stakeholders, however, and would like more guidance on who, how, and when to engage them in their research. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: By showing T1 researchers how to identify and involve their stakeholders in (1) defining research questions, (2) carrying out research activities, and (3) disseminating research evidence, this work has the potential to improve the use of basic science evidence in latter stages of translation from bench to bedside.

2378

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Translational science supports the continuum of activities from early-stage bench research to implementation of discoveries for better and faster treatments to more patients. Past studies have attempted to clarify our understanding of the spectrum of translational research by categorizing the activities into stages ranging from T0 to T4 using explanatory definitions. Unfortunately, this approach is often vague and relies on a process of manual classification and binning of research publications into predetermined categories. This study aims to provide a big-picture analysis of clinical and translational science (CTS) based on an in-depth analysis of the entire corpus of publications resulting from research funded by Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) U54 awards (through 2016). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We harvested bibliographic metadata from all papers that cited any of the U54 award numbers since the inception of the CTSA program to the most recent award announcement. Natural language processing techniques were used to create term co-occurrence networks based on English-language textual data. Relevant and nonrelevant terms were distinguished algorithmically and processed accordingly to provide the clustered visualization. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: With this approach, we uncovered 6 natural clustered areas of emphasis of published CTS research, the evolution of specific concepts through time, and gained a better understanding of their relative impact as demonstrated by citations. We performed additional analyses including discipline-specific impact assessment; identification of categories of excellence relating to both productivity and citations; characteristics of collaborative networks such as organizational, industry, and international collaborations and network dynamics; and resulting global impact of the CTSA program. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Ultimately we gained a clearer understanding of the CTSA program, its evolution through scholarly publications, and key areas of impact of the program using computational, data-driven evaluation methods.

2483

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This study describes the design, operation, and evaluation of a community-based research (CBR) consult service within the setting of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) institution. To our knowledge, there are no published evaluations of a CBR consult service at a CTSA hub. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A CBR consult service was created to support faculty, healthcare providers/research coordinators, trainees, community-based organizations, and community members. A framework was developed to assess the stages of client engagement and to foster clear articulation of client needs and challenges. A developmental evaluation system was integrated with the framework to track progress, store documents, continuously improve the consult service, and assess research outcomes. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: This framework provides information on client numbers, types, services used, and successful outreach methods. Tracking progress reveals reasons that prevent clients from completing projects and facilitates learning outcomes relevant to clients and funding agencies. Clients benefit from the expert knowledge, community connections, and project guidance provided by the consult service team, increasing the likelihood of study completion and achieving research outcomes. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Our evaluation suggests that clients benefit by (1) gaining the collective knowledge of the experts comprising the team, (2) learning the process of doing CBR, including the required steps to reach completion, and (3) gaining a project management mentality promoting translational research outcomes. This study offers a framework by which CTSA institutions can expand their capacity to conduct and evaluate CBR while addressing challenges that inhibit community engagement.

2520

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Across the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium, participant recruitment into clinical trials is essential to advance science. Without proper participant recruitment, clinical trials do not result in gains in scientific knowledge, wastes time, funds, and other resources (Mahon et al., 2015). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Participant recruitment programs across the consortium are inconsistent in staffing, program services, and program goals. The participant recruitment program at the University of Michigan’s (U-M) Michigan Institute for Clinical &amp; Health Research (MICHR) provides expertise, tools, and resources to facilitate participant recruitment in clinical and health research studies. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We will explain our program infrastructure, staffing, services, and discuss how we maintain an engaged registry with over 27,000 participants interested in research studies at U-M. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Proper recruitment into clinical trials results in findings that are relevant for genetic, cultural, linguistic, racial/ethnic, gender, and age differences (Cottler et al., 2013). We hope to share our best practices that aid in the development and success of participant recruitment across the CTSA Consortium.

2124

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This report describes the evolution of scientific culture since the NIH/translational science (TS) mandate. The transition of the conduct of science to an increasingly translational model involves 2 dimensions of change. The first dimension consists of change in the structure and process of scientific work, in terms of factors such as funding, administration, application of new knowledge, and so forth. The second dimension consists of change in culture of scientific work. The culture of science is the set of values, assumptions, meanings, and traditions that inform the conduct of science. As part of the comprehensive evaluation of TS at the University of Texas Medical Branch-Galveston, we have monitored the status of the culture of science there through a sociological framework. We focused on the ways the changing culture of science facilitates and/or inhibits creative and effective medical research. We argue that the long-term success of TS is dependent upon the evolution of assumptions, everyday practices, and taken-for-granted ways of conducting research. Culture also provides meanings for who its people are and helps us define who we are to ourselves (ie, self-concept). In terms of the scientific enterprise, self-identity provides the motivation to participate in group activities or to be content with being a “lone ranger” researcher; the orientation to be either a leader or a follower; the security to take creative chances with one’s work or to simply conduct “normal science”; and the sense of esteem for being the best or simply doing one’s job. TS requires a constant “reengineering” of its total enterprise. Consequently, we raised the following research questions: (1) What is the traditional culture of science at UTMB? (2) How has the culture of science at UTMB changed since the introduction of the Clinical and Translational Science Award project? (3) What has been the relationship between the culture of science and the conduct of science at UTMB since CTSA? (4) How have cultural influences on self-concept changed? METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Data have been collected by means of ongoing 1-on-1 interviews with CTSA participants at all levels; observations of lab and classroom interaction; participation in organizational and planning committees; and other everyday organizational activities. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Following the grounded theory method of qualitative analysis and discovery, we found 3 stages of cultural change. Stage 1 is Cultural Invasion of the existing culture at UTMB by the implementation of the CTSA project. Stage 2 is Cultural Accommodation by which internal responses to change follow the normal scientific paradigm. Stage 3 is Cultural Expansion by which the organizational and cultural platform for conducting science has expanded regionally, nationally and cross-disciplinarily. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Whether a distinct fourth stage emerges depends on such factors as funding and programmatic directives from NIH; the tension between research and clinical demands for resources; and the emergence of junior investigators schooled on the principles of TS.

2151

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: We aim to leverage our analysis of the scientific collaboration network at a research university to design an innovative pilot program and foster scientific productivity. We test the impact of creating a new collaboration in a research community, which decreases the average network distance and accelerates the diffusion of information and expertise among the community’s investigators. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We mapped the whole network of co-authorship on publications and co-participation on extramurally awarded grants at the University of Florida (UF) between 2013 and 2015. We used network science methods to identify research communities of investigators who have consistently worked together and/or have other collaborators in common with at least one researcher based in the UF Health Science Center. We selected pairs of communities with (i) similar productivity levels, research interests, and network structures and (ii) no research projects in common. Communities in each pair were randomly assigned to a treatment or control group. In each treatment community, we selected 1 pair of investigators who had not collaborated in the past 3 years and whose connection would maximally reduce average network distance in the community. The pair was provided with an economic incentive to collaborate for the submission of a CTSA pilot proposal. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We successfully identified 15 pairs of treatment/control communities. In each of 8 treatment communities, a pair of potential collaborators agreed to participate in the intervention. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Network-informed Clinical Translational Science Awards (CTSA) pilot programs can identify research communities and create innovative collaborations. Statistical experiments can establish the programs’ causal effects on scientific productivity.

Developing sustainable research careers for KL2 scholars: The importance of an inclusive environment and mentorship.

The National Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium 2.0 has developed common metrics as a collaborative project for all participating sites. Metrics address several important aspects and functions of the consortium, including workforce development. The first workforce development metrics to be proposed for all CTSA hubs include the proportion of CTSA-supported trainees and scholars with sustainable careers in translational research and the diversity and inclusiveness of programs. The University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS), a CTSA hub, has been actively engaged in mentoring translational scientists for the last decade. We have developed programs, processes, and institutional policies that support translational scientists, which have resulted in 100% of our KL2 scholars remaining engaged in translational science and in increasing the inclusion of individuals under-represented in medicine in our research enterprise. In this paper, we share details of our program and what we believe are evidence-based best practices for developing sustainable translational research careers for all aspiring junior faculty members. The University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science has been integral in catalyzing interactions across the campus to reverse the negative trends seen nationally in sustaining clinician scientists. Our programs and processes can serve as a model for other institutions seeking to develop translational scientists.

Collaborative academic medical product development: An 8-year review of commercialization outcomes at the Institute of Translational Health Sciences.

The Institute of Translational Health Sciences (ITHS), a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA)-funded program at the University of Washington (UW), established the Drug and Device Advisory Committee (DDAC) to provide product-specific scientific and regulatory mentoring to investigators seeking to translate their discoveries into medical products. An 8-year retrospective analysis was undertaken to evaluate the impact of the DDAC programs on commercialization metrics. Tracked metrics included the number of teams who consulted with the DDAC, initiated a clinical trial, formed a startup, or were successful obtaining federal small business innovation awards or venture capital. The review includes historical comparisons of the startup rates for the UW School of Medicine and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, two ITHS-affiliated institutions that have had different DDAC utilization rates. Between 2008 and 2016, the DDAC supported 161 unique project teams, 28% of which went on to form a startup. The commercialization rates for the UW School of Medicine increased significantly following integration of the DDAC into the commercialization programs offered by the UW technology transfer office. A formalized partnership between preclinical consulting and the technology transfer programs provides an efficient use of limited development funds and a more in-depth vetting of the business opportunity and regulatory path to development.

A survey of practices for the use of electronic health records to support research recruitment.

Electronic health records (EHRs) provide great promise for identifying cohorts and enhancing research recruitment. Such approaches are sorely needed, but there are few descriptions in the literature of prevailing practices to guide their use. A multidisciplinary workgroup was formed to examine current practices in the use of EHRs in recruitment and to propose future directions. The group surveyed consortium members regarding current practices. Over 98% of the Clinical and Translational Science Award Consortium responded to the survey. Brokered and self-service data warehouse access are in early or full operation at 94% and 92% of institutions, respectively, whereas, EHR alerts to providers and to research teams are at 45% and 48%, respectively, and use of patient portals for research is at 20%. However, these percentages increase significantly to 88% and above if planning and exploratory work were considered cumulatively. For most approaches, implementation reflected perceived demand. Regulatory and workflow processes were similarly varied, and many respondents described substantive restrictions arising from logistical constraints and limitations on collaboration and data sharing. Survey results reflect wide variation in implementation and approach, and point to strong need for comparative research and development of best practices to protect patients and facilitate interinstitutional collaboration and multisite research.

Exploring intentions of physician-scientist trainees: factors influencing MD and MD/PhD interest in research careers

BackgroundPrior studies have described the career paths of physician-scientist candidates after graduation, but the factors that influence career choices at the candidate stage remain unclear. Additionally, previous work has focused on MD/PhDs, despite many physician-scientists being MDs. This study sought to identify career sector intentions, important factors in career selection, and experienced and predicted obstacles to career success that influence the career choices of MD candidates, MD candidates with research-intense career intentions (MD-RI), and MD/PhD candidates.MethodsA 70-question survey was administered to students at 5 academic medical centers with Medical Scientist Training Programs (MSTPs) and Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) from the NIH. Data were analyzed using bivariate or multivariate analyses.ResultsMore MD/PhD and MD-RI candidates anticipated or had experienced obstacles related to balancing academic and family responsibilities and to balancing clinical, research, and education responsibilities, whereas more MD candidates indicated experienced and predicted obstacles related to loan repayment. MD/PhD candidates expressed higher interest in basic and translational research compared to MD-RI candidates, who indicated more interest in clinical research. Overall, MD-RI candidates displayed a profile distinct from both MD/PhD and MD candidates.ConclusionsMD/PhD and MD-RI candidates experience obstacles that influence their intentions to pursue academic medical careers from the earliest training stage, obstacles which differ from those of their MD peers. The differences between the aspirations of and challenges facing MD, MD-RI and MD/PhD candidates present opportunities for training programs to target curricula and support services to ensure the career development of successful physician-scientists.