RESUMEN

Background: Accreditation of graduate academic programs in clinical research requires demonstration of program achievement of Joint Task Force for Clinical Trial Competence-based standards. Evaluation of graduate programs include enrollment, student grades, skills-based outcomes, and completion rates, in addition to other measures. Standardized measures of competence would be useful. Methods: We used the Competency Index for Clinical Research Professionals (CICRP), in a separate-sample pretest-posttest study to measure self-confidence or self-efficacy in clinical research competency comparing cohorts of students entering and completing a master's degree program in clinical research across three semesters (summer 2021 - spring 2022). CICRP is a 20-item Likert scale questionnaire (0 = Not at all confident; 10 = extremely confident). Results: The study sample of 110 students (54 in the entry course, 56 in the exit course) showed overall 80.9% entered the program with only a baccalaureate degree and 55.5% had no prior experience in managing clinical trial research. Cronbach alpha for the instrument showed a high level of content validity (range 0.93-0.98). Median CICRP item rating range at entry was [1, 6] and at exit [7, 10]. Mean CICRP total score (sum of 20 items) at entry was 72.7 (SD 41.9) vs. 167.0 (SD 21.1) at exit (p < 0.001). Mean total score at program entry increased with increasing years of clinical trial management experience but attenuated at program exit. Conclusion: This is the first use of the CICRP for academic program evaluation. The CICRP may be a useful tool for competency-based academic program evaluation, in addition to other measures of program excellence.

RESUMEN

Clinical research professionals (CRPs) are essential contributors to clinical and translational research endeavors, encompassing roles such as research nurses, research coordinators, data managers, and regulatory affairs specialists. This paper reports on the implementation of a novel training program for the CRPs, the Co-mentoring Circles Program, developed by the University of Florida Health Clinical Research Professionals Consortium, and proposes an initial logic model of CRP workforce development informed by the observations, participant feedback, and the established Translational Workforce Logic Model. The co-mentoring program was delivered through an online didactic curriculum and bi-monthly meetings over nine months, from January to September 2022. The formative evaluation identified the factors that support CRP workforce development through knowledge acquisition and professional relationship building. Finally, this paper proposes a logic model of CRP workforce development, including financial and human inputs, didactic and co-mentoring activities, workforce outputs, outputs related to workforce and clinical research study progress, and resulting impacts of increased national capacity for translational research and increased rate of research translation.

RESUMEN

Clinical and translational research relies on a well-trained workforce, but mentorship programs designed expressly for this workforce are lacking. This paper presents the development of a mentoring program for research staff and identifies key programmatic outcomes. Research staff participating in this program were matched with a senior mentor. Focus groups were conducted to identify key program outcomes. Surveys were administered throughout the program period to assess participants' experience, gains in skill, and subsequent careers. Analysis of the resultant qualitative and quantitative data are used to characterize the implementation and impact of the program. A total of 47 mentees and 30 mentors participated in program between 2018 and 2023. A comprehensive logic model of short-, intermediate- and long-term outcomes was developed. Participants reported positive valuations of every programmatic outcome assessed including their program experience, learning and research careers. The pool of available mentors also grew as new mentors were successfully recruited for each cohort. This mentorship program developed and implemented by senior research staff successfully provided junior research staff with professional development support, mentorship, and professional development opportunities. Junior and senior health research staff built mentoring relationships that advanced their clinical and translational research careers.

RESUMEN

Background: There have been a number of federal policies and guidance's impacting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEI) in clinical research. While these are needed, they have not diminished the gaps related to clinical trial recruitment, research professional's capacity for cultural competence, and clinical research professional role development. Mentoring and co-mentoring circles have traditionally been used in Medicine, but until now had not been used for workforce development of clinical research professionals (CRPs). Materials/Methods: We designed a six-session, monthly co-mentoring circle to take place at two academic medical centers to pilot an interinstitutional co-mentoring circle centered on storytelling videos of Black Voices in Clinical Research. This provided a DEI framework for discussions on role experiences, cultural competence, and role progression. Results: Seven CRPs completed the DRC pilot. The participants positively evaluated the experience and made recommendations for future iterations. Discussion: Co-mentoring circles can be useful tools to connect CRPs across complex research medical centers and provide support that may have a positive impact on role satisfaction and retention. Conclusion: This framework for developing co-mentoring circles can serve as a toolkit for future CRP co-mentoring circles within and across institutions for workforce development. The Black Voices in Clinical Research storytelling videos provide a rich foundation for future discussion on DEI issues for CRPs and collaborating with participants.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The need to define core competencies for clinical research professionals has been widely recognized. And after the Joint Task Force have proposed Core Competency Framework in 2014 (Sonstein et al. in JAMA 28(3):17-23, 2014), it has been tested and implemented by a variety of researchers and practitioners worldwide, while Ukraine avoided implementing this until recently. METHODS: We surveyed Ukrainian-based clinical research practitioners on their self-assessment in the competency domains proposed by Sonstein et al. (JAMA 28(3):17-23, 2014), tested their GCP knowledge, assessed their level and means of education, and the need to broaden the range of educational tools to reach the standards suggested by the Core Competency Framework. RESULTS: We identified competence issues in four competence domains: Medicines Development and Regulation, Data Management and Informatics, Scientific Concepts and Research Design, and Study and Site Management. Our study also determined that short-term GCP trainings, attended by most of Ukrainian-based clinical research professionals, are insufficient to provide thorough competence in all domains. CONCLUSIONS: The identified knowledge gaps provide evidence for the need to broaden the range of educational tools for Ukrainian-based clinical research professionals; we suggest launching long-term academic program with its curriculum based on the Core Competence Framework.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

We used a Zoom Un-meeting as an educational approach to provide experienced clinical research professional (CRP) adult learners a collaborative learning space to learn more about current issues for academic medical center (AMC) clinical research workforce development and collaborate on solution finding. CRPs operationalize the conduct of clinical trials and represent a significant brain trust for the Clinical and Translational Science (CTSA) consortium hubs with their vast knowledge base, extensive experience, understanding of relevant institutional policy, organizational culture, and clinical research operations. Un-meetings are an intentionally organized and coordinated group activity that encourages participants to focus on a topic and incorporate an open flow of ideas through brainstorming and an open discussion format, setting the stage for future collaborative action. We divided topics into a series of six consecutive monthly Un-meeting Zoom workshops. Ultimately, one resulting output from the meeting was the Center for Leading Innovation and Collaborations (CLIC) synergy paper award to support continued collaborative work. Currently, work teams have emerged to analyze qualitative data from brainstorming and breakout session recordings and to identify small-group activities. We describe this adult learning tool as valuable for exploring issues of AMC CRP professional development. This approach encouraged creative/critical thinking and opportunities for leadership, team science, and problem-solving among participants.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The organization and operation of clinical trials have become increasingly complex requiring the coordination of a well-trained workforce to ensure that complicated protocols yield valid results that will advance human health. We hypothesized that formal education in clinical research is equivalent to a number of years of work experience as a clinical research professional in terms of self-perceived clinical research competence. METHODS: Using REDCap, we conducted a survey of students and recent graduates from academic programs in clinical research in the USA using the CICRP index that consists of 20 clinical research core competencies. We compared the responses of recent graduates to CRCs wording in the USA and Canada in various research settings who responded to a similar survey conducted by the Joint Task Force and to experienced CRCs working at research-intensive CTSA hubs and their affiliated hospitals who were surveyed as part of the NIH funded DIAMOND project. RESULTS: We found that the degree of self-perceived competence to perform advanced core competencies such as those related to regulatory affairs among new graduates of formal academic programs without research experience to be equivalent to as many as five years of on-the-job-training in a research-intensive CTSA setting and more than ten years of experience in less research-intensive community settings. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that scores on both forms of the CICRP differentiate CRCs according to formal education in clinical research, years of experience as a CRC and type of research setting in which they work. Further, the self-perceived competency assessed by CICRP acquired by completing an academic program in clinical research is equivalent to years of work experience.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The National Institute of Health has mandated good clinical practice (GCP) training for all clinical research investigators and professionals. We developed a GCP game using the Kaizen-Education platform. The GCP Kaizen game was designed to help clinical research professionals immerse themselves into applying International Conference on Harmonization GCP (R2) guidelines in the clinical research setting through case-based questions. METHODS: Students were invited to participate in the GCP Kaizen game as part of their 100% online academic Masters during the Spring 2019 semester. The structure of the game consisted of 75 original multiple choice and 25 repeated questions stemming from fictitious vignettes that were distributed across 10 weeks. Each question presented a teachable rationale after the answers were submitted. At the end of the game, a satisfaction survey was issued to collect player satisfaction data on the game platform, content, experience as well as perceptions of GCP learning and future GCP concept application. RESULTS: There were 71 total players who participated and answered at least one question. Of those, 53 (75%) answered all 100 questions. The game had a high Cronbach's alpha, and item analyses provided information on question quality, thus assisting us in future quality edits before re-testing and wider dissemination. CONCLUSIONS: The GCP Kaizen game provides an alternative method for mandated GCP training using principles of gamification. It proved to be a reliable and an effective educational method with high player satisfaction.

RESUMEN

Competency standards for clinical research professionals are being developed across the enterprise, based largely on the Core Competency Framework put forth by the Joint Task Force for Clinical Trial Competency (JTF). In late 2016, representatives from organizations around the world convened at a workshop hosted by the Multi-Regional Clinical Trial Center of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard (MRCT Center) to discuss their use of the standards. A number of modifications were suggested that resulted in the publication of JTF Framework 2.0. Another suggested evolution of the Framework was to consider "leveling" the competencies, to reflect the increase in competency that occurs as individuals progress in their careers. This paper describes the process utilized and final outcome of this work. The leveled competencies, defined as the Fundamental, Skilled, and Advanced levels, and the included examples are expected to provide better-defined tools and resources to organizations that are creating educational and training programs, standardized role descriptions, or professional progression planning for clinical research professionals.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Acute care research (ACR) is uniquely challenged by the constraints of recruiting participants and conducting research procedures within minutes to hours of an unscheduled critical illness or injury. Existing competencies for clinical research professionals (CRPs) are gaining traction but may have gaps for the acute environment. We sought to expand existing CRP competencies to include the specialized skills needed for ACR settings. METHODS: Qualitative data collected from job shadowing, clinical observations, and interviews were analyzed to assess the educational needs of the acute care clinical research workforce. We identified competencies necessary to succeed as an ACR-CRP, and then applied Bloom's Taxonomy to develop characteristics into learning outcomes that frame both knowledge to be acquired and job performance metrics. RESULTS: There were 28 special interest competencies for ACR-CRPs identified within the eight domains set by the Joint Task Force (JTF) of Clinical Trial Competency. While the eight domains were not prioritized by the JTF, in ACR an emphasis on Communication and Teamwork, Clinical Trials Operations, and Data Management and Informatics was observed. Within each domain, distinct proficiencies and unique personal characteristics essential for success were identified. The competencies suggest that a combination of competency-based training, behavioral-based hiring practices, and continuing professional development will be essential to ACR success. CONCLUSION: The competencies developed for ACR can serve as a training guide for CRPs to be prepared for the challenges of conducting research within this vulnerable population. Hiring, training, and supporting the development of this workforce are foundational to clinical research in this challenging setting.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Nurses are critical to the research enterprise. However all nurses are not prepared to participate as members of the research team since education and training in clinical research nursing and nurse-specific Good Clinical Practice are not consistently included in nursing curricula. The lack of nurse education and training in clinical research and Good Clinical Practice leaves research participants vulnerable with a nursing workforce that is not prepared to balance fidelity to protocol and patient quality care and safety. METHODS: A collaborative network of nurses within Clinical and Translational Science Awards and beyond was established to address this education and training need. Over a 2-year period, using expert opinion, Delphi methods, and measures of validity and reliability the team constructed curriculum and knowledge test items. RESULTS: A pilot modular electronic curriculum, including knowledge pretest and post-tests, in clinical research nursing and nurse-specific Good Clinical Practice competencies was developed. CONCLUSIONS: As the scope and setting of clinical research changes, it is likely that all practicing nurses, regardless of their practice setting or specialty, will care for patients on research protocol, making all nurses, in essence, clinical research nurses. The curriculum developed by this protocol will address that workforce education and training need.