Evaluation researchers at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs are conducting retrospective case studies to evaluate the translational research process. The objective of this study was to deepen knowledge of the translational process and identify contributors to successful translation. We investigated the successful translation of the HemeChip, a low-cost point-of-care diagnostic device for sickle cell disease, using a protocol for retrospective translational science case studies of health interventions developed by evaluators at the National Health Institutes (NIH) and CTSA hubs. Development of the HemeChip began in 2013 and evidence of device use and impact on public health is growing. Data collection methods included five interviews and a review of press, publications, patents, and grants. Barriers to translation included proving novelty, manufacturing costs, fundraising, and academic-industry relations. Facilitators to translation were CTSA pilot program funding, university resources, entrepreneurship training, due diligence, and collaborations. The barriers to translation, how they were overcome, and the key facilitators identified in this case study pinpoint areas for consideration in future funding mechanisms and the infrastructure required to enable successful translation.

Minority populations are largely absent from clinical research trials. The neglect of these populations has become increasingly apparent, with escalating cancer burdens and chronic disease. The challenges to recruitment of minorities in the United States are multiple including trust or lack thereof. Keys to successful recruitment are responding to community issues, its history, beliefs, and its social and economic pressures. The strategy we have used in many low-income, sometimes remote, communities is to recruit staff from the same community and train them in the required basic research methods. They are the first line of communication. After our arrival in the Texas Rio Grande Valley in 2001, we applied these principles learned over years of global research, to studies of chronic diseases. Beginning in 2004, we recruited and trained a team of local women who enrolled in a cohort of over five thousand Mexican Americans from randomly selected households. This cohort is being followed, and the team has remained, acquiring not only advanced skills (ultrasound, FibroScan, retinal photos, measures of cognition, etc.) but capacity to derive key health information. Currently, we are participating in multiple funded studies, including an NIH clinical trial, liver disease, obesity, and diabetes using multiomics aimed at developing precision medicine approaches to chronic disease prevention and treatment.

In this paper, we introduce the Team Effectiveness Model for Science (TEMS) and describe a multiphase set of interventions for forming a new team or developing an existing team. TEMS uses a shared mutual learning mindset as the model’s central and guiding element. It shows how team mindset leads to behavior and to results and how this affects the characteristics of effective team functioning. TEMS addresses two related questions: What are the variables that contribute to effective teams? and How do the variables need to be designed to make their relevant contributions? Team models often answer the first question without fully answering the second. By addressing three gaps, TEMS contributes to enhancing science team effectiveness. Gap 1 is the absence of explicit core values, assumptions, and norms that serve as the foundation for developing and maintaining science team effectiveness. Gap 2 is the absence of a process for integrating the science and relationship aspects of a science team. Gap 3 is the absence of team processes and structures that are derived from the team’s values, assumptions, and norms. Using TEMS to design new or intervene with existing teams focuses on shifting mindset, developing behavioral skills, and designing processes and structures congruent with the new mindset.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires urgent implementation of effective community-engaged strategies to enhance education, awareness, and inclusion of underserved communities in prevention, mitigation, and treatment efforts. The Texas Community-Engagement Alliance Consortium was established with support from the United States’ National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct community-engaged projects in selected geographic locations with a high proportion of medically underserved minority groups with a disproportionate burden of COVID-19 disease and hospitalizations. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of the Consortium. The Consortium organized seven projects with focused activities to address COVID-19 clinical and vaccine trials in highly affected counties, as well as critical statewide efforts. Five Texas counties (Bexar, Dallas, Harris, Hidalgo, and Tarrant) were chosen by NIH because of high concentrations of underserved minority communities, existing community infrastructure, ongoing efforts against COVID-19, and disproportionate burden of COVID-19. Policies and practices can contribute to disparities in COVID-19 risk, morbidity, and mortality. Community engagement is an essential element for effective public health strategies in medically underserved minority areas. Working with partners, the Consortium will use community engagement strategies to address COVID-19 disparities.

Clinical trial processes are unnecessarily inefficient and costly, slowing the translation of medical discoveries into treatments for people living with disease. To reduce redundancies and inefficiencies, a group of clinical trial experts developed a framework for clinical trial site readiness based on existing trial site qualifications from sponsors. The site readiness practices are encompassed within six domains: research team, infrastructure, study management, data collection and management, quality oversight, and ethics and safety. Implementation of this framework for clinical trial sites would reduce inefficiencies in trial conduct and help prepare new sites to enter the clinical trials enterprise, with the potential to improve the reach of clinical trials to underserved communities. Moreover, the framework holds benefits for trial sponsors, contract research organizations, trade associations, trial participants, and the public. For novice sites considering future trials, we provide a framework for site preparation and the engagement of stakeholders. For experienced sites, the framework can be used to assess current practices and inform and engage sponsors, staff, and participants. Details in the supplementary materials provide easy access to key regulatory documents and resources. Invited perspective articles provide greater depth from a systems, DEIA (diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility) and decentralized trials perspective.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated health disparities and rendered them acutely more visible. Special and underrepresented populations need to be fully integrated into the translational research process from the very beginning and all the way through. This article presents findings and rapid analysis mini-case studies from the Environmental Scan (E-Scan) of adaptive capacity and preparedness of Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs, specific to the goal of integrating special and vulnerable populations in different institutional research settings. In our discussion of the findings and case studies, we flexibly apply local adaptive capacity framework concepts and characteristics, and, whenever possible, we present ideas on how to enhance capacity in those areas, based on the challenges and practices identified through the E-Scan. Although the past year has recorded incredible achievements in vaccine development, clinical trials, diagnostics, and overall biomedical research, these successes continue to be hampered by our inability to turn them into achievements equally available and accessible to all populations.

Although several initiatives have produced core competency domains for training the translational science workforce, training resources to help clinical research professionals advance these skills reside primarily within local departments or institutions. The Development, Implementation, and AssessMent of Novel Training in Domain (DIAMOND) project was designed to make this training more readily and publicly available. DIAMOND includes a digital portal to catalog publicly available educational resources and an ePortfolio to document professional development. DIAMOND is a nationally crowdsourced, federated, online catalog providing a platform for practitioners to find and share training and assessment materials. Contributors can share their own educational materials using a simple intake form that creates an electronic record; the portal enables users to browse or search this catalog of digital records and access the resources. Since September 2018, the portal has been visited more than 5,700 times and received over 280 contributions from professionals. The portal facilitates opportunities to connect and collaborate regarding future applications of these resources. Consequently, growing the collection and increasing numbers of both contributors and users remains a priority. Results from a small subset of users indicated over half accomplished their purpose for visiting the site, while qualitative results showed that users identified several benefits and helpful features of the ePortfolio.

Little is known about the number of minors enrolled in clinical research today. IRB administrators at leading pediatric medical centers were surveyed regarding studies with minors. Analyses were descriptive in nature with adaptive Bayesian bootstrap imputation used with missing data. Officials from 17/41 (41.5%) pediatric research centers responded: 74,204 active studies were estimated, 29,078 (39%) included minors, and 6574 (23%) were “more than minimal risk.” Minors accounted for 0.7–2.87M research subjects. Pediatric medicine desperately needs a more accurate and reliable reporting system for tracking the recruitment, retention, and involvement of minors in clinical research.

Effective community engagement in T3–T4 research is widespread, however, similar stakeholder involvement is missing in T1–T2 research. As part of an effort to embed community stakeholders in T1–T2 research, an academic community partnered team conducted discussion groups with researchers to assess perspectives on (1) barriers/challenges to including community stakeholders in basic science, (2) skills/training required for stakeholders and researchers, and (3) potential benefits of these activities. Engaging community in basic science research was perceived as challenging but with exciting potential to incorporate “real-life” community health priorities into basic research, resulting in a new full-spectrum translational research model.

Few studies have explored the challenges that the COVID-19 pandemic has presented for Clinical Research Units (CRUs), the solutions that have been implemented, and the changes that have been made in the operational guidelines for these entities. This study sought to identify and document common practices implemented by CRUs around the United States of America (USA) when addressing the unique challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. This descriptive study utilized a non-experimental mixed-methods approach and gathered data from representatives of 43 CRUs across the USA. An online survey was followed by in-depth interviews. The findings show that challenges faced from the COVID-19 pandemic, changes made to daily operations, and lessons learned are very similar across CRUs. Although most CRUs never stopped performing essential clinical research, many adapted to the pandemic by engaging in virtual visits, and many played key roles in administering and supporting both COVID-19 therapeutic and vaccine trials. Follow-up interviews showed that processes for formal approval and reopening were similar across CRUs. In addition to highlighting the significance of the role played by CRUs during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study addresses the relevance of CRUs and lays the groundwork for future conversations on the importance of these units.

Beyond medical schools’ historical focus on pillar missions including clinical care, education, and research, several medical schools now include community engagement (CE) as a mission. However, most academic health systems (AHSs) lack the tools to provide metrics, evaluation, and standardization for quantifying progress and contributions of the CE mission. Several nationwide initiatives, such as that driven by the Institute of Medicine recommending advances in CE metrics at institutions receiving Clinical and Translational Science Awards, have encouraged the research and development of systematic metrics for CE, but more progress is needed. The CE components practical model provides a foundation for analyzing and evaluating different types of CE activities at AHSs through five components: research, education, community outreach and community service, policy and advocacy, and clinical care. At the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW), an annual survey administered to faculty and staff assessed the types and number of CE activities from the prior year. Survey results were combined to create a CE report for departments across the institution and inform MCW leadership. Insights gathered from the survey have contributed to next steps in CE tracking and evaluation, including the development of a CE dashboard to track CE activities in real time. The dashboard provides resources for how individuals can advance the CE mission through their work and guide CE at the institutional level.

For decades, the research community called for streamlined Institutional Review Board (IRB) review processes for multisite studies. Department of Health and Human Services and National Institutes of Health (NIH) recognized this need and implemented single IRB (sIRB) of record mandates. However, announcing mandates without sufficient operational guidance and tools is insufficient to foster the desired change. Nearly 4 years into implementation of the NIH’s sIRB mandate, operational challenges remain. Fortunately, NIH supports a web-based sIRB platform, the IRB Reliance Exchange (IREx), to facilitate sIRB communication and documentation. IREx has received continuous NIH funding supporting its evolution since 2011 and is now used by over 5,000 Human Research Protection Program and research personnel, 35 sIRBs, and 415 participating sites to operationalize sIRB review and approval on over 400 studies. IREx supports over 2300 reliance relationships with an average of 7 sites per study. The platform is continually used by sIRBs and relying sites, providing a valuable centralized portal for promoting a harmonized sIRB review process. IREx can promote transparency, standardize practice, minimize workflow variation, and mitigate the need for sIRBs to implement significant technical changes to their local electronic systems. IREx has proven to be nimble and adaptable with practice and policy changes over the past decade, as evidenced by continually increasing platform utilization.