Translation in action: Influence, collaboration, and evolution of COVID-19 research with Clinical and Translational Science Awards consortium support.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH)'s Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium aims to accelerate translational processes that move discoveries from bench to bedside. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presented unmatched challenges and applications for CTSA hubs nationwide. Our study used bibliometrics to assess features of COVID-19 publications supported by the national CTSA program to characterize the consortium's response to the pandemic. Our goal was to understand relative scientific influence, collaboration across hubs, and trends in research emphasis over time. We identified publications from NIH's curated iSearch COVID-19 Publication Portfolio from February 2020 to February 2023; 3234 peer-reviewed articles relevant to COVID-19 cited a CTSA grant. All 66 CTSA hubs were represented, with large-size and longstanding hubs contributing more publications. Most publications cited UL1 grants, 457 cited KL2/TL1 training grants, and 164 cited multiple hub grants. Compared to a random sample of non-CTSA-supported COVID-19 publications, the CTSA portfolio exhibited greater clinical relevance, more human research, and higher altmetric and citation influence. Results were similar for multi-hub publications involving networked initiatives like multi-site clinical trials or the National COVID-19 Cohort Collaborative. Shifts from molecular/cellular-oriented research toward human-oriented research over time were evident, demonstrating translation in action. Results illuminate how the CTSA consortium confronted the pandemic through high-quality projects oriented toward human research, working across hubs on high-value collaborations, advancing along the translational spectrum over time. Findings validate CTSA hubs as critical support structures during health emergencies.

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

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

Big splashes & ripple effects: a narrative review of the short- & long-term impact of publications supported by an NIH CTSA pediatrics program.

Background and Objective: This review examines a promising new framework for analyzing outputs of pediatric research in the context of translational advancement. We demonstrate a method for evaluating the impact of an NIH Clinical and Translational Science Award's (CTSA) Pediatrics Program through publications that have emerged from supported research. The Georgia CTSA Pediatrics Program provides training, funding, and infrastructure to ensure that researchers have the resources to advance pediatric health. Internal evaluations found that research supported by this program is exceptionally impactful within the academic community and commands high interest within the lay community. Therefore, we examined the impact of this research in both traditional academic and broader community spheres using bibliometrics-the study of supported publications. Bibliometrics describe a pivotal stage in the translational process of bringing scientific discoveries to clinical/community use and include both academic citations and 'altmetric' or non-academic attention. These complementary approaches combine to shed light on the short- and long-term impact of the research on segments of the translational pipeline, including academic literature, community discourse, technological advancement, and public health policy. Methods: The authors identified a portfolio of 250 articles supported by the Georgia CTSA Pediatrics Program from 2007-2020. We utilized various bibliometrics to analyze both short-term attention, or 'splash' made by articles, and long-term influence, or 'ripples' made across both academic and public spheres. Key Content and Findings: The short-term splash of the portfolio was indicated through publication in high-impact factor journals, peer faculty recommendations, and Mendeley readership, as well as by early altmetric attention in news stories, blogs, and Twitter posts. The portfolio's long-term ripples were demonstrated by high absolute and relative rates of academic citation and by downstream altmetric influence in public-facing documents, including Wikipedia articles, patent applications, and policy documents. Conclusions: This article reviews a useful bibliometric methodology for illustrating the waves of impact made by pediatric research. Whereas splash provides a picture of early interest in a publication, a preliminary indicator of eventual utility and impact, ripples provide a measure of the cumulative influence of an article over time. Both reflect opportunities for a line of research to advance along the translational spectrum.

Predicting citation impact from altmetric attention in clinical and translational research: Do big splashes lead to ripple effects?

Publications are commonly used to evaluate the productivity and impact of research programs. Traditional metrics examine publication impact through slowly accumulating academic citations. "Altmetrics" are a new way to describe early publication influence in nonacademic media/community spheres (news, tweets, and blogs). Articles with significant altmetric attention make a big splash of immediate impact, whereas papers with high rates of academic citation reflect ripple effects of influence over time. Past research has found weak associations between altmetrics and academic citations. However, no previous research has focused on clinical/translational research, which aims to translate scientific discoveries to public use. Further, no previous research has assessed the relationship between altmetrics and modern citation impact factors like the National Institutes of Health (NIH)'s Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). It is also unclear whether publication in journals with higher journal impact factors (JIFs) may drive both public attention and academic impact. We investigated whether early altmetric indicators of splash predict citation ripples, beyond the effect of the JIF. For a portfolio of 2188 publications supported by the NIH's Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance from 2007-2020, we collected 2020 Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS), 2020 JIFs, and 2021 RCRs. All three were significantly correlated with one another. Regression analyses revealed that AAS significantly predicts later RCR, controlling for JIF and publication year. Findings indicate that in clinical/translational science, articles that make a big splash of altmetric attention have ripple effects through increased citation influence, which is not entirely due to publication in higher impact journals. Altmetric attention may be a useful early indicator of eventual influence and potential for translational advancement.

Participant perspectives on a seminar-based research career development program and its role in career independence.

Health science researchers need training and support to effectively pursue independence in their research careers. Little data exist regarding the specific resources that faculty researchers have found or would find useful. In this study, we aimed to better understand the needs of health science researchers to develop recommendations for effective career development programming. The authors conducted a multi-method evaluation of early-career researcher faculty needs beginning by using post-session satisfaction surveys to assess the value of a long-standing "K-Club" seminar, which educates and supports those pursuing NIH Career Development (K) awards or similar. The authors then collected in-depth views on career development needs through a series of focus groups conducted with health science researchers at three career stages: early career, award-seeking junior faculty; mid-career faculty who have obtained some extramural funding; senior faculty who serve as mentors for early/mid-career faculty. Participants who attended the existing K-Club strongly endorse the program in supporting their career goals. Focus group participants described specific areas for program expansion that would add value across career stages: more flexible training options, conducted in smaller group settings with immediate feedback provided; more formalized training and resources for senior research mentors; in-depth guidance on individualized grantsmanship. The authors propose program development guidelines for helping researchers achieve research independence and success. Findings indicate that a broad-reaching K-Club style educational seminar can serve as a valuable foundation supporting professional development. The addition of tailored programs delivered across diverse platforms are predicted to heighten career development success.

Using the payback framework to evaluate the outcomes of pilot projects supported by the Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance.

INTRODUCTION: The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) seeks to improve population health by accelerating the translation of scientific discoveries in the laboratory and clinic into practices for the community. CTSAs achieve this goal, in part, through their pilot project programs that fund promising early career investigators and innovative early-stage research projects across the translational research spectrum. However, there have been few reports on individual pilot projects and their impacts on the investigators who receive them and no studies on the long-term impact and outcomes of pilot projects. METHODS: The Georgia CTSA funded 183 pilot projects from 2007 to 2015. We used a structured evaluation framework, the payback framework, to document the outcomes of 16 purposefully-selected pilot projects supported by the Georgia CTSA. We used a case study approach including bibliometric analyses of publications associated with the selected projects, document review, and investigator interviews. RESULTS: These pilot projects had positive impact based on outcomes in five "payback categories": (1) knowledge; (2) research targeting, capacity building, and absorption; (3) policy and product development; (4) health benefits; and (5) broader economic benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Results could inform our understanding of the diversity and breadth of outcomes resulting from Georgia CTSA-supported research and provide a framework for evaluating long-term pilot project outcomes across CTSAs.

Scope, Influence, and Interdisciplinary Collaboration: The Publication Portfolio of the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program From 2006 Through 2017.

The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program sponsors an array of innovative, collaborative research. This study uses complementary bibliometric approaches to assess the scope, influence, and interdisciplinary collaboration of publications supported by single CTSA hubs and those supported by multiple hubs. Authors identified articles acknowledging CTSA support and assessed the disciplinary scope of research areas represented in that publication portfolio, their citation influence, interdisciplinary overlap among research categories, and characteristics of publications supported by multihub collaborations. Since 2006, CTSA hubs supported 69,436 articles published in 4,927 journals and 189 research areas. The portfolio is well distributed across diverse research areas with above-average citation influence. Most supported publications involved clinical/health sciences, for example, neurology and pediatrics; life sciences, for example, neuroscience and immunology; or a combination of the two. Publications supported by multihub collaborations had distinct content emphasis, stronger citation influence, and greater interdisciplinary overlap. This study characterizes the CTSA consortium's contributions to clinical and translational science, identifies content areas of strength, and provides evidence for the success of multihub collaborations. These methods lay the foundation for future investigation of the best policies and priorities for fostering translational science and allow hubs to understand their progress benchmarked against the larger consortium.

Charting the Publication and Citation Impact of the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program From 2006 Through 2016.

PURPOSE: The authors evaluated publication and citation patterns for articles supported by Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) hub investment over the first decade of the CTSA program. The aim was to elucidate a pivotal step in the translational process by providing an account of how time, hub maturity, and hub attributes were related to productivity and influence in the academic literature. METHOD: In 2017, the authors collected bibliometric data from PubMed, Web of Science InCites, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) iCite for articles citing any CTSA hub grants published from hub inception through 2016. They compiled data on publication and citation rates and indices of relative citation impact aggregated by hub funding year cohort. They compared hub-level bibliometric activity by multi- versus single-institution structure and total monetary award sums, compiled from NIH RePORTER. RESULTS: From 2006-2016, CTSA hubs supported over 66,000 publications, with publication rates accelerating as hubs matured. These publications accumulated over 1.2 million citations, with some articles cited over 1,000 times. Indices of relative citation impact indicated CTSA-supported publications were cited more than twice as often as expected for articles of their publication years and disciplines. Multi-institutional hubs and those awarded higher grant sums exhibited significantly higher publication and citation activity. CONCLUSIONS: The CTSA program is yielding a robust and growing body of influential research findings with consistently high indices of relative citation impact. Preliminary evidence suggests multi-institutional collaborations and more monetary resources are associated with elevated bibliometric activity and, therefore, may be worth their investment.

Individual and sex differences in the consequences of victimization: Moderation by approach and avoidance motivation.

Peer victimization is a known risk factor for various forms of maladjustment; however, the specific type of maladjustment may depend on individual differences in youth. This 2-wave longitudinal study examined the hypothesis that social approach-avoidance motivation, together with sex, would moderate the contribution of 3rd-grade victimization to 4th-grade maladjustment. Children (N = 574, M age = 8.94, SD = 0.37) reported on their victimization exposure, social approach-avoidance motivation, and depressive symptoms. Teachers reported on students' victimization exposure and aggressive behavior. Victimization predicted aggressive behavior only in boys with moderate to high approach motivation; victimization predicted depressive symptoms only in girls with moderate to high avoidance motivation. This research elucidates the diverse consequences associated with peer victimization and informs efforts to address these consequences in a targeted manner.

Interactive contributions of self-regulation deficits and social motivation to psychopathology: unraveling divergent pathways to aggressive behavior and depressive symptoms.

Poor self-regulation has been implicated as a significant risk factor for the development of multiple forms of psychopathology. This research examined the proposition that self-regulation deficits differentially predict aggressive behavior and depressive symptoms, depending on children's social approach versus avoidance motivation. A prospective, multiple-informant approach was used to test this hypothesis in 419 children (M age = 8.92, SD = 0.36). Parents rated children's inhibitory control. Children completed measures of social approach-avoidance motivation and depressive symptoms. Teachers rated children's aggressive behavior. As anticipated, poor inhibitory control predicted aggressive behavior in boys with high but not low approach motivation and low but not high avoidance motivation, whereas poor inhibitory control predicted depressive symptoms in girls with high but not low avoidance motivation. This research supports several complementary theoretical models of psychopathology and provides insight into the differential contributions of poor self-regulation to maladaptive developmental outcomes. The findings suggest the need for targeted intervention programs that consider heterogeneity among children with self-regulatory deficits.

Reappraisal and suppression mediate the contribution of regulatory focus to anxiety in healthy adults.

Theory and research link regulatory focus (RF) in the form of promotion and prevention goal orientation with internalizing symptoms (e.g., anxiety), but the relevant mechanisms are not well understood. This study investigated the role of two emotion regulation (ER) strategies (cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression) as possible mediators. Path analysis using data from 179 healthy young participants (110 women, 69 men) revealed that stronger promotion orientation was significantly associated with less anxiety, and that the use of reappraisal and suppression partially mediated this association. Prevention was associated with more suppression but was not directly associated with anxiety. There were no gender differences in these effects. Collectively, these findings suggest that effective ER, through heightened use of reappraisal and dampened use of suppression, serves as a mechanism through which promotion confers protection against anxiety. This research provides empirical support to initiatives aimed at promoting healthy psychological adjustment and preventing anxiety, by optimizing ER strategies with respect to RF goal orientations.

Other-Sex Relationship Stress and Sex Differences in the Contribution of Puberty to Depression.

Research suggests that the pubertal transition, particularly when experienced earlier than age-matched peers, is associated with heightened depression in girls but less depression in boys. This study examined whether stress within other-sex relationships serves as one process through which puberty differentially contributes to depression for girls and boys. Youth (51 girls, 34 boys; M age = 12.68) and their caregivers reported on pubertal status and age of menarche. Semistructured interviews were conducted to assess youths' depression and exposure to chronic other-sex stress. As anticipated, more advanced status and earlier timing were associated with more depression in girls and less depression in boys. More advanced status and earlier timing were associated with less other-sex stress in boys; earlier age of menarche was associated with more other-sex stress in girls. Other-sex stress partially mediated the early menarche-depression association in girls, suggesting one process through which puberty promotes risk for depression in girls.