People aging with long-term physical disabilities (PAwLTPD), meaning individuals with onset of disability from birth through midlife, often require long-term support services (LTSS) to remain independence. The LTSS system is fragmented into aging and disability organizations with little communication between them. In addition, there are currently no evidence-based LTSS-type programs listed on the Administration for Community Living website that have been demonstrated to be effective for PAwLTPD. Because of these gaps, we have developed a community-based research network (CBRN), drawing on the practice-based research network model (PBRN), to bring together aging and disability organizations to address the lack of evidence-based programs for PAwLTPD.

Community-based organizations serving PAwLTPD across the state of Missouri were recruited to join the CBRN. A formative process evaluation of the network was conducted after a year to evaluate the effectiveness of the network.

Nine community-based organizations across the state of Missouri joined the CBRN. CBRN members include three centers for independent living (CILs), three area agencies on aging (AAAs), one CIL/AAA hybrid, one non-CIL disability organization, and one non-AAA aging organization. To date, we have held seven meetings, provided educational opportunities for CBRN members, and launched an inaugural research study within the CBRN. Formative evaluation data indicate that CBRN members feel that participation in the CBRN is beneficial.

The PBRN model appears to be a feasible framework for use with community-based organizations to facilitate communication between agencies and to support research aimed at addressing the needs of PAwLTPD.

The goal of this project was to document the current state of a community-academic partnership, identifying early successes and lessons learned.

We employed qualitative methods, semi-structured interviews and document analysis, from 2 data sources to (1) show how the principles of community-based participatory research are enacted through the activities of Addressing Disparities in Asian Populations through Translational Research (ADAPT) and (2) elucidate the barriers and facilitators to adhering to those principles from the perspectives of the members themselves.

In addition to established community-based participatory research values, understanding individuals’ motivations for participation, the challenges aligning the priorities of community organizations and academic partners, and definitions of success are themes that emerged as key to the process of maintaining this partnership.

As the emphasis on community-academic partnerships grows, there is potential for clinical and translational science awards to use community engagement to facilitate translational research beyond the traditional medical spheres of influence and to forge relationships with affected communities.

A national survey characterized training and career development for translational researchers through Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) T32/TL1 programs. This report summarizes program goals, trainee characteristics, and mentorship practices.

A web link to a voluntary survey was emailed to 51 active TL1 program directors and administrators. Descriptive analyses were performed on aggregate data. Qualitative data analysis used open coding of text followed by an axial coding strategy based on the grounded theory approach.

Fifty out of 51 (98%) invited CTSA hubs responded. Training program goals were aligned with the CTSA mission. The trainee population consisted of predoctoral students (50%), postdoctoral fellows (30%), and health professional students in short-term (11%) or year-out (9%) research training. Forty percent of TL1 programs support both predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees. Trainees are diverse by academic affiliation, mostly from medicine, engineering, public health, non-health sciences, pharmacy, and nursing. Mentor training is offered by most programs, but mandatory at less than one-third of them. Most mentoring teams consist of two or more mentors.

CTSA TL1 programs are distinct from other NIH-funded training programs in their focus on clinical and translational research, cross-disciplinary approaches, emphasis on team science, and integration of multiple trainee types. Trainees in nearly all TL1 programs were engaged in all phases of translational research (preclinical, clinical, implementation, public health), suggesting that the CTSA TL1 program is meeting the mandate of NCATS to provide training to develop the clinical and translational research workforce.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, our research group initiated a pediatric practice-based randomized trial for the treatment of childhood obesity in rural communities. Approximately 6 weeks into the originally planned 10-week enrollment period, the trial was forced to pause all study activity due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This pause necessitated a substantial revision in recruitment, enrollment, and other study methods in order to complete the trial using virtual procedures. This descriptive paper outlines methods used to recruit, enroll, and manage clinical trial participants with technology to obtain informed consent, obtain height and weight measurements by video, and maintain participant engagement throughout the duration of the trial.

The study team reviewed the IRB records, protocol team meeting minutes and records, and surveyed the site teams to document the impact of the COVID-19 shift to virtual procedures on the study. The IRB approved study changes allowed for flexibility between clinical sites given variations in site resources, which was key to success of the implementation.

All study sites faced a variety of logistical challenges unique to their location yet successfully recruited the required number of patients for the trial. Ultimately, virtual procedures enhanced our ability to establish relationships with participants who were previously beyond our reach, but presented several challenges and required additional resources.

Lessons learned from this study can assist other study groups in navigating challenges, especially when recruiting and implementing studies with rural and underserved populations or during challenging events like the pandemic.

With no approved treatments for COVID-19 initially available, the Food and Drug Administration utilized multiple preapproval pathways to provide access to investigational agents and/or medical devices: Expanded Access, Emergency Use Authorizations, and Clinical Trials. Regulatory units within an Academic Medical Center (AMC), including those part of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium, have provided support for clinicians in navigating these options prior to the pandemic. As such, they were positioned to be a resource for accessing therapies during the COVID-19 public health emergency.

A small survey and a follow-on poll of the national Investigational New Drug (IND)/Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) Workgroup were conducted in October and December 2020 to determine whether CTSA regulatory units assisted in facilitating access to COVID-19 therapies and the extent of pandemic-related challenges these units faced.

Fifteen survey and 21 poll responses were received, which provided insights into the demands placed on these regulatory support units due to the pandemic and the changes required to provide critical support during this and future crises. Key changes and lessons learned included the importance of regulatory knowledge to support the institutional response, the critical need for electronic submission capacity for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents, and the nimble reallocation of regulatory and legal resources to support patient access to investigational agents and/or medical devices during the pandemic.

AMC- and CTSA-based regulatory units played a meaningful role in the COVID-19 pandemic but further unit modifications are needed for enabling more robust regulatory support in the future.

This study uses KL2 scholars’ publications to evaluate the types of research the KL2 program supports and to assess the initial productivity and impact of its scholars.

We illustrate the feasibility of 3 different approaches to bibliometrics, one viable method for determining the types of research a program or hub supports, and demonstrate how these data can be further combined with internal data records.

Gender differences were observed in the types of research scholars undertake. Overall KL2 scholars are performing well, with their publications being cited more than the norm for National Institutes of Health publications. Favorable results were also observed in scholars’ continued engagement in research.

This study illustrates that linking bibliometric data and data categorizing publications along the translational spectrum with a Clinical and Translational Science Award hub’s internal data records is feasible and offers a number of innovative possibilities for the evaluation of a Clinical and Translational Science Award hub’s programs and investigators.

Little is known about what motivates people to enroll in research registries. The purpose of this study is to identify facilitators of registry enrollment among diverse older adults.

Participants completed an 18-item Research Interest Assessment Tool. We used logistic regression analyses to examine responses across participants and by race and gender.

Participants (N=374) were 58% black, 76% women, with a mean age of 68.2 years. All participants were motivated to maintain their memory while aging. Facilitators of registry enrolled varied by both race and gender. Notably, blacks (estimate=0.71, p<0.0001) and women (estimate=0.32, p=0.03) were more willing to enroll in the registry due to home visits compared with whites and men, respectively.

Researchers must consider participant desire for maintaining memory while aging and home visits when designing culturally tailored registries.

Urothelial carcinoma (UCC) develops in both humans and dogs and tracks to regions of high industrial activity. We hypothesize that dogs with UCC may act as sentinels for human urothelial carcinogen exposures. The aim of this pilot study was to determine whether healthy people and dogs in the same households share urinary exposures to potentially mutagenic chemical carcinogens.

We measured urinary concentrations of acrolein (as its metabolite 3-HPMA), arsenic species, 4-aminobiphenyl, and 4-chlorophenol (a metabolite of the phenoxyherbicide 2,4-D) in healthy dogs and their owners. We assessed possible chemical sources through questionnaires and screened for urothelial DNA damage using the micronucleus assay.

Biomarkers of urinary exposure to acrolein, arsenic, and 4-chlorophenol were found in the urine of 42 pet dogs and 42 owners, with 4-aminobiphenyl detected sporadically. Creatinine-adjusted urinary chemical concentrations were significantly higher, by 2.8- to 6.2-fold, in dogs compared to humans. Correlations were found for 3-HPMA (r = 0.32, P = 0.04) and monomethylarsonic acid (r = 0.37, P = 0.02) between people and their dogs. Voided urothelial cell yields were inadequate to quantify DNA damage, and questionnaires did not reveal significant associations with urinary chemical concentrations.

Healthy humans and pet dogs have shared urinary exposures to known mutagenic chemicals, with significantly higher levels in dogs. Higher urinary exposures to acrolein and arsenic in dogs correlate to higher exposures in their owners. Follow-up studies will assess the mutagenic potential of these levels in vitro and measure these biomarkers in owners of dogs with UCC.

The purpose of this research was to understand the preferences of patients receiving integrative medicine services for return of aggregate study results.

A brief online survey (survey 1) was sent to 341 cancer patients receiving integrative medicine interventions; subsequently, a minimally revised survey (survey 2) was sent to 812 individuals with various medical conditions who had been either research participants in integrative medicine studies (n = 446) or patients (n = 346) of mind–body medicine.

Feedback to a model plain language summary was elicited from survey 1 and survey 2 respondents. Seventy-seven survey recipients (23%) responded to survey 1, and 134 survey recipients (17%) responded to survey 2. The majority of respondents to the surveys were female and 51–70 years of age. Ninety percent of responders to survey 1 and 89% of responders to survey 2 indicated that researchers should share overall results of a study with participants. In terms of the means of result distribution, 37%–47% preferred email, while 22%–27% indicated that, as long as the results are shared, it did not matter how this occurred. Of 38 survey 1 respondents who had previously participated in a clinical trial, 37% had received the results of their study. In survey 2, 63 individuals indicated that they previously participated in clinical trials, but only 16% recalled receiving results.

These results confirm that the majority (89%–90%) of integrative medicine patients are interested in receiving the results of clinical trials. The majority (82%–94%) of respondents felt the model plain language summary of results provided was helpful.

The Institute of Translational Health Sciences (ITHS), a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA)-funded program at the University of Washington (UW), established the Drug and Device Advisory Committee (DDAC) to provide product-specific scientific and regulatory mentoring to investigators seeking to translate their discoveries into medical products. An 8-year retrospective analysis was undertaken to evaluate the impact of the DDAC programs on commercialization metrics.

Tracked metrics included the number of teams who consulted with the DDAC, initiated a clinical trial, formed a startup, or were successful obtaining federal small business innovation awards or venture capital. The review includes historical comparisons of the startup rates for the UW School of Medicine and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, two ITHS-affiliated institutions that have had different DDAC utilization rates.

Between 2008 and 2016, the DDAC supported 161 unique project teams, 28% of which went on to form a startup. The commercialization rates for the UW School of Medicine increased significantly following integration of the DDAC into the commercialization programs offered by the UW technology transfer office.

A formalized partnership between preclinical consulting and the technology transfer programs provides an efficient use of limited development funds and a more in-depth vetting of the business opportunity and regulatory path to development.

Identifying the most effective ways to support career development of early stage investigators in clinical and translational science should yield benefits for the biomedical research community. Institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) offer KL2 programs to facilitate career development; however, the sustained impact has not been widely assessed.

A survey comprised of quantitative and qualitative questions was sent to 2144 individuals that had previously received support through CTSA KL2 mechanisms. The 547 responses were analyzed with identifying information redacted.

Respondents held MD (47%), PhD (36%), and MD/PhD (13%) degrees. After KL2 support was completed, physicians’ time was divided 50% to research and 30% to patient care, whereas PhD respondents devoted 70% time to research. Funded research effort averaged 60% for the cohort. Respondents were satisfied with their career progression. More than 95% thought their current job was meaningful. Two-thirds felt confident or very confident in their ability to sustain a career in clinical and translational research. Factors cited as contributing to career success included protected time, mentoring, and collaborations.

This first large systematic survey of KL2 alumni provides valuable insight into the group’s perceptions of the program and outcome information. Former scholars are largely satisfied with their career choice and direction, national recognition of their expertise, and impact of their work. Importantly, they identified training activities that contributed to success. Our results and future analysis of the survey data should inform the framework for developing platforms to launch sustaining careers of translational scientists.

MD-PhD training programs train physician-scientists to pursue careers involving both clinical care and research, but decreasing numbers of physician-scientists stay engaged in clinical research. We sought to identify current clinical research training methods utilized by MD–PhD programs and to assess how effective they are in promoting self-efficacy for clinical research.

The US MD–PhD students were surveyed in April–May 2018. Students identified the clinical research training methods they participated in, and self-efficacy in clinical research was determined using a modified 12-item Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory.

Responses were received from 61 of 108 MD–PhD institutions. Responses were obtained from 647 MD–PhD students in all years of training. The primary methods of clinical research training included no clinical research training, and various combinations of didactics, mentored clinical research, and a clinical research practicum. Students with didactics plus mentored clinical research had similar self-efficacy as those with didactics plus clinical research practicum. Training activities that differentiated students who did and did not have the clinical research practicum experience and were associated with higher self-efficacy included exposure to Institutional Review Boards and participation in human subject recruitment.

A clinical research practicum was found to be an effective option for MD–PhD students conducting basic science research to gain experience in clinical research skills. Clinical research self-efficacy was correlated with the amount of clinical research training and specific clinical research tasks, which may inform curriculum development for a variety of clinical and translational research training programs, for example, MD–PhD, TL1, and KL2.