The CTSA National Evaluation Final Report

None provided

Strengthening Community Involvement in Grant Review: Insights from the Community–University Research Partnership (CURES) Pilot Review Process

In 2007, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR) at the University of Michigan received a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). Within MICHR, the Community Engagement (CE) program supports partnership efforts between researchers, practitioners, and community‐based organizations in specific focal communities throughout Michigan. A key component of the CE program is the Community Engagement Coordinating Council, a group that provides input and guidance on program priorities, strategic planning, and reviews pilot funding proposals for community–academic partnerships. This paper will describe a unique MICHR pilot funding mechanism for Community–University Research Partnerships (CURES) with an emphasis on the ways that community partners are involved in the review process, as well as the benefits, challenges, and insights gained over 5 years of pilot review. There is a growing need for community involvement and expertise in review of funding proposals for community‐engaged research at both institutional and federal levels. The CURES pilot review process is one example of an institutional effort to engage community partners in university funding decisions and has demonstrated clear benefit toward accomplishing the aims of the CTSA.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/106809/1/cts12141.pd

Academic medical center clinical research professional workforce: Part 2 - issues in staff onboarding and professional development

Background: Defining key barriers to the development of a well-trained clinical research professional (CRP) workforce is an essential first step in identifying solutions for successful CRP onboarding, training, and competency development, which will enhance quality across the clinical and translational research enterprise. This study aimed to summarize barriers and best practices at academic medical centers related to effective CRP onboarding, training, professional development, identify challenges with the assessment of and mentoring for CRP competency growth, and describe opportunities to improve training and professionalization for the CRP career pathway. Materials/Methods: Qualitative data from a series of Un-Meeting breakout sessions and open-text survey questions were analyzed to explore the complex issues involved when developing high-quality onboarding and continuing education opportunities for CRPs at academic medical centers. Results: Results suggest there are several barriers to training the CRP workforce, including balancing foundational onboarding with role-based training, managing logistical challenges and institutional contexts, identifying/enlisting institutional champions, assessing competency, and providing high-quality mentorship. Several of these themes are interrelated. Two universal threads present throughout all themes are the need for effective communication and the need to improve professionalization of the CRP career pathway. Conclusion: Few institutions have solved all the issues related to training a competent and adaptable CRP workforce, although some have addressed one or more. We applied a socio-technical lens to illustrate our findings and the need for NCATS-funded academic medical centers to work collaboratively within and across institutions to overcome training barriers and support a vital, well-qualified workforce and present several exemplars from the field to help attain this goal

Community Engagement in Academic Health Centers: A Model for Capturing and Advancing Our Successes

Academic health centers (AHCs) are under increased pressure to demonstrate the effectiveness of their community-engaged activities, but there are no common metrics for evaluating community engagement in AHCs. Eight AHCs piloted the Institutional Community Engagement Self-Assessment (ICESA), a two-phase project to assess community-engagement efforts. The first phase uses a framework developed by the University of Rochester Medical Center, which utilizes structure, process, and outcome criteria to map CE activities. The second phase uses the Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH) Self-Assessment to identify institutional resources for community engagement, and potential gaps, to inform community engagement goal-setting. The authors conducted a structured, directed content analysis to determine the effectiveness of using the two-phase process at the participating AHCs. The findings suggest that the ICESA project assisted AHCs in three key areas, and may provide a strategy for assessing community engagement in AHCs

UMCCTS Newsletter, August 2016

This is the August 2016 issue of the UMass Center for Clinical and Translational Science Newsletter containing news and events of interest

Assessing Participant Group Affiliation and Attitudes Towards CTSI Services

Analyzing open-ended survey text responses holds the capacity to yield greater insight about participants’ perceptions of clinical translational science institute (CTSI) initiatives. Few translational research studies have explored their effectiveness. The aim of this mixed methods analysis was to assess participant perspectives of the impact and effectiveness of our CTSI program and services. We selected two open-ended survey question items (how CTSI benefitted research, and the most important impact of the research facilitated by the CTSI) from a larger set and compared responses by participant affiliations (clinical/non-clinical; lab/non-lab). We used a three-step analysis. First, nodes were generated using NVivo word frequency function. Next, with the aid of Python, we used sentiment analysis to classify each node (as positive, negative, or neutral) to indicate participant ratings toward their experiences with the CTSI and computed the average differences between groups. Third, we selected nodes that met pre-established criteria and report the qualitative distinctions. We recommend using precisely worded open-ended questions in future annual surveys or administering a survey using only opened-ended questions every six months

Community Engagement in Academic Health Centers: A Model for Capturing and Advancing Our Successes

Academic health centers (AHCs) are under increased pressure to demonstrate the effectiveness of their community-engaged activities, but there are no common metrics for evaluating community engagement in AHCs. Eight AHCs piloted the Institutional Community Engagement Self-Assessment (ICESA), a two-phase project to assess community-engagement efforts. The first phase uses a framework developed by the University of Rochester Medical Center, which utilizes structure, process, and outcome criteria to map CE activities. The second phase uses the Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH) Self-Assessment to identify institutional resources for community engagement, and potential gaps, to inform community engagement goal-setting. The authors conducted a structured, directed content analysis to determine the effectiveness of using the two-phase process at the participating AHCs. The findings suggest that the ICESA project assisted AHCs in three key areas, and may provide a strategy for assessing community engagement in AHCs