The CTSA Program at NIH

Leshner, Alan I.; Terry, Sharon F.; Schultz, Andrea M.; Liverman, Catharyn T.

doi:10.17226/18323

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The CTSA Consortium is comprised of academic health care institutions with CTSA hubs that deliver research services, provide education and training, and innovate improved processes and technologies to support clinical and translational research. To further this mission, a 2013 Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) Report on the CTSA Consortium recommended “common metrics” across all CTSAs as a tool for assessing and continuously improving activities at each hub and of the Consortium as a whole [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do common metrics add value? Perspectives from NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium hubs

Welch

Tomoaia‐Cotisel

Chang

et al. 2020

J. Clin. Trans. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium, a network of academic health care institutions with CTSA hubs, is charged with improving the national clinical and translational research enterprise. The CTSA Consortium and the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences implemented the Common Metrics Initiative comprised of standardized metrics and a shared performance improvement framework. This article summarizes hubs’ perspectives on its value during the initial implementation. Methods: The value was assessed across 58 hubs. Survey items assessed change in perceived ability to manage performance and advance clinical and translational science. Semi-structured interviews elicited hubs’ perspectives on meaningfulness and value-added of the Common Metrics Initiative and hubs’ recommendations. Results: Hubs considered their abilities to manage performance to have improved, but there was no change in perceived ability to advance clinical and translational science. The initiative added value by providing a formal structured process, enabling strategic conversations, facilitating improvements in processes, providing an external impetus for improvement, and providing justification for funds invested. Hubs were concerned about the usefulness of the metrics chosen and whether the value-added was sufficient relative to the effort required. Hubs recommended useful benchmarking, disseminating best practices and promoting peer-to-peer learning, and expanding the use of data to inform the initiative. Conclusions: Implementing Common Metrics and a performance improvement framework yielded concrete short-term benefits, but concerns about usefulness remained, particularly considering the effort required. The Common Metrics Initiative should focus on facilitating cross-hub collaboration around metrics that address high-priority impact areas for individual hubs and the Consortium.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do common metrics add value? Perspectives from NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium hubs

Welch

Tomoaia‐Cotisel

Chang

et al. 2020

J. Clin. Trans. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) have emerged as a key strategy for building sustainable research capacity across the translational research spectrum, from clinical work identifying potential diagnostic, preventive, or therapeutic solutions to population health approaches applying evidence-based interventions in typical clinical or community settings [2]. Despite progress related to investments in programs like the CTSA, state-level participation in the production of NIH-funded, CTR research is significantly lower in some regions of the country when compared to others [3][4][5][6][7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Participatory needs assessment and action planning for a clinical and translational research network

Johnson

Rohde

Cramer

et al. 2020

J. Clin. Trans. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of this study was to assess the utility of participatory needs assessment processes for continuous improvement of developing clinical and translational research (CTR) networks. Our approach expanded on evaluation strategies for CTR networks, centers, and institutes, which often survey stakeholders to identify infrastructure or resource needs, using the case example of the Great Plains IDeA-CTR Network. Our 4-stage approach (i.e., pre-assessment, data collection, implementation of needs assessment derived actions, monitoring of action plan) included a member survey (n = 357) and five subsequent small group sessions (n = 75 participants) to better characterize needs identified in the survey and to provide actionable recommendations. This participatory, mixed-methods needs assessment and strategic action planning process yielded 11 interrelated recommendations. These recommendations were presented to the CTR steering committee as inputs to develop detailed, prioritized action plans. Preliminary evaluation shows progress towards improved program capacity and effectiveness of the network to respond to member needs. The participatory, mixed-methods needs assessment and strategic planning process allowed a wide range of stakeholders to contribute to the development of actionable recommendations for network improvement, in line with the principles of team science.

show abstract

“…An internal CTSA study and an external evaluation by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concurrently conducted around 2013 raised concerns with the dominant mode of CTSA program assessment generally, including KL2 training efforts [6,7]. Without standardized metrics by which to measure outcomes, institutions had developed their own idiosyncratic, site-specific practices and self-evaluations.…”

Section: Kl2 Mentored Career Development Awards In the Clinical And Translational Science Award Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analyzing NIH KL2 Outcomes: A Pilot Study Using Administrative Data

VanEseltine¹,

Calvin-Naylor²,

Owen‐Smith³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds “K” awards that provide both resources and access to mentoring believed to be invaluable for early career faculty. The KL2 Mentored Career Development Award trains early-career clinicians with the goal of guiding scholars toward an independent clinical and translational research career. This study presents the pilot of a systematic, low-burden method to examine scientific and career outcomes for these awardees, applying a novel set of linked administrative data. Methods: Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs administering KL2 awards at ten universities who participate in the Institute for Research on Innovation and Science (IRIS) provided names of scholars in their KL2 cohorts. Using extensive data on sponsored projects which IRIS member universities provide, we linked the KL2 scholars to information on subsequent publication, patent, and grant activity. Results: Analyses of linked data supported a rigorous, sustainable, low-cost approach to examining career outcomes. A subset of key metrics identified by CTSA evaluators were operationalized as an examination of the post-award careers of KL2 awardees. We successfully identified contemporaneous faculty with different NIH K Awards to use as comparison groups. The pilot culminated in university-specific and aggregate reporting to all participating hubs. Conclusions: This pilot demonstrates that substantive evaluations of early career programs are possible using administrative data from universities with low additional burden. Integration of research on career development outcomes offer new means to examine the effects of increasingly diverse funding, team, and collaborative network structures, advancing both knowledge about the workings of science and practices to support early career faculty. This approach could be extended to support rigorous multi-institutional evaluation and research on a range of student and faculty training mechanisms.

show abstract

The CTSA Program at NIH

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Do common metrics add value? Perspectives from NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium hubs

Do common metrics add value? Perspectives from NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium hubs

Participatory needs assessment and action planning for a clinical and translational research network

Analyzing NIH KL2 Outcomes: A Pilot Study Using Administrative Data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About