Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

17 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Scope, Influence, and Interdisciplinary Collaboration: The Publication Portfolio of the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program From 2006 Through 2017.

ABSTRACT: The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program sponsors an array of innovative, collaborative research. This study uses complementary bibliometric approaches to assess the scope, influence, and interdisciplinary collaboration of publications supported by single CTSA hubs and those supported by multiple hubs. Authors identified articles acknowledging CTSA support and assessed the disciplinary scope of research areas represented in that publication portfolio, their citation influence, interdisciplinary overlap among research categories, and characteristics of publications supported by multihub collaborations. Since 2006, CTSA hubs supported 69,436 articles published in 4,927 journals and 189 research areas. The portfolio is well distributed across diverse research areas with above-average citation influence. Most supported publications involved clinical/health sciences, for example, neurology and pediatrics; life sciences, for example, neuroscience and immunology; or a combination of the two. Publications supported by multihub collaborations had distinct content emphasis, stronger citation influence, and greater interdisciplinary overlap. This study characterizes the CTSA consortium's contributions to clinical and translational science, identifies content areas of strength, and provides evidence for the success of multihub collaborations. These methods lay the foundation for future investigation of the best policies and priorities for fostering translational science and allow hubs to understand their progress benchmarked against the larger consortium.

SUBMITTER: Llewellyn N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7781230 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Implementing Common Metrics across the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium.

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

Evaluation of initial progress to implement Common Metrics across the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium.

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

Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards.

Project description:We investigated the association between a U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 applicant's self-identified race or ethnicity and the probability of receiving an award by using data from the NIH IMPAC II grant database, the Thomson Reuters Web of Science, and other sources. Although proposals with strong priority scores were equally likely to be funded regardless of race, we find that Asians are 4 percentage points and black or African-American applicants are 13 percentage points less likely to receive NIH investigator-initiated research funding compared with whites. After controlling for the applicant's educational background, country of origin, training, previous research awards, publication record, and employer characteristics, we find that black applicants remain 10 percentage points less likely than whites to be awarded NIH research funding. Our results suggest some leverage points for policy intervention.

| S-EPMC3412416 | biostudies-literature

Fostering interdisciplinary collaboration: A longitudinal social network analysis of the NIH mHealth Training Institutes.

Project description:Background/objectiveGrowing recognition that collaboration among scientists from diverse disciplines fosters the emergence of solutions to complex scientific problems has spurred initiatives to train researchers to collaborate in interdisciplinary teams. Evaluations of collaboration patterns in these initiatives have tended to be cross-sectional, rather than clarifying temporal changes in collaborative dynamics. Mobile health (mHealth), the science of using mobile, wireless devices to improve health outcomes, is a field whose advancement needs interdisciplinary collaboration. The NIH-supported annual mHealth Training Institute (mHTI) was developed to meet that need and provides a unique testbed.MethodsIn this study, we applied a longitudinal social network analysis technique to evaluate how well the program fostered communication among the disciplinarily diverse scholars participating in the 2017-2019 mHTIs. By applying separable temporal exponential random graph models, we investigated the formation and persistence of project-based and fun conversations during the mHTIs.ResultsWe found that conversations between scholars of different disciplines were just as likely as conversations within disciplines to form or persist in the 2018 and 2019 mHTI, suggesting that the mHTI achieved its goal of fostering interdisciplinary conversations and could be a model for other team science initiatives; this finding is also true for scholars from different career stages. The presence of team and gender homophily effects in certain years suggested that scholars tended to communicate within the same team or gender.ConclusionOur results demonstrate the usefulness of longitudinal network models in evaluating team science initiatives while clarifying the processes driving interdisciplinary communications during the mHTIs.

| S-EPMC8596066 | biostudies-literature

A snapshot of translational research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH): A case study using behavioral and social science research awards and Clinical and Translational Science Awards funded publications.

Project description:The translation of biomedical research from basic knowledge to application has been a priority at the National Institute of Health (NIH) for many years. Tracking the progress of scientific research and knowledge through the translational process is difficult due to variation in the definition of translational research as well as the identification of benchmarks for the spread and application of biomedical research; quantitatively tracking this process is even more difficult. Using a simple and reproducible method to assess whether publications are translational, we examined NIH R01 behavioral and social science research (BSSR) awards funded between 2008 and 2014 to determine whether there are differences in the percent of translational research publications produced by basic and applied research awards. We also assessed the percent of translational research publications produced by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program to evaluate whether targeted translational research awards result in increased translational research. We found that 3.9% of publications produced by basic research awards were translational; that the percent of translational research publications produced by applied research awards is approximately double that of basic research awards (7.4%); and that targeted translational research awards from the CTSA program produced the highest percentage of translational research publications (13.4%). In addition, we assessed differences in time to first publication, time to first citation, and publication quality by award type (basic vs. applied), and whether an award (or publication) is translational.

| S-EPMC5942790 | biostudies-literature

The current state of funded NIH grants in implementation science in genomic medicine: a portfolio analysis.

Project description:PurposeImplementation science offers methods to evaluate the translation of genomic medicine research into practice. The extent to which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) human genomics grant portfolio includes implementation science is unknown. This brief report's objective is to describe recently funded implementation science studies in genomic medicine in the NIH grant portfolio, and identify remaining gaps.MethodsWe identified investigator-initiated NIH research grants on implementation science in genomic medicine (funding initiated 2012-2016). A codebook was adapted from the literature, three authors coded grants, and descriptive statistics were calculated for each code.ResultsForty-two grants fit the inclusion criteria (~1.75% of investigator-initiated genomics grants). The majority of included grants proposed qualitative and/or quantitative methods with cross-sectional study designs, and described clinical settings and primarily white, non-Hispanic study populations. Most grants were in oncology and examined genetic testing for risk assessment. Finally, grants lacked the use of implementation science frameworks, and most examined uptake of genomic medicine and/or assessed patient-centeredness.ConclusionWe identified large gaps in implementation science studies in genomic medicine in the funded NIH portfolio over the past 5 years. To move the genomics field forward, investigator-initiated research grants should employ rigorous implementation science methods within diverse settings and populations.

| S-EPMC5920776 | biostudies-literature

Biostatistics Faculty and NIH Awards at U.S. Medical Schools.

Project description:Statistical principles and methods are critical to the success of biomedical and translational research. However, it is difficult to track and evaluate the monetary value of a biostatistician to a medical school (SoM). Limited published data on this topic is available, especially comparing across SoMs. Using National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards and American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) faculty counts data (2010-2013), together with online information on biostatistics faculty from 119 institutions across the country, we demonstrated that the number of biostatistics faculty was significantly positively associated with the amount of NIH awards, both as a school total and on a per faculty basis, across various sizes of U.S. SoMs. Biostatisticians, as a profession, need to be proactive in communicating and advocating the value of their work and their unique contribution to the long-term success of a biomedical research enterprise.

| S-EPMC4386754 | biostudies-literature

What does team science look like across the CTSA consortium? A qualitative analysis of the Great CTSA Team Science Contest submissions.

Project description:IntroductionThe Great CTSA Team Science Contest (GTSC) was developed to discover how Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs promote and support team science [1]. The purpose of this study was a secondary qualitative analysis of the GTSC submissions to better understand the diversity of team science initiatives across the CTSA consortium.MethodsSecondary qualitative analysis of the GTSC data addressed the following research questions, which defined the top-level coding: (1) What CTSA component sponsored it? (2) Who was the team doing the work? (3) Who were the intended beneficiaries? (4) What was the intended outcome? (5) What strategies did they use? (6) What translational science (TS) stage was addressed? (7) How do they align with the NCATS team science strategic goals? (8) How do the CTSA's team science efforts align with the National Academies Research Council (NRC) recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of team science?ResultsThe GTSC received 170 submissions from 45 unique CTSA hubs. Qualitative analysis revealed a great variety of team science strategies for virtually all team science stakeholders. In addition to strategies to promote team science, results show successful examples that focus on outcomes and illustrate ways of measuring success.ConclusionsThe GTSC shows that the CTSA consortium is involved in an extremely diverse array of team science activities, which align well with both the NRC recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of team science and the NCATS strategic goals for team science. Future research should evaluate the efficacy of team science strategies.

| S-EPMC8411266 | biostudies-literature

Publications as predictors of racial and ethnic differences in NIH research awards.

Project description:This research expands efforts to understand differences in NIH funding associated with the self-identified race and ethnicity of applicants. We collected data from 2,397 NIH Biographical Sketches submitted between FY 2003 and 2006 as part of new NIH R01 Type 1 applications to obtain detailed information on the applicants' training and scholarly activities, including publications. Using these data, we examined the association between an NIH R01 applicant's race or ethnicity and the probability of receiving an R01 award. The applicant's publication history as reported in the NIH biographical sketch and the associated bibliometrics narrowed the black/white funding gap for new and experienced investigators in explanatory models. We found that black applicants reported fewer papers on their Biosketches, had fewer citations, and those that were reported appeared in journals with lower impact factors. Incorporating these measures in our models explained a substantial portion of the black/white funding gap. Although these predictors influence the funding gap, they do not fully address race/ethnicity differences in receiving a priority score.

| S-EPMC6235266 | biostudies-literature

Topic choice contributes to the lower rate of NIH awards to African-American/black scientists.

Project description:Despite efforts to promote diversity in the biomedical workforce, there remains a lower rate of funding of National Institutes of Health R01 applications submitted by African-American/black (AA/B) scientists relative to white scientists. To identify underlying causes of this funding gap, we analyzed six stages of the application process from 2011 to 2015 and found that disparate outcomes arise at three of the six: decision to discuss, impact score assignment, and a previously unstudied stage, topic choice. Notably, AA/B applicants tend to propose research on topics with lower award rates. These topics include research at the community and population level, as opposed to more fundamental and mechanistic investigations; the latter tend to have higher award rates. Topic choice alone accounts for over 20% of the funding gap after controlling for multiple variables, including the applicant's prior achievements. Our findings can be used to inform interventions designed to close the funding gap.

| S-EPMC6785250 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data