This study identified underlying career orientation types of clinical research coordinators (CRCs) using cluster analysis. Select career (satisfaction, engagement, and planning) and competency-related (perceived competence) information was used to identify four distinct career orientation types.

A web-based survey was administered to CRCs employed in one of four research institutions affiliated with a National Institutes of Health-funded Clinical and Translational Research Award (CTSA) in the southeastern USA. Each respondent completed a survey containing questions about personal background, individual attributes, perceived professional competence, and career orientation.

The first CRC type (35.2%) possessed a positive, knowledge-seeking orientation, characterized by high career-related scores but a conservative assessment of perceived competence. The second CRC type (18.6%) represented an optimistic and confident career orientation reflected in moderate to high scores on each of the four identifying factors. The third CRC type (27.6%) reflected an inconsistent career orientation highlighted by lowered perceived competence. The final CRC type (18.6%) reflected a disengaged orientation characterized by negative responses to all career and competence factors.

Understanding the career orientation of CRCs can be helpful to institutional administrators and clinical investigators as they seek to support the professional development of CRCs through tailored training efforts or work-related supports. Knowledge of career orientation may also inform individual CRCs as they manage their personal career paths by assessing current levels of functioning, career-related strengths or weaknesses, and training needs.

Advancing understanding of human health promotion and disease prevention and treatment often requires teamwork. To evaluate academic medical institutions’ support for team science in the context of researchers’ career development, we measured the value placed on team science and specificity of guidance provided for documenting team science contributions in the promotion and tenure (P&T) documents of Colleges/Schools of Medicine (CoMs) in the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences’ Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program.

We reviewed complete P&T documents from 57 of 63 CTSA CoMs to identify career paths defined by three dimensions: academic rank (associate versus full professor), tenure eligibility (tenure track versus not), and role (research, clinical, education, and administrative), and we rated team science value and documentation guidance for each path. Multilevel models were estimated to compare team science value and documentation guidance as a function of the three career path dimensions while accounting for the clustered data (N = 357 career paths within 57 CoMs).

Team science value was greater for associate than full professors, non-tenure-eligible versus tenure-eligible positions, and roles prioritizing clinical, education, and administrative responsibilities versus those prioritizing research. Guidance for documenting team science achievements was more explicit for roles that prioritized research.

Although P&T policies at most CTSA institutions express value for team science, inconsistent within-institutional patterns of recognition and reward across career paths may have implications for researchers’ involvement in team science. We discuss the implications of our findings for research and for P&T policies that promote team science.

Research opportunities associated with the proliferation of the electronic health record (EHR), big data initiatives, and innovative approaches to trial design can present challenges for obtaining and documenting informed consent. Broad-scale informed consent (a term used herein to describe institutional models, rather than the Common Rule’s strict regulatory definition for “broad consent”) may facilitate the use of existing data and samples and speed the pace of research by minimizing barriers to consent. We explored the use of broad-scale informed consent within the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program Network.

We surveyed CTSA Hubs concerning policies, practices, experiences, and needs within three domains of broad-scale informed consent: (1) participant recontact; (2) biospecimens; and (3) clinical data sharing.

Of 61 CTSA Hubs surveyed, 37 (61%) indicated ongoing work related to at least 1 domain of broad-scale informed consent; 18 Hubs (30%) reported work in all 3 domains. The EHR predominated as the implementation system across all three domains. Research and IT leadership and the Institutional Review Board were most commonly endorsed as institutional drivers, while systems/technical issues and impact on clinical workflow were the most commonly reported barriers.

While survey results indicate considerable variability in the implementation of broad-scale informed consent across the CTSA consortium, it is clear that all CTSA Hubs are actively considering policy and process related to these concepts. Next steps cluster within three areas: training and workforce development, streamlined policies and templates, and implementation strategies that facilitate integration into clinical workflow.

Although the science of team science is no longer a new field, the measurement of team science and its standardization remain in relatively early stages of development. To describe the current state of team science assessment, we conducted an integrative review of measures of research collaboration quality and outcomes.

Collaboration measures were identified using both a literature review based on specific keywords and an environmental scan. Raters abstracted details about the measures using a standard tool. Measures related to collaborations with clinical care, education, and program delivery were excluded from this review.

We identified 44 measures of research collaboration quality, which included 35 measures with reliability and some form of statistical validity reported. Most scales focused on group dynamics. We identified 89 measures of research collaboration outcomes; 16 had reliability and 15 had a validity statistic. Outcome measures often only included simple counts of products; publications rarely defined how counts were delimited, obtained, or assessed for reliability. Most measures were tested in only one venue.

Although models of collaboration have been developed, in general, strong, reliable, and valid measurements of such collaborations have not been conducted or accepted into practice. This limitation makes it difficult to compare the characteristics and impacts of research teams across studies or to identify the most important areas for intervention. To advance the science of team science, we provide recommendations regarding the development and psychometric testing of measures of collaboration quality and outcomes that can be replicated and broadly applied across studies.