Researcher Views of Barriers to Clinical and Translational Research in a Statewide Program.

The Tracking and Evaluation Core of Rhode Island Advance-CTR conducted an online needs assessment survey at the program's inception in 2016 and again in 2021. Now dealing with well-established support systems provided by the grant, we were particularly interested in how the perceived needs of the research community in Rhode Island might have changed over five years. Specifically, what barriers have been reduced or eliminated and which have persisted or increased? How do those barriers vary by demographic status and what implications do those differences have for the CTR? An online survey was completed by 199 researchers, who reported the extent to which they perceived the lack of access to a range of research supports as a barrier to conducting research at their institution. Overall, researchers indicated statistically significant changes from 2016 to 2021 such that a lack of pilot project funding and proposal development support had decreased as barriers, while space for research, and advice on commercial development, had increased. Statistically significant differences in the salience of particular barriers by some demographic variables were also noted and the results of this study suggest Centers for Clinical and Translational Research can have salutary effects on the research paradigm within their partnering institutions in a relatively short time.

Evaluating systemic changes to support clinical and translational health research.

In evaluation research, "programs" are often conceptualized as clearly bounded, narrow in scope, focused on specific outcomes, using a well-defined linear causal model, and hence, suitable for standard evaluation methods. The evaluation work reported here was carried out in a more challenging context, where large, complex, interwoven systems were targets for change as a means to influence a diffuse array of outcomes. Our evaluation of an NIH-funded program to improve statewide infrastructure for clinical and translational health research ("Advance-CTR") used qualitative data provided by investigators who used the program's services, were funded awardees, or were members of an internal advisory committee (leadership representatives from partnering institutions). We examined perceived barriers to systemic changes to enhance research, as well as how systems have changed due to the Rhode Island Advance-CTR program's efforts, to what degree, and with what effects. Using the causal logic of our program to connect these more distal systemic outcomes to the services and components of Advance-CTR, we discuss the effects this program has had on researchers and their environments, contributing to the development of sustainable programs of research that ultimately improve the health and well-being of our state's residents.

Improving the quality and quantity of clinical and translational research statewide: An application of group concept mapping.

INTRODUCTION: Advance Clinical and Translational Research (Advance-CTR) serves as a central hub to support and educate clinical and translational researchers in Rhode Island. Understanding barriers to clinical research in the state is the key to setting project aims and priorities. METHODS: We implemented a Group Concept Mapping exercise to characterize the views of researchers and administrators regarding how to increase the quality and quantity of clinical and translational research in their settings. Participants generated ideas in response to this prompt and rated each unique idea in terms of how important it was and feasible it seemed to them. RESULTS: Participants generated 78 unique ideas, from which 9 key themes emerged (e.g., Building connections between researchers). Items rated highest in perceived importance and feasibility included providing seed grants for pilot projects, connecting researchers with common interests and networking opportunities. Implications of results are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The Group Concept Mapping exercise enabled our project leadership to better understand stakeholder-perceived priorities and to act on ideas and aims most relevant to researchers in the state. This method is well suited to translational research enterprises beyond Rhode Island when a participatory evaluation stance is desired.

Clinical and Translational Research in Rhode Island: Results of a Needs Assessment Survey.

The Advance-Clinical and Translational Research (CTR) program was established in Rhode Island in May of 2016 with an IDeA Program Infrastructure award to collaborating institutions: Brown University, the University of Rhode Island, with the Lifespan, Care New England and Providence VA Medical Center healthcare institutions and the Rhode Island Quality Institute. To support programmatic planning, the Tracking and Evaluation Key Component Activity (KCA) of Advance-CTR developed and implemented a needs assessment survey to identify the obstacles to clinical and translational research at the participating institutions. We describe the methods used and the responses, which identified needs for study design and data analysis support. Support for project development, pilot funding and grants administration showed significant variation, depending on the affiliation of the respondent. The results of the survey are discussed in the context of Rhode Island's significant opportunities to support and develop the capabilities of scientists who engage in translational research. [Full article available at http://rimed.org/rimedicaljournal-2018-02.asp].