The 2018 Common Rule revision intended to improve informed consent by recommending a concise key information (KI) section, yet provided little guidance about how to describe KI. We developed innovative, visual KI templates with attention to health literacy and visual design principles. We explored end users’ attitudes, beliefs, and institutional policies that could affect implementing visual KI pages.

From October 2023 to April 2024, we conducted semi-structured interviews with principal investigators, research staff, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) personnel, including those in oversight/management, and community partners. Forty participants from three academic institutions (in the Midwest, Southeast, and Mountain West) viewed example KI pages and completed interviews. We coded written transcripts inductively and deductively based on the capability, opportunity, and motivation to change behavior (COM-B) framework. Data were analyzed using content analysis and organized thematically.

Participants responded positively to the visual KI examples. They discussed potential benefits, including improving information processing and understanding of study procedures, diversity in research, trust in research, and study workflow. They also described potential challenges to consider before widespread implementation: IRBs’ interpretations of federal guidelines, possible impacts on IRB submission processes, the effort/skill required to develop visuals, and difficulty succinctly communicating study risks. There was no consensus about when to use visual KI during consent, and some wondered if they were feasible for all study types.

Visual KI offers a promising solution to long-standing informed consent challenges. Future work can explore resources and training to address challenges and promote widespread use.

The stakeholder analysis approach has historically been top-down rather than collaborative with key partners. However, this approach poses challenges for key partner engagement and community-engaged research, which aims to incorporate key partners throughout the project. This study, conducted by the Community Engagement Network at a Midwest Academic Medical Center, seeks to examine the value of community-engaged research for diverse key partners to increase collaboration, strengthen partnerships, and enhance impact, ultimately driving key partner engagement.

The study involved semi-structured interviews with 38 key partners from diverse groups, including community members, community organizations, Practice-Based Research Network members, researchers, research administration, university administration, and potential funders. The interview guide, informed by an extensive literature review, assessed perceived value, barriers, and improvement strategies for community-engaged research, supplemented by value proposition statements.

The analysis revealed three main themes: 1) Fostering Community Buy-In: Authentic representation and inclusive partnerships were essential for trust and commitment; 2) Enhancing Communication and Dissemination: Effective communication strategies were vital for maintaining engagement and sharing research outcomes; and 3) Building Capacity and Ensuring Sustainability: Continuous learning and long-term investments were crucial for sustaining community-engaged research efforts.

This study underscores the value of incorporating key partners into stakeholder analyses to enhance collaboration, strengthen partnerships, and improve the impact of community-engaged research. The findings offer valuable insight for institutional transformation and implementation of effective stakeholder analyses and engagement tools, ultimately enhancing the effectiveness of research strategies and initiatives.

A recent literature review revealed no studies that explored teams that used an explicit theoretical framework for multiteam systems in academic settings, such as the increasingly important multi-institutional cross-disciplinary translational team (MCTT) form. We conducted an exploratory 30-interview grounded theory study over two rounds to analyze participants’ experiences from three universities who assembled an MCTT in order to pursue a complex grant proposal related to research on post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, also called “long COVID.” This article considers activities beginning with preliminary discussions among principal investigators through grant writing and submission, and completion of reviews by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, which resulted in the proposal not being scored.

There were two stages to this interview study with MCTT members: pre-submission, and post-decision. Round one focused on the process of developing structures to collaborate on proposal writing and assembly, whereas round two focused on evaluation of the complete process. A total of 15 participants agreed to be interviewed in each round.

The first round of interviews was conducted prior to submission and explored issues during proposal writing, including (1) importance of the topic; (2) meaning and perception of “team” within the MCTT context; and (3) leadership at different levels of the team. The second round explored best practices-related issues including (1) leadership and design; (2) specific proposal assembly tasks; (3) communication; and (4) critical events.

We conclude with suggestions for developing best practices for assembling MCTTs involving multi-institutional teams.

Patient and stakeholder involvement enhances the conduct and applicability of comparative effectiveness research (CER). However, examples of engagement practices for CER leveraging real-world data (i.e., data from routine clinical practice) are scarce. Notably, these studies differ from traditional clinical trials in their technical complexity and minimal prospective data collection, posing unique challenges for stakeholder involvement. This paper describes patient and stakeholder engagement in a CER study of type 2 diabetes (T2D) medications using real-world data from a large administrative claims database.

A Patient and Stakeholder Advisory Group (PSAG) was formed to guide study design, conduct, and dissemination. The PSAG (n = 12) included individuals with T2D, clinicians, health systems leaders, professional society representatives, and a payer representative. Members were surveyed post-study initiation to assess their participation goals and experiences to date.

PSAG members influenced key design and methodological decisions, including cohort selection and adding an aim focused on patient preference elicitation. Survey results indicated high satisfaction with engagement processes and a desire for ongoing involvement. Most PSAG members cited their main goals as impacting the lives of people with T2D and ensuring the research’s relevance to clinicians.

Best practices for engaging stakeholders in CER using real-world data are underdeveloped. Our experience suggests that an inclusive, stakeholder-engaged approach enriches the research process and ensures diverse perspectives are integrated into study design and conduct. Ongoing efforts will focus on assessing long-term engagement outcomes and PSAG member satisfaction.

Obtaining complete and accurate information in recruitment registries is essential for matching potential participants to research studies for which they qualify. Since electronic health record (EHR) systems are required to make patient data available to external systems, an interface between EHRs and recruitment registries may improve accuracy and completeness of volunteers’ profiles. We tested this hypothesis on ResearchMatch (RM), a disease- and institution-neutral recruitment registry with 1357 studies across 255 institutions.

We developed an interface where volunteers signing up for RM can authorize transfer of demographic data, medical conditions, and medications from the EHR into a registration form. We obtained feedback from a panel of community members to determine acceptability of the planned integration. We then developed the EHR interface and performed an evaluation study of 100 patients to determine whether RM profiles generated with EHR-assisted adjudication included more conditions and medications than those without the EHR connection.

Community member feedback revealed that members of the public were willing to authenticate into the EHR from RM with proper messaging about choice and privacy. The evaluation study showed that out of 100 participants, 75 included more conditions and 69 included more medications in RM profiles completed with the EHR connection than those without. Participants also completed the EHR-connected profiles in 16 fewer seconds than non-EHR-connected profiles.

The EHR to RM integration could lead to more complete profiles, less participant burden, and better study matches for many of the over 148,000 volunteers who participate in ResearchMatch.

Little has been published about competency-based education in academic medicine, in particular how competencies are or should be assessed. This paper re-examines a competency-based assessment for M.S. students in clinical research, and “assesses the assessment” 4 years into its implementation.

Data were gathered from student surveys and interviews with program advisors, and common themes were identified. We then made refinements to the assessment, and student surveys were administered to evaluate the impact of the changes.

Research results suggested the need to improve communication, time the assessment to align with skills development and opportunities for planning, streamline, and clarify expectations with examples and templates. After implementing these changes, data suggest that student satisfaction has improved without any reduction in academic rigor.

The effective implementation of competency-based training in clinical and translational research requires the development of a scholarly literature on effective methods of assessment. This paper contributes to that nascent body of research.

The National Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium 2.0 has developed common metrics as a collaborative project for all participating sites. Metrics address several important aspects and functions of the consortium, including workforce development. The first workforce development metrics to be proposed for all CTSA hubs include the proportion of CTSA-supported trainees and scholars with sustainable careers in translational research and the diversity and inclusiveness of programs.

The University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS), a CTSA hub, has been actively engaged in mentoring translational scientists for the last decade. We have developed programs, processes, and institutional policies that support translational scientists, which have resulted in 100% of our KL2 scholars remaining engaged in translational science and in increasing the inclusion of individuals under-represented in medicine in our research enterprise. In this paper, we share details of our program and what we believe are evidence-based best practices for developing sustainable translational research careers for all aspiring junior faculty members.

The University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science has been integral in catalyzing interactions across the campus to reverse the negative trends seen nationally in sustaining clinician scientists. Our programs and processes can serve as a model for other institutions seeking to develop translational scientists.

A Health Equity Task Force (HETF) of members from seven Centers funded by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Implementation Science in Cancer Control Centers (ISC3) network sought to identify case examples of how Centers were applying a focus on health equity in implementation science to inform future research and capacity-building efforts.

HETF members at each ISC3 collected information on how health equity was conceptualized, operationalized, and addressed in initial research and capacity-building efforts across the seven ISC3 Centers funded in 2019–2020. Each Center completed a questionnaire assessing five health equity domains central to implementation science (e.g., community engagement; implementation science theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs); and engaging underrepresented scholars). Data generated illustrative examples from these five domains.

Centers reported a range of approaches focusing on health equity in implementation research and capacity-building efforts, including (1) engaging diverse community partners/settings in making decisions about research priorities and projects; (2) applying health equity within a single TMF applied across projects or various TMFs used in specific projects; (3) evaluating health equity in operationalizing and measuring health and implementation outcomes; (4) building capacity for health equity-focused implementation science among trainees, early career scholars, and partnering organizations; and (5) leveraging varying levels of institutional resources and efforts to engage, include, and support underrepresented scholars.

Examples of approaches to integrating health equity across the ISC3 network can inform other investigators and centers’ efforts to build capacity and infrastructure to support growth and expansion of health equity-focused implementation science.