Health researchers must understand the methodological, legal, and ethical issues related to parental consent to produce high-quality, valid research about adolescents and to provide evidence for laws, policies, and regulations.

It has long been known that mentoring is critical to the success of junior faculty researchers. The controlled intervention study by Libby et al published in this issue of Academic Medicine demonstrates that institutional investment in a mentored research career development program for early-career faculty investigators provided significant long-term gains in grant productivity. Academic institutions hoping to replicate this program's success by launching similar mentoring programs for their junior faculty investigators will, however, find that the Achilles' heel lies in the scarcity of skilled research mentors and the relative lack of attention to and recognition of the importance of a supportive institutional climate for mentoring. It is essential, therefore, to begin by developing programs to "train the trainer" as well as programs and policies to support mentors. As a recent trial at 16 Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions demonstrated, competency-based, structured research mentor training can improve mentors' skills.In this Commentary, the authors offer a comprehensive two-pronged framework for mentor development with elements that address both individual mentoring competencies and the institutional climate for mentoring. The framework depicts the gaps, activities, and outcomes that a mentor development program can address. Activities directed at changing the institutional climate related to mentor development should complement training activities for individual mentors. The authors propose that employing this framework's approach to mentor development will lead to the desired impact: to increase the competence, productivity, and retention of a diverse clinical and translational research workforce.

Introduction:Although the science of team science is no longer a new field, the measurement of team science and its standardization remain in relatively early stages of development. To describe the current state of team science assessment, we conducted an integrative review of measures of research collaboration quality and outcomes.Methods:Collaboration measures were identified using both a literature review based on specific keywords and an environmental scan. Raters abstracted details about the measures using a standard tool. Measures related to collaborations with clinical care, education, and program delivery were excluded from this review.Results:We identified 44 measures of research collaboration quality, which included 35 measures with reliability and some form of statistical validity reported. Most scales focused on group dynamics. We identified 89 measures of research collaboration outcomes; 16 had reliability and 15 had a validity statistic. Outcome measures often only included simple counts of products; publications rarely defined how counts were delimited, obtained, or assessed for reliability. Most measures were tested in only one venue.Conclusions:Although models of collaboration have been developed, in general, strong, reliable, and valid measurements of such collaborations have not been conducted or accepted into practice. This limitation makes it difficult to compare the characteristics and impacts of research teams across studies or to identify the most important areas for intervention. To advance the science of team science, we provide recommendations regarding the development and psychometric testing of measures of collaboration quality and outcomes that can be replicated and broadly applied across studies.

Use of biobanks for future genetic/genomic testing has increased. Biospecimens are increasingly being collected from infants/ children; however, little is known about attitudes towards collection of biospecimens from postpartum women and their child. Using a hypothetical consent, this study investigated willingness to participate and attitudes, beliefs, and concerns related to consent materials requesting the biobanking genetic samples. A cross-sectional mixed methods design included women who reviewed a hypothetical consent related to biobanking genetic samples. Women were asked about their willingness to participate, followed by a focus group about biobanks and genetic/genomic testing. Post-focus group questionnaires assessed willingness to participate, the influence of study characteristics, and attitudes about genetic testing. Women (N = 37) were 29.0± 7.3 years of age (range 19-44); 51% had children and 28% were currently pregnant. A total of 46% were Hispanic (H), 38% were White non-Hispanic (WNH), and 16% were Native American (NA). Seventy-six percent (28/37) initially indicated that they would participate in the hypothetical study. Race and ethnicity impacted whether women would participate. Fewer NA women indicated that they would participate compared with H women and with WNH women (p < 0.02). Age, pregnancy status, having children, education level, insurance status, and income had no impact on participation decision and willingness to biobank specimens. NA and H women indicated that they were less likely than WNH women to agree to participate in a long-term biobank study. Given the importance of determining the genetic influence of health and disease, it is critical to attend to the questions and concerns of minority women regarding genetic studies.