During the COVID-19 pandemic, research organizations accelerated adoption of technologies that enable remote participation. Now, there’s a pressing need to evaluate current decentralization practices and develop appropriate research, education, and operations infrastructure. The purpose of this study was to examine current adoption of decentralization technologies in a sample of clinical research studies conducted by academic research organizations (AROs).

The setting was three data coordinating centers in the U.S. These centers initiated coordination of 44 clinical research studies during or after 2020, with national recruitment and enrollment, and entailing coordination between one and one hundred sites. We determined the decentralization technologies used in these studies.

We obtained data for 44/44 (100%) trials coordinated by the three centers. Three technologies have been adopted across nearly all studies (98–100%): eIRB, eSource, and Clinical Trial Management Systems. Commonly used technologies included e-Signature (32/44, 73%), Online Payments Portals (26/44, 59%), ePROs (23/44, 53%), Interactive Response Technology (22/44, 50%), Telemedicine (19/44, 43%), and eConsent (18/44, 41%). Wearables (7/44,16%) and Online Recruitment Portals (5/44,11%) were less common. Rarely utilized technologies included Direct-to-Patient Portals (1/44, 2%) and Home Health Nurse Portals (1/44, 2%).

All studies incorporated some type of decentralization technology, with more extensive adoption than found in previous research. However, adoption may be strongly influenced by institution-specific IT and informatics infrastructure and support. There are inherent needs, responsibilities, and challenges when incorporating decentralization technology into a research study, and AROs must ensure that infrastructure and informatics staff are adequate.

Research participation during undergraduate years has a powerful influence on career selection and attitudes toward scientific research. Most undergraduate research programs in academic health centers are oriented toward basic research or address a particular disease focus or research discipline. Undergraduate research programs that expose students to clinical and translational research may alter student perceptions about research and influence career selection.

We developed an undergraduate summer research curriculum, anchored upon a clinical and translational research study developed to address a common unmet needs in neonatal nurseries (e.g., assessment of neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome). Program topics reflected the cross-disciplinary expertise that contributed to the development of this “bedside to bench” study, including opioid addiction, vulnerable populations, research ethics, statistics, data collection and management, assay development, analytical laboratory analysis, and pharmacokinetics. The curriculum was delivered through three offerings over 12 months, using Zoom video-conferencing due to restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Nine students participated in the program. Two-thirds reported the course enhanced their understanding of clinical and translational research. Over three-quarters reported the curriculum topics were very good or excellent. In open-ended questions, students reported that the cross-disciplinary nature of the curriculum was the strongest aspect of the program.

The curriculum could be readily adapted by other Clinical and Translational Science Award programs seeking to provide clinical and translational research-oriented programs to undergraduate students. Application of cross-disciplinary research approaches to a specific clinical and translational research question provides students with relevant examples of translational research and translational science.

The top biomedical research institutions have traditionally been assumed to provide better medical treatment for their patients. However, this may not necessarily be the case. Low-to-moderate negative associations between research activity and the quality-of-care provided by clinical departments have been described. We aimed to examine this relationship in the psychiatric units of the largest hospitals in Spain.

Scientific publications for 50 hospitals were retrieved from the Web of Science (2006–2015), and quality of mental healthcare data were gathered from Spanish National Health System records (2008–2014). Spearman-rank correlation analyses (adjusting for number of beds and population) were used to examine the associations between research data and quality-of-care outcomes in psychiatry. Stepwise regression models were built in order to determine the predictive value of research productivity for healthcare outcomes.

We found a positive association between research activity indicators (i.e., number of publications, number of citations, cumulative impact factor, and institutional H-index) and better quality-of-care outcomes in psychiatry (i.e., number of readmissions, transfers, and discharges from hospital). In particular, a higher research activity predicted a lower level of readmissions for individuals with psychoses (p = 0.025; R = 0.317), explaining 8.2% of the variance when other factors were accounted for.

Higher research activity is associated with better quality of mental healthcare in psychiatry. Our results can inform decision-making in clinical and research management settings in order to determine the most appropriate quality measures of the impact of research on the prognosis of individuals with psychiatric conditions.

In March 2020, academic medical center (AMC) pharmacies were compelled to implement practice changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These changes were described by survey data collected by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program which were interpreted by a multi-institutional team of AMC pharmacists and physician investigators.

The CTSA program surveyed 60 AMC pharmacy departments. The survey included event timing, impact on pharmacy services, and corrective actions taken.

Almost all departments (98.4%) reported at least one disruption. Shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) were common (91.5%) as were drug shortages (66.0%). To manage drug shortages, drug prioritization protocols were utilized, new drug supply vendors were identified (79.3%), and onsite compounding was initiated. PPE shortages were managed by incorporating the risk mitigation strategies recommended by FDA and others. Research pharmacists supported new clinical research initiatives at most institutions (84.0%), introduced use of virtual site visits, and shipped investigational drugs directly to patients. Some pharmacies formulated novel investigational products for clinical trial use. Those AMC pharmacies within networked health systems assisted partner rural and inner-city hospitals by sourcing commercial and investigational drugs to alleviate local disease outbreaks and shortages in underserved populations. Pharmacy-based vaccination practice was expanded to include a wider range of pediatric and adult vaccines.

The COVID-19 pandemic radically altered hospital pharmacy practice. By adopting innovative methods and adapting to regulatory imperatives, pharmacies at CTSA sites played an extremely important role supporting continuity of care and collaborating on critical clinical research initiatives.

The need to diversify the biomedical research workforce is well documented. The importance of fostering the careers of fledgling underrepresented background (URB) biomedical researchers is evident in light of the national and local scarcity of URB scientists in biomedical research. The Career Education and Enhancement for Health Care Research Diversity (CEED) program at the University of Pittsburgh Institute for Clinical Research Education (ICRE) was designed to promote career success and help seal the “leaky pipeline” for URB researchers. In this study, we aimed to quantify CEED’s effect on several key outcomes by comparing CEED Scholars to a matched set of URB ICRE trainees not enrolled in CEED using data collected over 10 years.

We collected survey data on CEED Scholars from 2007 to 2017 and created a matched set of URB trainees not enrolled in CEED using propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio. Poisson regression was used to compare the rate of publications between CEED and non-CEED URB trainees after adjusting for baseline number of publications.

CEED has 45 graduates. Seventy-six percent are women, 78% are non-White, and 33% are Hispanic/Latino. Twenty-four CEED Scholars were matched to non-CEED URB trainees. Compared to matched URB trainees, CEED graduates had more peer-reviewed publications (p=0.0261) and were more likely to be an assistant professor (p=0.0145).

Programs that support URB researchers can help expand and diversify the biomedical research workforce. CEED has been successful despite the challenges of a small demographic pool.