Evaluation of the long-term outcomes of the University of Michigan's Practice-Oriented Research Training (PORT) program.

The University of Michigan created the Practice-Oriented Research Training (PORT) program and implemented it between 2008 and 2018. The PORT program provided research training and funding opportunities for allied healthcare professionals. The program consisted of weekly didactics and group discussion related to topics relevant to developing specific research ideas into projects and funding for a mentored research project for those who submitted a competitive grant application. The goal of this evaluation was to assess the long-term impact of the PORT program on the research careers of the participants. Ninety-two participants (74 staff and 18 faculty) participated in both phases of the program. A mixed-methods approach to evaluation was used; 25 participants who received funding for their research completed surveys, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight program participants. In addition, data were collected on participants' publication history. Fifteen out of the 74 staff participants published 31 first-authored papers after participating in PORT. Twelve out of 15 staff participants who published first-authored papers did so for the first time after participating in the PORT program. Results of quantitative and qualitative analyses suggest that the PORT program had positive impacts on both participants and the research community.

Updating and evaluating a research best practices training course for social and behavioral research professionals.

Introduction: The clinical and translational research workforce involved in social and behavioral research (SBR) needs to keep pace with clinical research guidance and regulations. Updated information and a new module on community and stakeholder engagement were added to an existing SBR training course. This article presents evaluation findings of the updated course for the Social and Behavioral Workforce. Methods and Materials: Participants working across one university were recruited. Course completers were sent an online survey to evaluate the training. Some participants were invited to join in a focus group to discuss the application of the training to their work. We performed descriptive statistics and conducted a qualitative analysis on focus group data. Results: There were 99 participants from diverse backgrounds who completed the survey. Most reported the training was relevant to their work or that of the study teams they worked with. Almost half (46%) indicated they would work differently after participating. Respondents with community or stakeholder engaged research experience vs. those without were more likely to report that the new module was relevant to study teams they worked with (t = 5.61, p = 0.001), and that they would work differently following the training (t = 2.63, p = 0.01). Open-ended survey responses (n = 99) and focus group (n = 12) data showed how participants felt their work would be affected by the training. Conclusion: The updated course was rated highly, particularly by those whose work was related to the new course content. This course provides an up-to-date resource for the training and development for the Social and Behavioral Workforce.

Implementing a mentoring program for clinical research professionals: A novel professional development initiative for university health research staff.

Clinical and translational research relies on a well-trained workforce, but mentorship programs designed expressly for this workforce are lacking. This paper presents the development of a mentoring program for research staff and identifies key programmatic outcomes. Research staff participating in this program were matched with a senior mentor. Focus groups were conducted to identify key program outcomes. Surveys were administered throughout the program period to assess participants' experience, gains in skill, and subsequent careers. Analysis of the resultant qualitative and quantitative data are used to characterize the implementation and impact of the program. A total of 47 mentees and 30 mentors participated in program between 2018 and 2023. A comprehensive logic model of short-, intermediate- and long-term outcomes was developed. Participants reported positive valuations of every programmatic outcome assessed including their program experience, learning and research careers. The pool of available mentors also grew as new mentors were successfully recruited for each cohort. This mentorship program developed and implemented by senior research staff successfully provided junior research staff with professional development support, mentorship, and professional development opportunities. Junior and senior health research staff built mentoring relationships that advanced their clinical and translational research careers.

Developing relevant assessments of community-engaged research partnerships: A community-based participatory approach to evaluating clinical and health research study teams.

Background/Objective: In 2017, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR) and community partners in Flint, Michigan collaborated to launch a research funding program and evaluate the dynamics of those research partnerships receiving funding. While validated assessments for community-engaged research (CEnR) partnerships were available, the study team found none sufficiently relevant to conducting CEnR in the context of the work. MICHR faculty and staff along with community partners living and working in Flint used a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to develop and administer a locally relevant assessment of CEnR partnerships that were active in Flint in 2019 and 2021. Methods: Surveys were administered each year to over a dozen partnerships funded by MICHR to evaluate how community and academic partners assessed the dynamics and impact of their study teams over time. Results: The results suggest that partners believed that their partnerships were engaging and highly impactful. Although many substantive differences between community and academic partners' perceptions over time were identified, the most notable regarded the financial management of the partnerships. Conclusion: This work contributes to the field of translational science by evaluating how the financial management of community-engaged health research partnerships in a locally relevant context of Flint can be associated with these teams' scientific productivity and impact with national implications for CEnR. This work presents evaluation methods which can be used by clinical and translational research centers that strive to implement and measure their use of CBPR approaches.

Adapting an Expanded Access program to enable investigational treatments for COVID-19.

Retrospective case studies of initiatives supported by the National Institutes of Health's Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs can be used to identify facilitators and barriers of translational science. This case study investigates how a CTSA Expanded Access program adapted to changing FDA guidance issued in 2020 to support clinicians' treatment of COVID-19 patients in Michigan. We studied how this program changed throughout the pandemic to support physicians' requests for remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and other uses of unapproved drugs and novel medical devices. A protocol for retrospective translational science case studies of health interventions developed by CTSA evaluators was used for this case study. Data collection methods included seven interviews and a review of institutional data, peer-reviewed publications, news stories, and other public records. The barriers identified include evolving guidance, misalignment of organizational operations, and the complexity of the research infrastructure. The facilitators of translation include collaboration between research and care teams, increasing engagement with a broad network of supporters, and ongoing professional development for research staff. The findings of this case study can be used to inform future investigations of the principles underlying the translational process.

The Research Objective Structured Clinical Exam (R-OSCE): An Innovative Tool to Assess Clinical and Translational Research Competencies.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Introduction The Research Objective Structured Clinical Exam (R-OSCE) described in this paper was designed as part of a comprehensive program to assess competency in specific domains of clinical and translational research (CTR) for students enrolled in a 12-week introductory summer research program. Methods The program curriculum was mapped to core competencies developed by the National Center for Translational Science (NCATS) and used to develop R-OSCE stations. Twelve stations were developed, with five administered during orientation as a practice test and seven administered post-program. A scoring rubric using an anchored scale of 1-5 was developed and six qualified raters were trained in its use. The exam was self-paced and delivered through a secure online computer-based platform. Results Forty-seven students (three cohorts) completed the post-program R-OSCE. Most respondents scored at 3 (developing competence) or higher on most stations for both the practice and post-program exams, the exceptions being the stations involving writing research questions and engaging communities in research. Students indicated they liked demonstrating CTR skills through the R-OSCE. Most participants agreed that exam tasks were related to stated program competencies and that stations were realistic. Discussion The R-OSCE is best used as part of a comprehensive assessment program and may be useful in providing formative feedback to trainees that they can share with their mentors. Additionally, this study demonstrated that it could feasibly be used to evaluate the effectiveness of research education programs. However, additional time was needed to train raters and score the R-OSCE. Modifications were made to administer the exam through use of an online format with a modest budget. The computer-based format provides a solution to the current need for assessments that can be administered remotely.

Best Practices in Social and Behavioral Research: A multisite pilot evaluation of the good clinical practice online training course.

INTRODUCTION: The Best Practices in Social and Behavioral Research Course was developed to provide instruction on good clinical practice for social and behavioral trials. This study evaluated the new course. METHODS: Participants across 4 universities took the course (n=294) and were sent surveys following course completion and 2 months later. Outcomes included relevance, how engaging the course was, and working differently because of the course. Open-ended questions were posed to understand how work was impacted. RESULTS: Participants rated the course as relevant and engaging (6.4 and 5.8/7 points) and reported working differently (4.7/7 points). Participants with less experience in social and behavioral trials were most likely to report working differently 2 months later. DISCUSSION: The course was perceived as relevant and engaging. Participants described actions taken to improve rigor in implementing trials. Future studies with a larger sample and additional participating sites are recommended.