Areas of strength and opportunities for growth in translational science education and training: Results of a scoping review from the NCATS Education Branch.

Translational science education and training (E&T) aims to prepare the translational workforce to accelerate progress along the translational pipeline toward solutions that improve human health. In 2020-2021, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) Education Branch conducted a scoping review of the E&T literature with this focus. The review used the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. PubMed, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Embase were searched, and forward citations conducted. Screening of titles, abstracts, and full text identified 44 included articles. Data extraction facilitated analysis of E&T content, audiences, modalities, evaluations, and recommendations. The NCATS Translational Science Principles were used to identity described or recommended E&T content. Twenty-nine articles described a translational science E&T opportunity or its evaluation, and another 15 articles offered recommendations for translational science E&T. The most prevalent NCATS Translational Science Principles were boundary-crossing partnerships (77%) and cross-disciplinary team science (75%). Among publications describing E&T opportunities, the most reported modalities were experiential learning (64%) and courses (61%) and the most reported participants were graduate students (68%) and postdoctoral fellows (54%). About half of these articles (n = 15) reported an evaluation, covering a range of proximal to distal outcomes. Recommendations emphasized the value of translational science E&T across training and career stages and the use of varied modalities to reach diverse audiences. This review highlights strengths and opportunities for growth in translational science E&T. Enhancements to content, expansion of participants and modalities, and rigorous evaluations will contribute to building a highly qualified, diverse translational science workforce.

DEIA is essential to advance the goals of translational science: Perspectives from NCATS.

The National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) seeks to improve upon the translational process to advance research and treatment across all diseases and conditions and bring these interventions to all who need them. Addressing the racial/ethnic health disparities and health inequities that persist in screening, diagnosis, treatment, and health outcomes (e.g., morbidity, mortality) is central to NCATS' mission to deliver more interventions to all people more quickly. Working toward this goal will require enhancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) in the translational workforce and in research conducted across the translational continuum, to support health equity. This paper discusses how aspects of DEIA are integral to the mission of translational science (TS). It describes recent NIH and NCATS efforts to advance DEIA in the TS workforce and in the research we support. Additionally, NCATS is developing approaches to apply a lens of DEIA in its activities and research - with relevance to the activities of the TS community - and will elucidate these approaches through related examples of NCATS-led, partnered, and supported activities, working toward the Center's goal of bringing more treatments to all people more quickly.

Advancing translational science education.

In this communication, the authors offer considerations for how the scientific community can capitalize on decades of translational science advances and experiential knowledge to develop new education opportunities for a diverse and highly skilled translational science workforce. Continued advancement of the field of translational science will require new education approaches that distill key concepts in translational science from past and ongoing research initiatives and teach this foundational knowledge to current and future translational scientists. These key concepts include generalizable scientific and operational principles to guide translational science, as well as evidence-informed practices. Inspired by this approach, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) has developed an initial set of guiding principles for translational science generated via case studies of multiple highly successful translational science initiatives, and is now teaching them via new education activities that aim to reach a broad scientific audience interested in translational science. Our goal with this review is to prompt continued conversation with the translational science community regarding capitalizing on our collective translational science knowledge to advance core content for translational science education and disseminating this content to a broad range of scientific audiences.

Evaluation of an online case study-based course in translational science for a broad scientific audience: Impacts on students' knowledge, attitudes, planned scientific activities, and career goals.

Purpose: There is a need for education activities in translational science (TS) that focus on teaching key principles, concepts, and approaches to effectively overcome common scientific and operational bottlenecks in the translational process. Delivering this content to the broad range of individuals interested in advancing translation will help to both expand and develop the TS workforce. Rigorous evaluations will build the evidence base for effective educational approaches for varied audiences. Methods: In 2020, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences offered an online case study-based course in TS for students across education and career stages. The course evaluation used baseline and endpoint student surveys to assess satisfaction with the course and impacts of participation on knowledge and attitudes relevant to TS and professional goals. Results: Of 112 students, 100 completed baseline and/or endpoint surveys, with 66 completing both. Most found the online format (n = 59, 83%) and case study approach (n = 62, 87%) moderately or very effective. There were statistically significant increases in TS knowledge (P < .001) and positive attitudes about team science in translational research (TR) (P < .001). Students reported the course increased their skills and knowledge in cross-disciplinary team science, the process of preclinical and clinical TR, and how their work fits into the translational spectrum, and increased their interest in scientific approaches used in the case study and careers in TS, TR, or team science. Conclusions: This online case study-based course effectively conveyed TS concepts to students from a range of backgrounds and enhanced their professional interests related to course content.

Teaching principles of translational science to a broad scientific audience using a case study approach: A pilot course from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

There are numerous examples of translational science innovations addressing challenges in the translational process, accelerating progress along the translational spectrum, and generating solutions relevant to a wide range of human health needs. Examining these successes through an education lens can identify core principles and effective practices that lead to successful translational outcomes. The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) is identifying and teaching these core principles and practices to a broad audience via online courses in translational science which teach from case studies of NCATS-led or supported research initiatives. In this paper, we share our approach to the design of these courses and offer a detailed description of our initial course, which focused on a preclinical drug discovery and development project spanning academic and government settings. Course participants were from a variety of career stages and institutions. Participants rated the course high in overall value to them and in providing a unique window into the translational science process. We share our model for course development as well as initial findings from the course evaluation with the goal of continuing to stimulate development of novel education activities teaching foundational principles in translational science to a broad audience.

A systems approach to enable effective team science from the internal research program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

The internal research program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) at the National Institutes of Health aims to fundamentally transform the preclinical translational research process to get more treatments to more people more quickly. The program develops and implements innovative scientific and operational approaches that accelerate and enhance translation across many diverse projects. Cross-disciplinary team science is a defining feature of our organization, with scientists at all levels engaged in multiple research teams. Here, we share our systems approach to nurturing cross-disciplinary team science, which leverages organizational policies, structures, and processes. Policies including the organizational mission statement, principles for ethical conduct of research, performance review criteria, and training program objectives and approaches reinforce the value of team science to achieve the program's scientific goals. Structures including an organizational structure designed around solving translational problems, co-location of employees in a single state-of-the-art scientific facility, and shared-use laboratories, expertise and instrumentation facilitate collaboration. Processes including fluid team assembly, specialized project management, cross-agency partnerships, and decision making based on clear screening criteria and milestones enable effective team assembly and functioning. We share evidence of the impact of these approaches on the science and commercialization of findings and discuss pathways to broad adoption of similar approaches.

Conceptual models for implementing solution-oriented team science in large research consortia.

Large translational research initiatives can strengthen efficiencies and support science with enhanced impact when practical conceptual models guide their design, implementation, and evaluation. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) program brings together data from 72 ongoing maternal-child cohort studies - involving more than 50,000 children and over 1200 investigators - to conduct transdisciplinary solution-oriented research that addresses how early environmental exposures influence child health. ECHO uses a multi-team system approach to consortium-wide data collection and analysis to generate original research that informs programs, policies, and practices to enhance children's health. Here, we share two conceptual models informed by ECHO's experiences and the Science of Team Science. The first conceptual model illuminates a system of teams and associated tasks that support collaboration toward shared scientific goals. The second conceptual model provides a framework for designing evaluations for continuous quality improvement of manuscript writing teams. Together, the two conceptual models offer guidance for the design, implementation, and evaluation of translational and transdisciplinary multi-team research initiatives.

Subsequent Cancer Prevention and Control Activities Among Low- and Middle-Income Country Participants in the US National Cancer Institute's Summer Curriculum in Cancer Prevention.

PURPOSE: A dramatic shift in the burden of cancer from high-income countries to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is predicted to occur over the next few decades. An effective response requires a range of approaches to capacity building in cancer prevention and control in LMICs, including training of cancer prevention and control professionals. Toward this end, the US National Cancer Institute includes LMIC-based participants in its Summer Curriculum in Cancer Prevention, which is an annual, short-term in-person training program. METHODS: In 2015 and 2016, the US National Cancer Institute fielded a survey to all Summer Curriculum alumni who were based in LMICs when they participated in the program, between 1998 and 2015. Its aims were to learn about subsequent engagement in cancer prevention and control in LMICs and attribution of activities/accomplishments to participation in the Summer Curriculum in Cancer Prevention. RESULTS: Respondents (N = 138) worked in academia/research (n = 61), health care (n = 41), and health policy/Ministries of Health (n = 36) in all six world regions. Most respondents (90.6%) worked in the same LMIC as when they participated in the Summer Curriculum in Cancer Prevention. When asked about activities/accomplishments completed as a result of participation, 92.8% reported at least one cancer prevention and control practice activity/accomplishment, 81.2% reported at least one cancer research activity/accomplishment, and 44.2% reported authoring one or more peer-reviewed publications. Reported ways that the Summer Curriculum in Cancer Prevention contributed to these activities/accomplishments were emphasizing a public health approach; focusing on research priorities, methods, and scientific writing; and highlighting the importance of research and publications. Finally, 79.7% of respondents reported using Summer Curriculum in Cancer Prevention materials to train others. CONCLUSION: These findings have implications for the design of future training initiatives for LMIC-based cancer prevention and control professionals.

Understanding the Value of International Research Networks: An Evaluation of the International Cancer Screening Network of the US National Cancer Institute.

PURPOSE: International research networks have the potential to accelerate scientific progress via knowledge sharing and collaboration. In 2018, the US National Cancer Institute evaluated the International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN), in operation since 1988. METHODS: ICSN hosts a biennial scientific meeting and scientific working groups. A survey was fielded to 665 ICSN participants, and a bibliometric analysis was conducted for ICSN publications. RESULTS: A total of 243 individuals completed the survey (36.5%). They reported that participating in the ICSN helped advance their knowledge of cancer screening research (75.7%), policy development (56%), and implementation (47.7%). Approximately three-quarters agreed that ICSN facilitated knowledge sharing and networking among researchers and implementers (79.9%) and those working on different continents (74.0%) and cancer sites (73.7%). More than half reported that participating helped them form new collaborations in screening implementation (58.0%) or research (57.6%). Most agreed that ICSN helped to advance screening research and evaluation (75.4%), effective screening practices (71.2%), and screening policies (60.9%). Many reported that participating informed advances in their own research (68.7%) and screening implementation (50.2%) and policies (49.4%) in their settings. Approximately two-thirds agreed that ICSN helped advance career development among current experts (66.6%) and train the next generation (62.2%). Half (51.4%) reported that participating advanced their own careers. The 20 ICSN publications included 75 coauthors. They were cited in 589 publications with more than 2,000 coauthors. CONCLUSION: Findings provide evidence of the influence of ICSN on international knowledge dissemination, collaboration, and advances in cancer screening research, implementation, and policies and highlight the potential value of longstanding international research networks.

Assessing Knowledge Sharing in Cancer Screening Among High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries: Insights From the International Cancer Screening Network.

PURPOSE: As the global burden of cancer rises, global knowledge sharing of effective cancer control practices will be critical. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) of the US National Cancer Institute facilitates knowledge sharing to advance cancer screening research and practice. Our analysis assessed perceptions of ICSN's value and knowledge sharing in cancer screening among participants working in high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: In 2018, the National Cancer Institute fielded a self-administered, online survey to 665 ICSN participants from both HICs and LMICs. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-three individuals (36.5%) completed the full survey. LMIC participants engaged in more diverse screening activities and had fewer years of experience (13.5% with more than 20 years of experience v 31%; P = .048) in screening and were more interested in cervical cancer (76.9% v 52.6%; P = .002) than HIC participants. However, both groups spent most of their time on research (30.8% LMIC v 36.6% HIC; P = .518) and agreed that the ICSN biennial meeting enabled them to learn from the experiences of both higher-resource (88.2% v 75.7%; P = .122) and lower-resource (61.8% v 68.0%; P = .507) settings. ICSN helped them form new collaborations for research and implementation (55.1% v 58.2%; P = .063); informed advances in research/evaluation (71.4% v 68.0%; P = .695), implementation (59.2% v 47.9%; P = .259), and policies in their settings (55.1% v 48.0%; P = .425); and provided the opportunity to contribute their knowledge and expertise to assist others (67.3% v 71.1%; P = .695). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that HIC and LMIC participants benefit from knowledge sharing at ICSN meetings although their interests, backgrounds, and needs differ. This points to the importance of international research networks that are inclusive of HIC and LMIC participants in cancer control to advance knowledge and effective practices globally.

Advancing Cancer Research in Africa Through Early-Career Awards: The BIG Cat Initiative.

PURPOSE: The burden of cancer in Africa is growing rapidly, and increased cancer research on the continent is a critical component of an effective response. In 2010, the US National Cancer Institute, in partnership with the African Organization for Research and Training in Cancer, launched the Beginning Investigator Grant for Catalytic Research (BIG Cat) initiative to support cancer research projects conducted by early-career African investigators. METHODS: To date, BIG Cat has provided 18 awards of up to $50,000 to support 2-year cancer research projects. In 2017, the National Cancer Institute evaluated BIG Cat's early outcomes for cancer research and impacts on career development and local cancer research capacity. Data collection consisted of a review of project documentation and a survey fielded to the 12 investigators who had completed their BIG Cat awards. RESULTS: BIG Cat-supported research projects have generated locally relevant findings that address a range of cancer sites and multiple areas of scientific interest. The 11 survey respondents produced 43 scholarly products (e.g., publications, presentations) about findings from their BIG Cat research. They reported increases in cancer research funding applications and awards after receipt of the BIG Cat award compared with before the award. They also reported increased resources for cancer research, participation in teaching and mentoring on cancer research, and supervision of cancer research staff. Investigators identified scientific mentoring as a key facilitator of the success of their BIG Cat projects and limited time and funding as key challenges. CONCLUSION: Findings provide early evidence that BIG Cat advanced locally relevant cancer research and facilitated career advancement and development of local cancer research capacity. Findings have implications for the design of future related efforts.

Knowledge Summaries for Comprehensive Breast Cancer Control: Feedback From Target Audiences in Kenya.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive breast cancer control programs are needed to decrease breast cancer mortality, but few tools exist to assist stakeholders in limited-resource settings. The Knowledge Summaries for Comprehensive Breast Cancer Control (KSBCs) are a series of evidence-based publications intended to support cancer control planning at various resource levels. The goals of this evaluation research study were to learn about the extent to which the KSBCs could be useful to policymakers, health care providers, and breast cancer advocates in Kenya, and whether introducing the KSBCs led to their uptake, and if so, how they were used. METHODS: This study used one-on-one interviews, focus groups, and self-administered online surveys. Policymakers were recruited from the Ministry of Health. Providers were recruited from four hospitals in two cities, Nairobi and Eldoret, and one rural municipality, Kijabe. Advocates were recruited from cancer advocacy organizations. RESULTS: Twenty individuals participated in the research. They found the KSBCs to be educational reference tools that create a shared planning-related knowledge base among diverse stakeholders. The KSBCs were seen to be applicable to a variety of contexts and stakeholders. CONCLUSION: This study found that the KSBCs can be useful as both an educational tool and a convening tool for multistakeholder engagement in breast cancer prevention and control in a variety of settings. Additional engagement with users of the KSBCs can provide more knowledge about how the KSBCs are used and how they contribute to building collaborations across stakeholder groups to strengthen breast cancer prevention and control in low-resource settings.

The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science.

Collaborations among researchers and across disciplinary, organizational, and cultural boundaries are vital to address increasingly complex challenges and opportunities in science and society. In addition, unprecedented technological advances create new opportunities to capitalize on a broader range of expertise and information in scientific collaborations. Yet rapid increases in the demand for scientific collaborations have outpaced changes in the factors needed to support teams in science, such as institutional structures and policies, scientific culture, and funding opportunities. The Science of Team Science (SciTS) field arose with the goal of empirically addressing questions from funding agencies, administrators, and scientists regarding the value of team science (TS) and strategies for successfully leading, engaging in, facilitating, and supporting science teams. Closely related fields have rich histories studying teams, groups, organizations, and management and have built a body of evidence for effective teaming in contexts such as industry and the military. Yet few studies had focused on science teams. Unique contextual factors within the scientific enterprise create an imperative to study these teams in context, and provide opportunities to advance understanding of other complex forms of collaboration. This review summarizes the empirical findings from the SciTS literature, which center around five key themes: the value of TS, team composition and its influence on TS performance, formation of science teams, team processes central to effective team functioning, and institutional influences on TS. Cross-cutting issues are discussed in the context of new research opportunities to further advance SciTS evidence and better inform policies and practices for effective TS. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrating knowledge across domains to advance the science of health behavior: overcoming challenges and facilitating success.

Health behaviors often co-occur and have common determinants at multiple levels (e.g., individual, relational, environmental). Nevertheless, research programs often examine single health behaviors without a systematic attempt to integrate knowledge across behaviors. This paper highlights the significant potential of cross-cutting behavioral research to advance our understanding of the mechanisms and causal factors that shape health behaviors. It also offers suggestions for how researchers could develop more effective interventions. We highlight barriers to such an integrative science along with potential steps that can be taken to address these barriers. With a more nuanced understanding of health behavior, redundancies in research can be minimized, and a stronger evidence base for the development of health behavior interventions can be realized.

Pioneering the Transdisciplinary Team Science Approach: Lessons Learned from National Cancer Institute Grantees.

The National Cancer Institute has been a leader in supporting transdisciplinary (TD) team science. From 2005-2010, the NCI supported Transdisciplinary Research on Energetic and Cancer I (TREC I), a center initiative fostering the TD integration of social, behavioral, and biological sciences to examine the relationships among obesity, nutrition, physical activity and cancer. In the final year of TREC I, we conducted qualitative in-depth-interviews with 31 participating investigators and trainees to learn more about their experiences with TD team science, including challenges, facilitating factors, strategies for success, and impacts. Five main challenges emerged: (1) limited published guidance for how to engage in TD team science, when TREC I was implemented; (2) conceptual and scientific challenges inherent to efforts to achieve TD integration; (3) discipline-based differences in values, terminology, methods, and work styles; (4) project management challenges involved in TD team science; and (5) traditional incentive and reward systems that do not recognize or reward TD team science. Four main facilitating factors and strategies for success emerged: (1) beneficial attitudes and beliefs about TD research and team science; (2) effective team processes; (3) brokering and bridge-building activities by individuals holding particular roles in a research center; and (4) funding initiative characteristics that support TD team science. Broad impacts of participating in TD team science in the context of TREC I included: (1) new positive attitudes about TD research and team science; (2) new boundary-crossing collaborations; (3) scientific advances related to research approaches, findings, and dissemination; (4) institutional culture change and resource creation in support of TD team science; and (5) career advancement. Funding agencies, academic institutions, and scholarly journals can help to foster TD team science through funding opportunities, institutional policies on extra-departmental and cross-school collaboration, promotion and tenure policies, and publishing opportunities for TD research.

Assessing the value of team science: a study comparing center- and investigator-initiated grants.

BACKGROUND: Large cross-disciplinary scientific teams are becoming increasingly prominent in the conduct of research. PURPOSE: This paper reports on a quasi-experimental longitudinal study conducted to compare bibliometric indicators of scientific collaboration, productivity, and impact of center-based transdisciplinary team science initiatives and traditional investigator-initiated grants in the same field. METHODS: All grants began between 1994 and 2004 and up to 10 years of publication data were collected for each grant. Publication information was compiled and analyzed during the spring and summer of 2010. RESULTS: Following an initial lag period, the transdisciplinary research center grants had higher overall publication rates than the investigator-initiated R01 (NIH Research Project Grant Program) grants. There were relatively uniform publication rates across the research center grants compared to dramatically dispersed publication rates among the R01 grants. On average, publications produced by the research center grants had greater numbers of coauthors but similar journal impact factors compared with publications produced by the R01 grants. CONCLUSIONS: The lag in productivity among the transdisciplinary center grants was offset by their overall higher publication rates and average number of coauthors per publication, relative to investigator-initiated grants, over the 10-year comparison period. The findings suggest that transdisciplinary center grants create benefits for both scientific productivity and collaboration.

A Four-Phase Model of Transdisciplinary Team-Based Research: Goals, Team Processes, and Strategies.

The complexity of social and public health challenges has led to burgeoning interest and investments in cross-disciplinary team-based research, and particularly in transdisciplinary (TD) team-based research. TD research aims to integrate and ultimately extend beyond discipline-specific concepts, approaches, and methods to accelerate innovations and progress toward solving complex real-world problems. While TD research offers the promise of novel, wide-reaching and important discoveries, it also introduces unique challenges. In particular, today's investigators are generally trained in unidisciplinary approaches, and may have little training in, or exposure to, the scientific skills and team processes necessary to collaborate successfully in teams of colleagues from widely disparate disciplines and fields. Yet these skills are essential to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of TD team-based research. In the current article we propose a model of TD team-based research that includes four relatively distinct phases: development, conceptualization, implementation, and translation. Drawing on the science of team science (SciTS) field, as well as the findings from previous research on group dynamics and organizational behavior, we identify key scientific goals and team processes that occur in each phase and across multiple phases. We then provide real-world exemplars for each phase that highlight strategies for successfully meeting the goals and engaging in the team processes that are hallmarks of that phase. We conclude by discussing the relevance of the model for TD team-based research initiatives, funding to support these initiatives, and future empirical research that aims to better understand the processes and outcomes of TD team-based research.