The CTSA Consortium's Catalog of Assets for Translational and Clinical Health Research (CATCHR).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Shirey-Rice J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4006289 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeTo examine research participants' levels of satisfaction and perceptions and aid researchers to better engage research volunteers from all racial and ethnic populations in clinical trials. A participant satisfaction survey was developed that focused on three domains to reflect satisfaction with delivery of care, environment, and center operations. In addition, the survey contained open-ended questions to reflect overall experiences and perceptions. Two hundred and seventy-eight participants (55% African American and 29% non-Hispanic Whites) with an average age of 52 years completed the survey.ResultsThe results indicated that the majority of the participants rated their satisfaction very highly across all domains. Ninety percent stated they were very satisfied/satisfied or very strongly agreed/agreed in the three domains. Obtaining high-quality care/access to health care professionals (60%), learning more about their illness/disease (60%), and helping others (57%) were noted as important factors in choosing to participate in a trial. Regarding overall experience, majority of respondents stated that friendliness, expertise of staff, learning more about their disease, and contributing to science were important. Further, financial compensation was not a primary motivation for participation. A majority of participants stated that they would participate in future studies and would recommend a friend or a family member to participate in clinical trials.ConclusionsThe findings indicate that the degree of satisfaction with the research staff and with the specific trial itself are important determinants for enrolling, completing a study, and for participating in future trials.
| S-EPMC7681123 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the clinical research enterprises at the 60 Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Hubs throughout the nation. There was simultaneously a need to expand research to obtain crucial data about disease prognosis and therapy and enormous limitations on conducting research as localities and institutions limited travel and person-to-person contact. These imperatives resulted in major changes in the way research was conducted, including expediting Institutional Review Board review, shifting to remote interactions with participants, centralizing decision-making in prioritizing research protocols, establishing biobanks, adopting novel informatics platforms, and distributing study drugs in unconventional ways. National CTSA Steering Committee meetings provided an opportunity to share best practices and develop the idea of capturing the CTSA program experiences in a series of papers. Here we bring together the recommendations from those papers in a list of specific actions that research sites can take to strengthen operations and prepare for similar future public health emergencies. Most importantly, creative innovations developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic deserve serious consideration for adoption as new standards, thus converting the painful trauma of the pandemic into "post-traumatic growth" that makes the clinical research enterprise stronger, more resilient, and more effective.
| S-EPMC8137226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium and the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) undertook a Common Metrics Initiative to improve research processes across the national CTSA Consortium. This was implemented by Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute at the 64 CTSA academic medical centers. Three metrics were collaboratively developed by NCATS staff, CTSA Consortium teams, and outside consultants for Institutional Review Board Review Duration, Careers in Clinical and Translational Research, and Pilot Award Publications and Subsequent Funding. The implementation program included training on the metric operational guidelines, data collection, data reporting system, and performance improvement framework. The implementation team provided small-group coaching and technical assistance. Collaborative learning sessions, driver diagrams, and change packages were used to disseminate best and promising practices. After 14 weeks, 84% of hubs had produced a value for one metric and about half had produced an initial improvement plan. Overall, hubs reported that the implementation activities facilitated their Common Metrics performance improvement process. Experiences implementing the first three metrics can inform future directions of the Common Metrics Initiative and other research groups implementing standardized metrics and performance improvement processes, potentially including other National Institutes of Health institutes and centers.
| S-EPMC7103469 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionResearch coordinators (RCs) are vital to the clinical research enterprise, ensuring research is conducted ethically, results are scientifically sound and human research subjects are protected. Given the absence of a prior systematic inquiry, we sought to understand the ways in which Clinical & Translational Science Award-funded academic health centers support RCs.MethodsOur survey asked questions about existing coordinator networks and where none existed, collected data on the characterization of resources and services provided to support RCs (outside of salary).ResultsFindings show 4 mechanisms support RCs: identification of the workforce, professionalization of the position, dissemination of information, and offering of services.ConclusionAn academic health center that wishes to deliver research training and services to their RC workforce will need identification and communication structures in place before supportive activities can be effectively implemented.
| S-EPMC5915804 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Translational science requires that scientists from multiple disciplines work together to improve the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of human disease. Although a literature exists on the design and management of multidisciplinary teams, little has been written on multidisciplinary translational teams (MTTs). MTTs are distinct hybrid entities, with goals taken from both industry and academic models. We identified 30 design factors in 10 domains from a literature survey relevant to our MTT model: specific goals, structures, and processes. These dimensions were adapted to our own institutional environment in the selection and management of 11 MTTs that exploited resources of University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) Clinical and Translational Sciences Awards (CTSA). Case illustrations of two specific MTTs illustrate some of the challenges encountered and opportunities realized in terms of education and scientific advances. Network depiction of disciplinarity indicated that CTSA KRs and CTSA leadership contributed to discipline diversity especially in small (or nascent) MTTs. A separate depiction of MTT-KR utilization indicated that data analysis, translational technologies, and novel methods were heavily utilized by MTTs, whereas other KRs contributed significant effort to infrastructure development. We conclude that the CTSA can provide a rich infrastructural framework and scientific environment for the development of successful MTTs.
| S-EPMC3786412 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium, about 60 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-supported CTSA hubs at academic health care institutions nationwide, is charged with improving the clinical and translational research enterprise. Together with the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), the Consortium implemented Common Metrics and a shared performance improvement framework.MethodsInitial implementation across hubs was assessed using quantitative and qualitative methods over a 19-month period. The primary outcome was implementation of three Common Metrics and the performance improvement framework. Challenges and facilitators were elicited.ResultsAmong 59 hubs with data, all began implementing Common Metrics, but about one-third had completed all activities for three metrics within the study period. The vast majority of hubs computed metric results and undertook activities to understand performance. Differences in completion appeared in developing and carrying out performance improvement plans. Seven key factors affected progress: hub size and resources, hub prior experience with performance management, alignment of local context with needs of the Common Metrics implementation, hub authority in the local institutional structure, hub engagement (including CTSA Principal Investigator involvement), stakeholder engagement, and attending training and coaching.ConclusionsImplementing Common Metrics and performance improvement in a large network of research-focused organizations proved feasible but required substantial time and resources. Considerable heterogeneity across hubs in data systems, existing processes and personnel, organizational structures, and local priorities of home institutions created disparate experiences across hubs. Future metric-based performance management initiatives across heterogeneous local contexts should anticipate and account for these types of differences.
| S-EPMC8057371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The identification of plasma proteins that systematically change with age and, independent of chronological age, predict accelerated decline of health is an expanding area of research. Circulating proteins are ideal translational "omics" since they are final effectors of physiological pathways and because physicians are accustomed to use information of plasma proteins as biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis, and tracking the effectiveness of treatments. Recent technological advancements, including mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics, multiplexed proteomic assay using modified aptamers (SOMAscan), and Proximity Extension Assay (PEA, O-Link), have allowed for the assessment of thousands of proteins in plasma or other biological matrices, which are potentially translatable into new clinical biomarkers and provide new clues about the mechanisms by which aging is associated with health deterioration and functional decline. We carried out a detailed literature search for proteomic studies performed in different matrices (plasma, serum, urine, saliva, tissues) and species using multiple platforms. Herein, we identified 232 proteins that were age-associated across studies. Enrichment analysis of the 232 age-associated proteins revealed metabolic pathways previously connected with biological aging both in animal models and in humans, most remarkably insulin-like growth factor (IGF) signaling, mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK), hypoxia-inducible factor 1 (HIF1), cytokine signaling, Forkhead Box O (FOXO) metabolic pathways, folate metabolism, advance glycation end products (AGE), and receptor AGE (RAGE) metabolic pathway. Information on these age-relevant proteins, likely expanded and validated in longitudinal studies and examined in mechanistic studies, will be essential for patient stratification and the development of new treatments aimed at improving health expectancy.
| S-EPMC8045948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo respond to increased public and programmatic demand to address underenrollment of clinical translational research studies, the authors examined participant recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) sites and make recommendations for performance metrics and accountability.MethodThe CTSA Recruitment and Retention taskforce in 2010 invited representatives at 46 CTSAs to complete an online 48-question survey querying accrual and recruitment outcomes, practices, evaluation methods, policies, and perceived gaps in related knowledge/practice. Descriptive statistical and thematic analyses were conducted.ResultsForty-six respondents representing 44 CTSAs completed the survey. Recruitment conducted by study teams was the most common practice reported (78%-91%, by study type); 39% reported their institution offered recruitment services to investigators. Respondents valued study feasibility assessment as a successful practice (39%); desired additional resources included feasibility assessments (49%) and participant registries (44%). None reported their institution systematically required justification of feasibility; some indicated relevant information was considered prior to institutional review board (IRB) review (30%) or contract approval (22%). All respondents' IRBs tracked study progress, but only 10% of respondents could report outcome data for timely accrual. Few reported written policies addressing poor accrual or provided data to support recruitment practice effectiveness.ConclusionsMany CTSAs lack the necessary frame work to support study accrual. Recom men dations to enhance accrual include articulating institutional expectations and policy for routine recruitment plan ning; providing recruitment expertise to inform feasibility assessment and recruit ment planning; and developing interdepartmental coordination and integrated informatics infrastructure to drive the conduct, evaluation, and improvement of recruitment practices.
| S-EPMC4116452 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTranslational research is an ideology focussed on streamlining the transition of novel research into clinical practice to ultimately benefit populations. Central to this approach is overcoming barriers to research involvement and interdisciplinary collaboration. Identifying barriers has been the subject of several studies focused on communities with large academic hospitals. The Windsor-Essex region is currently built around community hospitals which have less of an emphasis on research, employ fewer physicians holding academic appointments and generally do not provide incentivised time for research and training. In this study, we surveyed clinicians and researchers working in Windsor-Essex to gain insight into barriers to translational research important to those working in smaller sized, community-based research networks.MethodsUsing an anonymous close-ended Qualtrics survey distributed via email, we surveyed faculty members from The University of Windsor and clinical care providers from Windsor-Essex (n = 68). This included 24 physicians, 14 allied health professionals, and 30 non-clinician researchers.ResultsManaging competing interests, lack of time, funding, infrastructure, and networks were identified by greater than 75% of participants as barriers to research involvement. 62% of physicians identified the lack of permanent post-graduate medical trainees as a barrier. Clinicians were consistently less experienced in research skills compared to others; particularly in publishing results and applying for funding (p < 0.001). Schedule incompatibility, funding issues and identifying interested collaborators with overlapping interests were identified as barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration by 80% of participants. Moreover, 46% of those surveyed were unhappy with their research involvement and these individuals were 13% more likely to perceive research as important for their career progression (p = 0.244).ConclusionsThis study identifies several important barriers to translational research in Windsor-Essex and suggests that many motivated researchers are unhappy with their current involvement. These results will inform decision making in the research community of Windsor-Essex and provides insight for communities of similar size and research capacity. Ultimately, enabling the translation of clinical research in all communities is required to ensure equitable access to cutting edge care.
| S-EPMC8626997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reader Comments | Submit a Comment The white paper reports the deliberations of a workshop focused on biotic challenges to plant health held in Washington, D.C. in September 2016. Ensuring health of food plants is critical to maintaining the quality and productivity of crops and for sustenance of the rapidly growing human population. There is a close linkage between food security and societal stability; however, global food security is threatened by the vulnerability of our agricultural systems to numerous pests, pathogens, weeds, and environmental stresses. These threats are aggravated by climate change, the globalization of agriculture, and an over-reliance on nonsustainable inputs. New analytical and computational technologies are providing unprecedented resolution at a variety of molecular, cellular, organismal, and population scales for crop plants as well as pathogens, pests, beneficial microbes, and weeds. It is now possible to both characterize useful or deleterious variation as well as precisely manipulate it. Data-driven, informed decisions based on knowledge of the variation of biotic challenges and of natural and synthetic variation in crop plants will enable deployment of durable interventions throughout the world. These should be integral, dynamic components of agricultural strategies for sustainable agriculture.
| S-EPMC5810936 | biostudies-literature