Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Clinical and Translational Science logoLink to Clinical and Translational Science
. 2023 Aug 2;16(9):1526–1546. doi: 10.1111/cts.13570

Areas of strength and opportunities for growth in translational science education and training: Results of a scoping review from the NCATS Education Branch

Amanda L Vogel 1,✉, Brittany M Haynes 1, Shadab F Hussain 1, Lameese D Akacem 1, Marcus G Hodges 1, Josh A Duberman 2, Gisela Butera 2, Jessica M Faupel‐Badger 1
PMCID: PMC10499424  PMID: 37533169

Abstract

Translational science education and training (E&T) aims to prepare the translational workforce to accelerate progress along the translational pipeline toward solutions that improve human health. In 2020–2021, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) Education Branch conducted a scoping review of the E&T literature with this focus. The review used the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. PubMed, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Embase were searched, and forward citations conducted. Screening of titles, abstracts, and full text identified 44 included articles. Data extraction facilitated analysis of E&T content, audiences, modalities, evaluations, and recommendations. The NCATS Translational Science Principles were used to identity described or recommended E&T content. Twenty‐nine articles described a translational science E&T opportunity or its evaluation, and another 15 articles offered recommendations for translational science E&T. The most prevalent NCATS Translational Science Principles were boundary‐crossing partnerships (77%) and cross‐disciplinary team science (75%). Among publications describing E&T opportunities, the most reported modalities were experiential learning (64%) and courses (61%) and the most reported participants were graduate students (68%) and postdoctoral fellows (54%). About half of these articles (n = 15) reported an evaluation, covering a range of proximal to distal outcomes. Recommendations emphasized the value of translational science E&T across training and career stages and the use of varied modalities to reach diverse audiences. This review highlights strengths and opportunities for growth in translational science E&T. Enhancements to content, expansion of participants and modalities, and rigorous evaluations will contribute to building a highly qualified, diverse translational science workforce.

Study Highlights.

WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC?

The literature on education and training (E&T) in translational science has emphasized the importance of complementing training in biomedical research competencies with training in competencies for accelerating progress along the translational pipeline. To date, we have not known the extent to which this latter set of competencies is reflected in E&T opportunities.

WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS?

The review identified and characterized E&T opportunities that have included content relevant to accelerating translational progress. It characterized relevant content, participants, teaching modalities, and evaluation approaches and findings. In addition, the review identified and characterized recommendations for translational science E&T with a focus on accelerating progress along the translational pipeline.

WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE?

Overall, the scoping review provides a bird's eye view of the content being taught, or recommended, in this emerging area of interest, to whom, using what modalities, and with what evaluation approaches. In doing so, it highlights areas of strength and points to opportunities for growth. The review also identifies which content areas are more represented in recommendations versus E&T opportunities, pointing to content areas that may be ripe for immediate expansion.

HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY OR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE?

These findings can be used to inform efforts to enhance E&T content with a focus on advancing translational progress, leverage a range of effective teaching modalities, expand access in order to grow and diversify the translational workforce, and build the evidence base for effective E&T approaches in translational science. These efforts will contribute to building a highly qualified, large, and diverse translational science workforce.

INTRODUCTION

The field of translational science aims to accelerate the translation of research discoveries into solutions to improve human health, by transforming the way that translational research is done. 1 , 2 Examples of recent translational science initiatives from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) help to demonstrate the dramatic potential of translational science. The NCATS Tissue Chip Initiatives aim to transform clinical trials for drug development through the use of tissue chips to more rapidly and accurately predict drug safety and efficacy in humans, compared to today's clinical trials. 3 , 4 The NCATS SMART institutional review board (IRB) platform streamlines IRB approval for multisite trials, enabling rapid start‐up of time‐sensitive research. 5 , 6 The NCATS National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) creates a national data enclave to facilitate high‐power studies to answer critical questions about COVID‐19, including characteristics of the disease and effective courses of treatment. 7 It currently includes data on over 5 million COVID‐19‐positive patients from 75 institutions across the United States, and has data use agreements with over 300 institutions. 8

These examples highlight core characteristics of translational science approaches. They set ambitious goals, aim to resolve or circumvent scientific or operational roadblocks or bottlenecks that are commonly encountered along the translational pipeline, leverage highly innovative approaches, often produce solutions that are relevant to research initiatives across varied diseases and conditions, and ultimately contribute to accelerating progress from scientific discoveries to health solutions. 2 , 9

Continuing to develop and expand these kinds of transformative research initiatives requires a translational science workforce with specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities. NCATS contributes to developing this workforce through its internal research training program and through funding of education and training (E&T) for predoctoral, postdoctoral, and early career faculty at dozens of academic institutions across the country, including through the NCATS Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program. 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16

Building on its expertise in E&T, in 2011, the CTSA Education Core Competency Work Group developed the 14 Core Competencies for Clinical and Translational Research. Many institutions use these competencies in developing E&T opportunities in translational science and evaluating whether these opportunities are meeting teaching objectives and student/trainee needs. 10 , 11 , 17 , 18 , 19 These 14 competencies can be organized into two groups, each of which is essential to preparing the translational science workforce. The first group comprises core biomedical research competencies that are essential to producing high quality translational research. These include, for example, posing research questions, conducting literature reviews, and designing and implementing rigorous research studies. The second group comprises competencies that are directly relevant to accelerating progress along the translational pipeline. These include, for example, leading and engaging in cross‐disciplinary team science and forming and maintaining partnerships with patients and communities and across sectors.

Recent literature on E&T in translational science has emphasized the importance of complementing rigorous training in core biomedical research competencies with training in this second area of competencies. 1 , 2 , 9 The literature has emphasized, in particular, competencies for cross‐disciplinary team science, process innovation, cross‐sectoral collaboration, and biomedical entrepreneurship. 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 Conceptual contributions in this area include the Seven Characteristics of a Translational Scientist, developed by Translation Together, and the NCATS Translational Science Principles (Table 1). 23 , 24 , 25

TABLE 1.

NCATS translational science principles.

Principle Description
Scientific principles–These principles focus on factors directly related to the selection of the research question, research approaches and research methods

Prioritize initiatives that address unmet needs

 These initiatives focus on pursuing scientific goals that address unmet scientific, patient, or population health needs.

  • Scientific needs: Contribute to research advances in under‐investigated areas of science or on scientific questions that present unique research challenges or disincentives (e.g., currently untreatable diseases; de‐risking targets).

  • Patient and population health needs: Advance research to develop solutions for unmet patient and population health needs.
Produce cross‐cutting solutions for common and persistent challenges Develop innovations that address challenges across multiple research initiatives, projects, or diseases and conditions.

  • Across multiple projects: Advance research by identifying, developing, and testing solutions to common research roadblocks that have stymied multiple projects.

  • Across diseases: Approach research challenges and development of solutions by seeking commonalities across research on a range of diseases and conditions.
Emphasize creativity and innovation Focus on increasing the impact of research through innovations in research methods, processes, and structures.

  • Research methods: Pose innovative research questions and develop and implement innovations in research methods, technologies, and approaches that increase the impact of the research.

  • Research processes and structures: Develop and implement innovations in teamwork, partnerships, and operations that enhance the quality and impact of the research.
Leverage cross‐disciplinary team science Engage all relevant expertise across disciplines, fields, and professions to produce research that advances translation.

  • Advance innovation: Integrate concepts, theories, methods, technologies, and approaches from the range of disciplines, fields, and professions that can contribute to advancing the research goals.

  • Increase translational potential: Leverage knowledge integration to develop more holistic findings that are therefore more relevant to real‐world applications.
Operational principles–These principles focus on how team functioning, organizational environment, and the culture of science influence the research. Operational principles facilitate the science
Enhance the efficiency and speed of translational research Implement evidence‐informed practices and scientific and operational innovations to enhance the efficiency and speed of translational research.

  • Science: Develop and implement innovations in scientific approaches, methods, and technologies that accelerate the pace of translational research.

  • Team functioning: Implement evidence‐based practices to enhance the speed at which teams develop shared goals and improve team communication and coordination of work tasks.

  • Decision making: Implement milestone‐based decision making to enable rapid agreement on go/no‐go decisions, to enable resources to be used most efficiently.

  • Organizational environment: Reward efficiency, enable rapid failures, and encourage redirection of resources to subsequent attempts.
Utilize boundary‐crossing partnerships Leverage cross‐disciplinary research teams, patient and community engagement, and cross‐agency partnerships to advance translation.

  • Team functioning: Implement evidence‐informed practices for collaborations, engagement, and partnership.

  • Organizational environment: Provide leadership, policies, and physical spaces that facilitate boundary‐crossing collaborations within and outside of one's organization.

  • Recognition and reward systems: Incentivize collaboration through recognition and reward systems that value team science, cross‐disciplinary collaboration, patient and community engagement, and cross‐agency partnerships.

  • Science policy: Design funding opportunities that support and facilitate collaboration, engagement, and partnerships to achieve scientific goals.

Engage in evidence‐informed risk taking to pursue bold scientific goals

 Take evidence‐informed risks in scientific goals, research questions, and research methods that have the potential to dramatically advance translational research. a

  • Team and organizational environments: Leadership states the importance of risk taking to achieve scientific goals, team members encourage sharing of novel or bold ideas.

  • Recognition and reward systems: Enable risk taking via recognition and reward systems that recognize overall scientific contributions, and do not penalize individuals or teams for informed risk taking or productive failures.

  • Science policy: Develop funding opportunities that invite informed risk taking to address high need areas of science and unmet patient needs.
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: NCATS, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

a

This table provides the version of the principles that was used to analyze described or recommended E&T content in included articles. The NCATS Translational Science Principles were in development simultaneous with the conduct of the literature review. The seventh principle called “engage in evidence‐informed risk taking to pursue bold scientific goals” was later refined and renamed “use bold and rigorous research approaches.” In addition, at a later date, we added an eighth principle on diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA). The current version of the NCATS Translational Science Principles can be found on the NCATS website. 25

The NCATS Education Branch was established in 2019 to contribute leadership at a national level to advance E&T in translational science. Given the longstanding strengths of E&T in core skills for translational research, and the need to refine our understanding of E&T focused on competencies for accelerating progress along the translational pipeline, one of the early activities of the branch (2020–2021) was a scoping review of the peer reviewed literature in the latter area.

The scoping review identified and characterized E&T opportunities that have included this focus on accelerating translational progress. The number and content of these opportunities had previously been unknown. For example, there are numerous publications about E&T opportunities that focus on related skills (e.g., team science and leadership), research areas (e.g., Implementation Science), or research approaches (e.g., community engaged research). However, it was unclear to what extent these opportunities were training participants in how to apply this knowledge to overcome systemic translational challenges and accelerate progress along the translational pipeline. In addition, among E&T opportunities that addressed acceleration of progress along the translational pipeline, it was not known what content was most or least emphasized – information that could help to identify areas of strength and areas where additional development is needed. This scoping review set out to address these gaps in our knowledge.

In addition, the scoping review identified and characterized published recommendations for advancing E&T with a focus on accelerating progress along the translational pipeline. These recommendations can be compared to the content of described E&T opportunities to identify recommendations where there has already been some implementation, pointing to higher potential for broader adoption. Here, we share methods and findings from the scoping review and discuss the implications of the findings for advancing translational science E&T.

METHODS

Specific aims for the scoping review were:

  1. To identify publications that describe past, current, or planned E&T opportunities that include a focus on equipping learners with competencies for accelerating progress along the translational pipeline, and to characterize the relevant content, participants, teaching modalities, evaluation approaches, and evaluation findings; and

  2. To identify publications that offer recommendations for E&T with a focus on equipping learners with competencies for accelerating progress along the translational pipeline, and to identify the recommending bodies and characterize the recommended content, participants, and teaching modalities.

Inclusion criteria were that articles (a) were published in the English language in peer review journals between 2005 and 2021; (b) were descriptive articles, evaluations, commentaries, or editorials; (c) either described the curriculum of one or more past, current, or planned translational science E&T opportunities, or offered recommendations for the content of translational science E&T opportunities; and (d) included a specific focus on E&T content that equips learners with competencies needed to accelerate progress along the translational pipeline. The year 2005 was selected as the start date for this review as it was the year that NIH created the CTSA program, which established a formal pathway to support E&T in clinical and translational science as a field. 26 , 27 Excluded articles included conference proceedings, abstracts, retracted articles, and book reviews, and did not include a focus on E&T content related to accelerating progress along the translational pipeline.

This scoping review used the methodological framework first proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, refined by Levac et al. and updated by the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. 28 , 29 , 30 The reporting of this study followed PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA‐ScR). 31 The PRISMA‐ScR checklist can be found in Table S1. The review protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. 32

To identify candidate articles, the review had to address the challenge that there were no established key terms that could be used in the database searches to easily identify articles with the focus of interest: E&T relevant to accelerating progress along the translational pipeline. The review therefore began with a broad database search. A medical research librarian performed searches of three major databases that include biomedical research E&T publications: PubMed, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Embase. Search strategies were tailored to the controlled vocabularies and search syntax used for each database. References were imported into EndNote 20 reference manager software and deduplicated. This produced 556 unique articles.

Using Endnote, four coauthors (J.F.B., B.M.H., M.G.H., and A.L.V.) worked in pairs to dually screen the articles' titles and abstracts and reach consensus on whether each article met inclusion criteria. A screening methodology was developed to ensure consistency in application of screening criteria. Namely, screening pairs rotated members every 20–35 articles throughout the title/abstract screening. Inclusion/exclusion decisions were recorded in an Excel spreadsheet. Through this process, 49 articles were identified as meeting inclusion criteria for full‐text review.

Next, Web of Science (WoS) was used to search forward citations of these 49 articles. These references were imported into EndNote and deduplicated, producing another 372 unique articles. These were screened as described above, producing 14 articles that met the inclusion criteria for full‐text review. In addition, 88 articles were retrieved via hand search from citations in selected articles, imported into EndNote, deduplicated, and screened as described above, producing another seven articles that met inclusion criteria for full‐text review. Altogether, 70 articles moved forward to full text review. The search strategy is summarized in Table S2.

A methodology was developed to ensure accuracy of full‐text review. Six coauthors (L.D.A., J.F.B., B.M.H., M.G.H., S.F.H., and A.L.V.) worked in teams of three to reach final consensus on inclusion or exclusion. This led to the exclusion of 26 articles, leaving 44 articles for inclusion in the review. The same methodology was applied for accuracy in data extraction, with teams of three working together to achieve consensus on data extraction for included articles. See Figure 1 for the PRISMA flow diagram. The PRISMA‐ScR guidelines do not require critical appraisal for scoping review and therefore this study did not perform critical apprais. 31

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA flow diagram depicting search of databases, screening, and inclusion for the review.a Abbreviation: E&T, education and training. aFrom: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma‐statement.org/. bForward citation searching of included articles after completion of title and abstract screening.

A data coding and data extraction form was created using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at NCATS. 33 A pilot of the form was conducted using a test set of four randomly selected articles. This helped to refine the form and develop consistency in coding among the six reviewers. To further ensure consistency, membership in reviewer teams rotated after every five articles. Data coding and data extraction results were then exported into an Excel file for analysis. Excel was used to produce frequencies for quantitative data and to support thematic analysis for qualitative data.

For each article, the following data were coded or extracted: the phases of the translational research continuum that were addressed (basic research, preclinical research, clinical research, implementation science, and population science), 34 the translational science content that was described or recommended, specific research topics/fields/disciplines that were a focus of the publication, and whether the authors were affiliated with a CTSA‐supported institution.

The content of E&T opportunities that was relevant to accelerating progress along the translational pipeline was characterized through the application of the NCATS Translational Science Principles, provided in Table 1. The principles summarize scientific and operational approaches that help to accelerate progress along the translational pipeline. They were generated based on NCATS' experience innovating in translation science through its internal research program and extramural research funding initiatives, and through in‐depth case studies of three successful NCATS‐led or ‐supported translational science initiatives that span multiple stages of the translational continuum. In addition, they build upon the body of scholarship on content for E&T focusing on competencies for accelerating progress along the translational pipeline. 1 , 2 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 24 , 25 More information on how the NCATS Translational Science Principles were developed and a discussion of their relevance to advancing translational science E&T are provided in a recent publication. 23

In addition to the data coding and extraction that was applied to all articles, additional coding and extraction was applied to the subset of articles that described E&T opportunities. This captured: educational goals; whether the E&T opportunity addressed both (a) core biomedical research competencies and (b) competencies for accelerating progress along the translational pipeline, or only the latter; whether it was a degree/certificate program or a more finite E&T opportunity; whether it was offered in‐person, online, or in a hybrid format; the teaching modalities used; participants; whether and how it had been adapted elsewhere; and the presence of an evaluation, characteristics of the evaluation, and key evaluation findings. Meanwhile, other added data coding and extraction was applied to the subset of articles that offered recommendations for translational science E&T opportunities. It captured the recommending body/group and content of the recommendations related to educational goals and content, teaching modalities, and participants. Table S3 summarizes the data coding and data extraction form.

RESULTS

Included articles

The 44 articles that met inclusion criteria included two subsets. The first subset comprised 29 articles (66%) that described a current, previous, or planned translational science E&T opportunity (n = 28) 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 or the evaluation of one of these opportunities (n = 1). 63 Hereafter, these are called “descriptive articles.” The second subset included 15 articles (34%) that offered recommendations for translational science E&T content, modalities, and/or participants. 20 , 21 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 Hereafter, these are called “recommendations articles.” Publication dates spanned 2007 to 2020, with seven articles published in the 5 years from 2007–2011, 24 articles published in the 5 years from 2012–2016, and 13 articles published in the 4 years from 2017 to 2020. Both descriptive and recommendations articles were distributed similarly across publication dates. Although the inclusion criteria included articles published in 2021, no articles that met inclusion criteria were published in this year.

Coverage of the phases of the translational research continuum

In Table 2, within each subset of articles, articles are ordered based on the phases of the translational research continuum that they address. Overall, half of the articles (n = 22, 50%) framed their content as relevant to accelerating progress in particular phases of the translational research continuum. The other half (n = 22; 50%) framed their content as relevant to accelerating progress along the full translational research continuum. Recommendation articles were more likely to address the full translational research continuum (n = 10; 66%) compared to descriptive articles (n = 12; 41%).

TABLE 2.

All included articles: Phases of the translational research continuum, translational science principles, and additional characteristics.

Phases of the translational research continuum Translational science principles Additional characteristics
Basic research Preclinical research Clinical research Implementation science Population science Utilize boundary‐crossing partnerships Leverage cross‐disciplinary team science Enhance efficiency and speed Address unmet needs Emphasize creativity and innovation Produce cross‐cutting solutions Take evidence‐informed risks Topic/Field/Discipline CTSA Generated a
Descriptive articles – Describing current and future E&T opportunities
1. Meagher (2011) 52 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
2. Ameredes et al. (2015) 35 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
3. Knowlton, et al. (2013) 48 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
4. Rose et al. (2017) 61 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
5. Fruchter, et al. (2018) 42 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
6. Greenberg‐Worisek, et al. (2020) 46 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
7. Kurpinski, et al. (2014) 49 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
8. Loftus, et al. (2015) 51 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
9. Petrelli, et al. (2016) 56 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Immunology
10. Plaksin, et al. (2016) 57 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
11. Daudelin, et al. (2015) 38 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
12. Santacroce, et al. (2018) 62 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Nursing ✓
13. Morrato, et al. (2015) 53 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
14. Proctor, et al. (2013) 58 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Mental health ✓
15. Neuhauser, et al. (2007) 55 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Public health
16. Golden, et al. (2014) 44 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Health disparities ✓
17. Robinson, et al. (2013) 60 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
18. Byrne et al. (2012) 36 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
19. Calhoun et al. (2013) 37 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
20. DiGiovanni et al. (2011) 39 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
21. Estape, et al. (2011) 40 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Health disparities
22. Freel et al. (2018) 41 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
23. Gilliland et al. (2017) 43 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
24. Greenberg‐Worisek et al. (2019) 45 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Precision medicine ✓
25. Grinstaff et al. (2018) 47 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Regenerative Medicine ✓
26. Libby et al. (2018) 50 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
27. Naar et al. (2018) 54 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Behavioral science ✓
28. Reiss et al. (2016) 59 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Thoracic medicine
29. Rios et al. (2015) 63 , b ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Health disparities
Subtotals for descriptive articles 15 (52%) 24 (83%) 24 (83%) 18 (62%) 15 (52%) 22 (76%) 21 (72%) 18 (62%) 10 (35%) 13 (45%) 12 (41%) 2 (7%) 11 (38%) 23 (79%)
Recommendations articles – Offering recommendations for translational science E&T opportunities
30. Bentires‐Alj et al. (2015) 65 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
31. Mason (2009) 71 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Regenerative medicine
32. Adamo et al. (2015) 64 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
33. Holbein et al. (2014) 69 ✓ ✓ ✓
34. Windle et al. (2019) 75 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Epidemiology ✓
35. Moore et al. (2011) 72 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
36. Begg et al. (2014) 21 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
37. Estape‐Garrastazu et al. (2014) 67 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Minority Health
38. Valenta et al. (2016) 74 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Informatics ✓
39. Rubio et al. (2010) 73 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
40. Dilmore et al. (2013) 66 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
41. Yoon et al. (2018) 76 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
42. Begg et al. (2015) 20 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
43. Lotrecchiano et al. (2016) 70 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
44. Garbutt et al. (2019) 68 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Subtotals for recommendations articles 12 (80%) 13 (87%) 14 (93%) 11 (73%) 12 (80%) 12 (80%) 12 (80%) 6 (40%) 8 (53%) 5 (33%) 2 (13%) 1 (7%) 4 (27%) 11 (73%)
Totals for all 44 included articles 27 (61%) 37 (84%) 38 (86%) 29 (66%) 27 (61%) 34 (77%) 33 (75%) 24 (55%) 18 (41%) 18 (41%) 14 (32%) 3 (7%) 15 (34%) 34 (77%)
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CTSA, Clinical and Translational Science Award; E&T, education and training.

a

CTSA‐generated designation includes articles with one or more CTSA‐affiliated authors and/or articles that cited CTSA funding.

b

Evaluation‐only article.

Among the 22 articles that focused on particular phases of the translational research continuum, clinical research (n = 16; 73%) and preclinical research (n = 15; 68%) were most often addressed, followed by implementation science (n = 7; 30%), basic science (n = 5; 22%), and population science (n = 5; 22%). This pattern was observed among both descriptive articles and recommendation articles. About half of these 22 articles focused on the preclinical to clinical transition (n = 10; 45%).

Representation of the NCATS translational science principles in described or recommended E&T content

Nearly all of the articles (40; 91%) included more than one translational science principle in the E&T content they described or recommended (Table 2). Yet, there was wide variation in how frequently each of the seven translational science principles was represented. Two principles were reflected in about three‐quarters of the articles: (a) utilize boundary‐crossing partnerships to advance translation (n = 34; 77%) and (b) leverage cross disciplinary team science (n = 33; 75%). Three principles were reflected in about half of the articles: (a) enhance the efficiency and speed of translational research (n = 24; 55%), (b) prioritize initiatives that address unmet needs (18; 41%), and (c) emphasize creativity and innovation (n = 18; 41%). Finally, two principles were reflected in less than a third of articles: (a) produce cross‐cutting solutions for common and persistent challenges (n = 14; 32%) and (b) engage in evidence‐informed risk taking (n = 3; 7%).

A comparison of the two subsets of articles found that three principles were more strongly represented among recommendations articles compared to descriptive articles: (a) enhance the efficiency and speed of translational research (62% vs. 40%), (b) emphasize creativity and innovation (45% vs. 33%), and (c) produce cross‐cutting solutions for common and persistent challenges (41% vs. 33%). Meanwhile, three other principles were more strongly represented among descriptive articles compared to recommendations articles: (a) utilize boundary‐crossing partnerships to advance translation (80% vs. 76%), (b) leverage cross‐disciplinary team science (80% vs. 72%), and (c) prioritize initiatives that address unmet needs (53% vs. 35%). There was no difference between the two subsets of articles in representation of the principle, engaged in evidence‐informed risk taking (7% for both subsets). Figure S1 depicts the relative representation of each principle in the two subsets of articles.

Included articles also contained one area of content for translational science E&T that was not reflected in the NCATS translational science principles. This was around bringing innovations to market and ultimately into the hands of target populations. It included learning about navigating technology transfer and the patent process; considering regulatory viability and working in a regulatory environment; and assessing commercial viability including market opportunities and projected profit outcomes, as well as desirability to the target populations. 46 , 49 , 52 , 54 , 69 , 72 , 75 , 76

Additional characteristics

About a third of the 44 included articles (n = 15; 34%) focused on incorporating translational science content into E&T opportunities relevant to specific research topics, disciplines, or fields (Table 2). These included: Minority Health/Health Disparities Research (n = 4; 9%), Regenerative Medicine (n = 2, 5%), Behavioral Science (n = 1; 2%), Epidemiology (n = 1, 2%), Immunology (n = 1, 2%), Informatics (n = 1, 2%), Mental Health (n = 1; 2%), Nursing (n = 1, 2%), Precision Medicine (n = 1, 2%), Public Health (n = 1, 2%), and Thoracic Medicine (n = 1, 2%). The remaining 29 articles (66%) addressed translational science in biomedical research E&T broadly. About three‐quarters of the articles (n = 34; 77%) had one or more authors who were affiliated with a CTSA supported institution, and, among these, 25 articles (57%) also cited the CTSA as a funding source.

Articles describing translational science E&T opportunities: educational goals, design characteristics, modalities, participants, adaptations, and evaluations

The 28 (64%) articles that described translational science E&T opportunities reflected educational goals spanning the translational research continuum. Examples are offered in Table 3. As shown in Table 4, most of these 28 articles described opportunities that taught both (a) core biomedical research competencies and (b) competencies for accelerating progress along the translational pipeline (n = 23; 82%), whereas the remaining articles (n = 5; 18%) taught the latter set of competencies only. One‐quarter of the articles (n = 7; 25%) described a degree program (i.e., masters or doctoral degree) or certificate program. The remaining three‐quarters (n = 21; 75%) described a more finite education or training opportunity (e.g., course and workshop). About a third of articles (n = 11; 39%) described in‐person training opportunities, about a third (n = 8; 29%) described in person/online hybrid programs, and another third (n = 9; 32%) did not state whether the opportunities they described were in‐person or online.

TABLE 3.

Examples of education goals across the translational research continuum.

Phase of translational research continuum Example educational goal
Basic research Train researchers to have the necessary knowledge and skills to investigate clinically significant biological questions from a basic science viewpoint
Preclinical research Examine drug discovery and development (D&D) successes and failures to enable students to identify transferrable approaches to improve the drug D&D process
Clinical research Train students in the most rigorous, efficient, and effective clinical research designs and implementation approaches, and facilitate translation of findings into publications, practice, and policy
Implementation science Introduce participants to dissemination and implementation science concepts, strategies, and design principles
Public health research Provide training in cardiovascular disease health disparities research that advances translation across epidemiology, health services research and behavioral sciences
Open in a new tab

TABLE 4.

Descriptive articles: Overarching design characteristics, modalities, and participants.

Overarching design characteristics Modalities Participants
Both Core Research and Acceleration Competencies or Only the Latter a Degree/Certif. Program In Person Only or Hybrid b Includes Evaluation Experiential Learning Course Mentoring Expert Consulting Workshop Seminar Series Other Undergraduates Graduate Students Postdoctoral Fellows Early Career Faculty Established Faculty Community Partners Others Does Not Say
1. Meagher (2011) 52 1 ✓ 3 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
2. Ameredes et al. (2015) 35 1 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
3. Knowlton, et al. (2013) 48 1 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
4. Rose et al. (2017) 61 2 2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
5. Fruchter, et al. (2018) 42 1 ✓ 3 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
6. Greenberg‐Worisek, et al. (2020) 46 2 2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
7. Kurpinski, et al. (2014) 49 1 ✓ 3 ✓ ✓ ✓
8. Loftus, et al. (2015) 51 1 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
9. Petrelli, et al. (2016) 56 1 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
10. Plaksin, et al. (2016) 57 1 3 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
11. Daudelin, et al. (2015) 38 2 2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
12. Santacroce, et al. (2018) 62 1 ✓ 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
13. Morrato, et al. (2015) 53 2 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
14. Proctor, et al. (2013) 58 1 2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
15. Neuhauser, et al. (2007) 55 1 ✓ 1 ✓ ✓ ✓
16. Golden, et al. (2014) 44 1 ✓ 3 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
17. Robinson, et al. (2013) 60 1 2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
18. Byrne et al. (2012) 36 1 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
19. Calhoun et al. (2013) 37 1 3 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
20. DiGiovanni et al. (2011) 39 1 3 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
21. Estape, et al. (2011) 40 1 ✓ 2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
22. Freel et al. (2018) 41 1 3 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
23. Gilliland et al. (2017) 43 1 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
24. Greenberg‐Worisek et al. (2019) 45 1 2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
25. Grinstaff et al. (2018) 47 1 2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
26. Libby et al. (2018) 50 2 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
27. Naar et al. (2018) 54 1 1 ✓ ✓
28. Reiss et al. (2016) 59 1 3 ✓ ✓
Totals N/A 7 (25%) N/A 14 (50%) c 18 (64%) 17 (61%) 12 (43%) 10 (36%) 10 (36%) 6 (21%) 10 (36%) 2 (7%) 19 (68%) 15 (54%) 13 (46%) 8 (29%) 2 (7%) 8 (29%) 1 (4%)
Open in a new tab
a

In this column, 1 signifies that the opportunity teaches both (a) core biomedical research competencies and (b) competencies for accelerating progress along the translational pipeline; 2 signifies that the opportunity teaches competencies only in the latter area.

b

In this column, 1 signifies in‐person only, 2 signifies in‐person/online hybrid, and 3 signifies that the article did not provide this information.

c

A 15th article reported exclusively on the evaluation of a translational science education and training opportunity. 63

Together, these articles described a wide range of teaching modalities, which were used independently (e.g., a course) or in combination (e.g., a workshop along with mentoring and expert consulting). About two‐thirds of articles reported using experiential learning (n = 18; 64%) and/or courses (n = 17; 61%). About a third of the articles reported using mentoring (n = 12; 43%), workshops (n = 10; 36%), and/or expert consulting (n = 10; 36%).

Articles also reported that they made these opportunities available to multiple types of participants across training and career stages. The most reported participants were graduate students (n = 19; 68%), postdoctoral fellows (n = 15; 54%), and early career faculty (n = 13; 46%). The least reported participants were established faculty members (n = 8; 29%), undergraduate students (n = 2; 7%), and community partners (n = 2; 7%). Figures S2 and S3 depict the frequencies of reported modalities and participants.

Four articles reported that the E&T opportunities they described were later adapted. The original E&T opportunities included case study‐based courses that addressed the process by which discoveries move into widely adopted health solutions, 45 an introductory dissemination and implementation science workshop, 53 an implementation research institute providing two years of training to a cohort of fellows, 58 and a graduate training program that integrated translational research competencies into basic science training. 48 Collectively, these opportunities generated 11 adaptations. While each opportunity was adapted at least once in a similar modality, adaptations also innovated on the original format, content, and modality. Adaptations included seminar series, workshops, short‐ and long‐term courses, training tracks comprised of multiple courses, enhancements to an NIH‐supported training program, resource e‐books, and online distribution of training materials. Overall, adaptations expanded access to translational science E&T.

As shown in Table 4, half (n = 14; 50%) of the descriptive articles included information about an evaluation of the E&T opportunity. Another article, by Rios et al., 63 focused on describing the evaluation of an E&T opportunity described in a separate article. 41 Of these 15 articles, two‐thirds (n = 10; 67%) used a post‐experience data collection approach, involving a survey, discussion group, or interviews with participants. 35 , 36 , 45 , 46 , 50 , 56 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 63 Another third (n = 5; 33%) used both pre‐ and post‐experience data collection, including participant surveys and knowledge tests. 39 , 43 , 48 , 53 , 57 Two articles (13%) reported including a comparison group. 35 , 48 Three articles (13%) described using surveys or interviews to solicit evaluation data from faculty, mentors, or expert advisors involved in the E&T opportunity, in addition to students. 36 , 58 , 61 Most of the 15 articles described using descriptive statistics only for analysis (n = 11; 73%) 36 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 53 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 63 ; whereas about a third described using t‐tests, analysis of variance, or other hypothesis testing (n = 4; 27%). 35 , 39 , 48 , 57 Two other analytic approaches were used as well: bibliometric analysis (n = 2; 13%) 48 , 58 and qualitative coding (n = 2; 13%). 39 , 63

Evaluation topics ranged from immediate outcomes and reactions (e.g., satisfaction with the E&T opportunity) to distal outcomes (e.g., publications and funding received). Evaluations also collected recommendations for enhancing the E&T opportunity. Table 5 summarizes these topics and offers examples of the metrics used in these evaluations and frequency and percentage representation of each evaluation topic.

TABLE 5.

Evaluation topics and example metrics from descriptive articles that included evaluations.

Evaluation topics Example metrics used No. of articles percent (%) (n = 15)
Reaction to/ satisfaction with the E&T opportunity 36 , 39 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 53 , 56 , 57 , 60 , 61 , 63

Satisfaction with the course

Value of the E&T opportunity as a whole, or specific components of the opportunity

Extent to which the course met learning objectives

Likelihood to recommend the course

 12 80.0
Impact on professional goals or activities 39 , 43 , 45 , 48 , 50 , 53 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 61 , 63

Interest in pursuing translational research activities/careers

Number of research collaborations across disciplines, for papers and presentations

Number of publications

Number of funding applications and awards

 11 73.3
Acquisition of knowledge, skills, attitudes 35 , 39 , 43 , 46 , 50 , 53 , 56 , 57 , 60

Self‐report increased knowledge in topics conveyed in the E&T opportunity

Self‐report change in attitudes related to translational research

Self‐report acquisition of competencies

 9 60.0
Impact on behaviors 45 , 48 , 50 , 53 , 58 , 61

Self‐efficacy to engage in activities that were taught

Self‐report skill implementation

Self‐report modification to ongoing research activity or plans for future activities

Self‐report development of manuscript informed by E&T opportunity

Self‐report development of grant proposal informed by the E&T opportunity

 6 40.0
Recommendations for enhancing the E&T opportunity 60 , 63 Open‐ended text response 2 13.3
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: E&T, education and training.

Among the five publications that reported pre‐ and post‐experience data collection, findings included increases in knowledge conveyed in the opportunity, as indicated by knowledge tests 43 , 57 and self‐report questions, 39 , 48 , 53 increased interest in research careers, 39 , 48 and implementation of skills that were the focus of the E&T opportunity in one's professional activities (e.g., new self‐directed learning in the topic area, new collaborations, new grant applications, and new papers). 53 The two articles with comparison groups found that following the E&T opportunity, participants had higher levels of competencies related to research design and implementation, 35 were more likely to generate cross‐disciplinary collaborations, 48 were more likely to produce presentations and publications, 48 and were more committed to research careers 48 than those in the comparison group.

Articles offering recommendations to guide future translational science E&T

Fifteen of the included articles offered recommendations to guide future translational science E&T. Recommendations addressed translational science E&T participants, modalities, and content. There was a focus on recommendations for graduate training, with recognition of the need for training undergraduates through faculty members. Overall, these articles recommended use of all the varied modalities reported in the descriptive articles. General themes were around the use of multiple modalities and flexibility to meet individual needs and leverage institutional strengths. Representation of the translational science principles in recommendations for E&T content is included in Table 2.

Four of the 15 recommendations articles (27%) were produced by one or more CTSA key function committees, working groups, or task forces with foci on regulatory science, E&T, and informatics. 21 , 64 , 69 , 74 One of these four articles was co‐authored by a work group of the American Medical Informatics Association. 74 Three of the 15 recommendations articles were produced by other groups and bodies in the United States and internationally: EU‐Life, an alliance of 13 European life sciences research institutions 65 ; the International Society for Stem Cell Research 2009 annual conference Industry Panel participants, 71 and the Evaluation Committee of the Association for Clinical Research Training. 73 The remaining eight articles were produced by co‐authors from academic institutions. 20 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 70 , 72 , 75 , 76 All but two of these 67 , 76 were co‐authored by individuals affiliated with CTSA awarded institutions.

DISCUSSION

Summary and analysis of key findings

This scoping review identified and characterized the peer reviewed literature on E&T opportunities and recommendations specifically related to preparing the biomedical research workforce with competencies for accelerating progress along the translational pipeline. The results provide a bird's eye view of the topics and competencies that are being taught in this emerging area of interest, to whom, and using what modalities.

Overall, our findings show a varied landscape of E&T opportunities for varied learners. Included articles reflected strong recognition in the community of the value of equipping learners situated at varied phases of the translational spectrum with skills for accelerating progress along the translational pipeline. As a group, articles described and recommended E&T content tailored to specific phases of the translational research continuum, and content that addressed the full continuum. Included articles also highlighted the relevance of translational science to advance research across varied topics, disciplines, and fields.

Among the half (n = 22) of the included articles that focused on particular phases of the translational research continuum, many addressed the preclinical to clinical transition (n = 10; 45%). These phases of the continuum are strongly represented in the activities of academic medical centers, where most authors of included articles are located. Yet, the fact that the other half of the included articles (n = 22) addressed the full translational continuum reflects widespread recognition that efforts to advance translational progress are needed all along the translational continuum. This points to the opportunity to enhance discussion of the role of basic science, implementation science, and population science in translational science E&T.

Most of the E&T opportunities characterized in the descriptive articles offered E&T in both core competencies for translational research and competencies for accelerating progress along the translational pipeline within the same offering. This underscores that these areas of knowledge are inextricably linked, and that full preparation of the translational workforce requires a knowledge base in both areas.

The representation of NCATS Translational Science Principles in descriptive and recommendations articles points to areas of strength and areas that could benefit from further development in E&T around accelerating progress along the translational pipeline. The two principles that were most represented in included articles were (a) boundary crossing partnerships and (b) cross‐disciplinary collaboration, reflecting that team science is an area of strength for E&T relevant to accelerating progress along the translational pipeline. The other five principles, which were less represented, point to E&T content areas that could benefit from further development: (a) enhancing the efficiency and speed of translational research, (b) prioritizing initiatives that address unmet needs, (c) emphasizing creativity and innovation, (d) producing cross‐cutting solutions for common and persistent challenges, and (e) engaging in evidence‐informed risk taking. Three principles were more represented among recommendations articles than descriptive articles. These point to topics that may be most ready for immediate expansion in translational science E&T. They are: (a) enhancing the efficiency and speed of translational research, (b) emphasizing creativity and innovation, and (c) producing cross‐cutting solutions for common and persistent challenges.

Turning to participants in translational science E&T, findings document a focus on traditional E&T participants, pointing to the need for expansion and diversification. The review documents that training in accelerating translational progress is being made available to individuals being trained across the phases of the translational continuum. But both descriptive and recommendations articles reflected the longstanding focus of translational science E&T on graduate, postdoctoral, and early career opportunities. These are also the training and career phases where NCATS has historically offered the most support for training and education. 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 Meanwhile, few descriptive articles identified undergraduate students, established faculty members, or community partners as included participants.

These findings highlight the opportunity to expand translational science E&T to reach these groups, as through undergraduate courses, mid‐career training opportunities (e.g., mentoring, consulting, or workshops for faculty members), and E&T avenues for community partners (e.g., seminars and workshops). The field also would benefit from creating training opportunities for individuals with expertise that can advance operational approaches to translation, such as business and management sciences and industrial and organizational psychology, and for research partners, including patient advocates and community representatives. There is also a need to enhance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) in the translational workforce. Increased opportunities to participate in translational science E&T will help to achieve this goal. 23 , 77 , 78

Findings on the modalities used in the included translational science E&T opportunities indicate that educational institutions are leveraging a range of approaches to convey content to learners with a variety of learning styles, across a range of training and career stages. The most reported modalities were typical of graduate education and postgraduate training, namely experiential learning, courses, and mentoring. Other reported modalities point to less time‐intensive approaches, including expert consulting, workshops, and seminar series. These have the potential to engage a wider range of participants. In the academic context, these may include scientists in mid‐ and senior‐career stages and professionals in administrative and operational roles who may wish to obtain training in the context of already busy professional lives. Community partners in research can also benefit from these innovative E&T formats. Moreover, these formats can be tailored to particular needs. For example, expert consulting can be tailored to an individual's particular informational needs or to an ongoing project and can be delivered over a short or extended period of time, whereas workshops can provide in‐depth training in a short time frame. Recommendations articles endorsed the use of multiple modalities as well as flexibility to meet individual needs and leverage institutional strengths. Both shorter‐term (e.g., consulting and workshops) and more time‐intensive opportunities (e.g., experiential learning and certificate and degree programs) are needed within the landscape of opportunities in translational science E&T to reach the broadest possible range of interested participants.

Evaluation is essential to build the evidence base for effective practices in translational science E&T, particularly in emerging areas of E&T like the focus area for this article. Currently, we lack information on effective practices for teaching translational science content to varied audiences, via a range of modalities. Evaluations included in this review offer a range of models for covering the breadth of proximal to distal outcomes of translational science E&T, including variables of interest, metrics, and measures. 79 However, only a handful of these evaluations used pre/post designs or comparison groups, enabling objective assessment of outcomes and impacts. There is a need for widespread adoption of these rigorous evaluation approaches. There is also a need for analysis of outcomes and impacts for subgroups of participants in an E&T opportunity to develop approaches that are effective for the wide range of potential contributors to translational science. Recognizing that resources (e.g., time and staff with evaluation expertise) may be limited for designing and implementing rigorous E&T evaluations, the NCATS Education Branch has published its evaluation designs and instruments (i.e., pre‐ and post‐course student surveys) from its online translational science courses, to enable others to adapt these instruments as useful to them. 80 We strongly encourage others to likewise share their study designs and data collection instruments for evaluation of translational science E&T, to help expand the implementation of rigorous evaluations in this space and produce high quality evaluation data that will enable us to rapidly enhance translational science E&T offerings.

Strengths, limitations, and future research directions

The specific focus of this review meant that a very small set of published articles met the inclusion criteria. This reflects that the topic of the review is an emerging focus for E&T, with the included articles produced by trailblazers in this field. A strength of this review is that it identified these trailblazers among the vast literature on translational science E&T and offers a summary of their work to help stimulate growth in E&T with a specific focus on accelerating translational progress.

Another strength of this review is the rigorous methodology used for literature search and screening. The review had to address the challenge that there were no established key terms that could be used in the database searches to easily identify articles with the focus of interest. Search and screening methodologies were designed to overcome this challenge. While screening articles for inclusion, we came across scores of articles that described rigorous and effective E&T opportunities related to translational research careers. They addressed core research skills, such as selecting a research topic, designing and implementing clinical trials, and conducting biostatistical analyses. These articles also addressed professional skills, such as grant writing and time management. These are critical areas of preparation for the translational workforce but were outside the focus of this review.

The application of the NCATS Translational Science Principles to describe E&T content was another strength, as it highlights current E&T content aligned with NCATS priority areas. Yet, a limitation of this approach is that it did not systematically capture and quantify the prevalence of other areas of E&T content that could be of interest. Open coding enabled this review to identify an area of emphasis in translational science E&T that was not included in the principles used here, namely bringing innovations to market and to the populations that need them. Another key priority area for NCATS is the advancement of DEIA in research. DEIA is essential to achieving the goals of translational science, by ensuring that health solutions produced through our research are relevant to the broad diversity of the population. 77 , 81 Future studies may wish to examine the presence of these themes and others in the literature on translational science E&T.

NCATS views the NCATS Translational Science Principle as a living product that will continue to be refined and expanded to reflect the community's growing understanding of approaches to accelerate progress along the translational pipeline. In fact, one of the seven principles included here – the principle on evidence‐informed risk‐taking – was revised following conduct of the scoping review. Readers can find the updated version in a recent commentary by Faupel‐Badger and colleagues, and on the NCATS Translational Science Principles webpage, which will continue be updated as the principles are further refined. 23 , 25

The major potential limitation of this review is publication bias. It is likely that other E&T opportunities are being offered that are not described in the peer review literature. Other potential limitations are the exclusion of non‐English language articles, and gray literature (e.g., newsletters, websites, and white papers), which may have resulted in omissions. Although a possible limitation was the date range for inclusion, which began in 2005, the distribution of articles across the included dates showed fewer articles in the earlier years of the time window compared to later years, with none published in 2005 or 2006.

A key focus area for future literature reviews on translational science E&T is the potential of online education. The COVID pandemic forced a dramatic shift to online education that generated the unexpected silver lining of wider access to E&T. 80 , 82 Given the date range for this review, included articles gave little attention to the issue of how the E&T opportunities they described leveraged the online environment. However, online education holds great potential for both expanding and diversifying the translational workforce. Formats for online education can range from short online videos, such as brief tutorials, to courses, to robust content for online certificate and degree programs. These varied formats have the potential to create entry points into translational science E&T for a wide range of individuals across disciplinary backgrounds, professional activities, and training and career stages. 83 The online format also has the potential to facilitate sharing of E&T expertise across institutions, enabling broad dissemination of expertise in content, teaching approaches, and E&T evaluations. Future literature reviews will be able to capture the range of ways that online education is being leveraged to deliver translational science knowledge to varied audiences, and the impact of these varied approaches to online education on access to translational science E&T.

CONCLUSIONS

A strong foundation has been built in translational science E&T nationwide, and there is an emerging focus on E&T content with an emphasis on competencies for accelerating progress along the translational pipeline. This scoping review highlights areas of strengths to build upon and opportunities for growth as related to translational science E&T with this focus. Further development and dissemination of related E&T content, expansion of participants and modalities, and rigorous evaluation will contribute to the continued growth and development of a highly qualified, diverse translational science workforce of the future.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

A.L.V. wrote the manuscript. A.L.V., B.M.H., and G.B. designed the research. J.A.D., A.L.V., B.M.H., S.F.H., L.D.A., M.G.H., and J.M.F. performed the research. A.L.V., B.M.H., S.F.H., L.D.A., M.G.H., and J.M.F. analyzed the data.

FUNDING INFORMATION

No funding was received for this work.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declared no competing interests for this work.

Supporting information

Table S1

Click here for additional data file. (63KB, docx)

Table S2

Click here for additional data file. (52.1KB, docx)

Table S3

Click here for additional data file. (57KB, docx)

Figure S1

Click here for additional data file. (84.2KB, docx)

Figure S2

Click here for additional data file. (54.9KB, docx)

Figure S3

Click here for additional data file. (61.3KB, docx)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank NIH Library Informationists Alicia A. Livinski and Christine Caufield‐Noll as well as the NIH Library, Office of Management, NIH Office of the Director for their assistance. The authors also wish to thank the members of the NCATS Translational Science Principles Committee, including Samarjit Patnaik, Eric Sid, Passley Hargrove‐Grimes, Alumit Ishai, Mercedes Rubio, Mayra Lopez, Chris Maurer, and Rebecca Erwin‐Cohen, for their contributions to developing the NCATS Translational Science Principles.

Vogel AL, Haynes BM, Hussain SF, et al. Areas of strength and opportunities for growth in translational science education and training: Results of a scoping review from the NCATS Education Branch. Clin Transl Sci. 2023;16:1526‐1546. doi: 10.1111/cts.13570

REFERENCES

  • 1. Tsevat J, Smyth SS. Training the translational workforce: Expanding beyond translational research to include translational science. J Clin Transl Sci. 2020;4(4):360‐362. doi: 10.1017/cts.2020.31 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Austin CP. Translating translation. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2018;17(7):455‐456. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2018.27 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. NCATS . Tissue chip initiatives and projects. 2022. Accessed August 24, 2022. https://ncats.nih.gov/tissuechip/projects
  • 4. Low LA, Mummery C, Berridge BR, Austin CP, Tagle DA. Organs‐on‐chips: into the next decade. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2021;20(5):345‐361. doi: 10.1038/s41573-020-0079-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Cobb N, Witte E, Cervone M, et al. The SMART IRB platform: A national resource for IRB review for multisite studies. J Clin Transl Sci. 2019;3(4):129‐139. doi: 10.1017/cts.2019.394 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. NCATS . NCATS SMART IRB Platform. 2022. Accessed August 24, 2022. https://ncats.nih.gov/ctsa/projects/smartirb
  • 7. Haendel MA, Chute CG, Bennett TD, et al. The National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C): rationale, design, infrastructure, and deployment. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021;28(3):427‐443. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. NCATS . National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C). Accessed August 24, 2022. https://ncats.nih.gov/n3c
  • 9. Austin CP. Translational misconceptions. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2021;20(7):489‐490. doi: 10.1038/d41573-021-00008-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Sancheznieto F, Sorkness CA, Attia J, et al. Clinical and translational science award T32/TL1 training programs: program goals and mentorship practices. J Clin Transl Sci. 2022;6(1):e13. doi: 10.1017/cts.2021.884 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Sorkness CA, Scholl L, Fair AM, Umans JG. KL2 mentored career development programs at clinical and translational science award hubs: practices and outcomes. J Clin Transl Sci. 2020;4(1):43‐52. doi: 10.1017/cts.2019.424 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Silet KA, Asquith P, Fleming MF. Survey of mentoring programs for KL2 scholars. Clin Transl Sci. 2010;3(6):299‐304. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2010.00237.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. NCATS . PAR‐21‐336. Limited competition: Mentored Research Career Development Program Award in Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program (K12 Clinical Trial Optional). Accessed May 20, 2022. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa‐files/PAR‐21‐336.html
  • 14. NCATS . PAR‐21‐337. Limited competition: Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) Predoctoral Research Training Grant for the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program (T32 Clinical Trial Not Allowed). Accessed May 20, 2022. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa‐files/PAR‐21‐337.html
  • 15. NCATS . PAR‐21‐338. Limited competition: Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) Postdoctoral Research Training Grant for the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program (T32 Clinical Trial Not Allowed). Accessed May 20, 2022. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa‐files/PAR‐21‐338.html
  • 16. NCATS . PAR‐21‐339. Limited Competition: NCATS Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program Research Education Grants Programs (R25–Clinical Trial Not Allowed). Accessed May 20, 2022. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa‐files/PAR‐21‐339.html
  • 17. Meyers FJ, Begg MD, Fleming M, Merchant C. Strengthening the career development of clinical translational scientist trainees: a consensus statement of the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) Research Education and Career Development Committees. Clin Transl Sci. 2012;5(2):132‐137. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00392.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. CTSA Education Core Competency Work Group . Core competencies for clinical and translational research. Accessed May 20, 2022. https://clic‐ctsa.org/education/competencies
  • 19. Pusek S, Knudson B, Tsevat J, et al. Personalized training pathways for translational science trainees: Building on a framework of knowledge, skills, and abilities across the translational science spectrum. J Clin Transl Sci. 2020;4(2):102‐107. doi: 10.1017/cts.2019.445 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Begg MD, Bennett LM, Cicutto L, et al. Graduate education for the future: new models and methods for the clinical and translational workforce. Clin Transl Sci. 2015;8(6):787‐792. doi: 10.1111/cts.12359 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Begg MD, Crumley G, Fair AM, et al. Approaches to preparing young scholars for careers in interdisciplinary team science. J Investig Med. 2014;62(1):14‐25. doi: 10.2310/JIM.0000000000000021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. C‐COMEND . C‐COMEND: Training in Translational Research. Accessed May 20, 2022. https://eatris.eu/projects/c‐comend‐html/
  • 23. Faupel‐Badger JM, Vogel AL, Austin CP, Rutter JL. Advancing translational science education. Clin Transl Sci. 2022;15(11):2555‐2566. doi: 10.1111/cts.13390 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Gilliland CT, White J, Gee B, et al. The fundamental characteristics of a translational scientist. ACS Pharmacol Transl Sci. 2019;2(3):213‐216. doi: 10.1021/acsptsci.9b00022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. NCATS . Translational science principles. Accessed May 20, 2022. https://ncats.nih.gov/training‐education/translational‐science‐principles
  • 26. Zerhouni EA. Clinical research at a crossroads: the NIH roadmap. J Investig Med. 2006;54(4):171‐173. doi: 10.2310/6650.2006.X0016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. NIH Office of Strategic Coordination – The Common Fund . A decade of discovery: The NIH Roadmap and Common Fund. 2014. NIH Pub No. 14‐8013. Accessed July 8, 2023. https://commonfund.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ADecadeofDiscoveryNIHRoadmapCF.pdf
  • 28. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19‐32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119‐2126. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467‐473. doi: 10.7326/m18-0850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Vogel AL, Haynes BM, Hussain SF, et al. NCATS scoping review protocol: translational science education and training. Open Science Framework 2023. doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/D8UC7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 33. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata‐driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377‐381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. NCATS . Translational science spectrum. Accessed July 5, 2022. https://ncats.nih.gov/translation/spectrum
  • 35. Ameredes BT, Hellmich MR, Cestone CM, et al. The Multidisciplinary Translational Team (MTT) model for training and development of translational research investigators. Clin Transl Sci. 2015;8(5):533‐541. doi: 10.1111/cts.12281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Byrne DW, Biaggioni I, Bernard GR, et al. Clinical and translational research studios: a multidisciplinary internal support program. Acad Med. 2012;87(8):1052‐1059. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31825d29d4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Calhoun WJ, Wooten K, Bhavnani S, Anderson KE, Freeman J, Brasier AR. The CTSA as an exemplar framework for developing multidisciplinary translational teams. Clin Transl Sci. 2013;6(1):60‐71. doi: 10.1111/cts.12004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Daudelin DH, Selker HP, Leslie LK. Applying process improvement methods to clinical and translational research: conceptual framework and case examples. Clin Transl Sci. 2015;8(6):779‐786. doi: 10.1111/cts.12326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. DiGiovanni BF, Ward DS, O'Donnell SM, et al. Process of discovery: a fourth‐year translational science course. Med Educ Online. 2011;16(1):1‐6. doi: 10.3402/meo.v16i0.8443 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Estape ES, Segarra B, Baez A, Huertas A, Diaz C, Frontera WR. Shaping a new generation of hispanic clinical and translational researchers addressing minority health and health disparities. P R Health Sci J. 2011;30(4):167‐175. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Freel SA, Fish LJ, Mirman B, Sudan R, Devi GR. Advancement of multidisciplinary education and research in translational sciences: MERITS program development at Duke University. J Clin Transl Sci. 2018;2(1):57‐62. doi: 10.1017/cts.2018.17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Fruchter R, Ahmad M, Pillinger M, Galeano C, Cronstein BN, Gold‐von SG. Teaching targeted drug discovery and development to healthcare professionals. Clin Transl Sci. 2018;11(3):277‐282. doi: 10.1111/cts.12523 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Gilliland CT, Sittampalam GS, Wang PY, Ryan PE. The translational science training program at NIH: introducing early career researchers to the science and operation of translation of basic research to medical interventions. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2017;45(1):13‐24. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20978 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Golden SH, Purnell T, Halbert JP, et al. A community‐engaged cardiovascular health disparities research training curriculum: implementation and preliminary outcomes. Acad Med. 2014;89(10):1348‐1356. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000426 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Greenberg‐Worisek AJ, Campbell KA, Klee EW, et al. Case‐based learning in translational biomedical research education: providing realistic and adaptive skills for early‐career scientists. Acad Med. 2019;94(2):213‐216. doi: 10.1097/acm.0000000000002470 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Greenberg‐Worisek AJ, Cornelius KE, Cumba Garcia L, Enders FT, Shah ND, Windebank AJ. Translating innovation in biomedical research: design and delivery of a competency‐based regulatory science course. J Clin Transl Sci. 2020;4(1):8‐15. doi: 10.1017/cts.2019.432 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Grinstaff MW, Kaplan HM, Kohn J. Predoctoral and postdoctoral training pipeline in translational biomaterials research and regenerative medicine. ACS Biomat Sci Eng. 2018;4(12):3919‐3926. doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.7b00268 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Knowlton AA, Rainwater JA, Chiamvimonvat N, et al. Training the translational research teams of the future: UC Davis‐HHMI integrating medicine into basic science program. Clin Transl Sci. 2013;6(5):339‐346. doi: 10.1111/cts.12068 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Kurpinski K, Johnson T, Kumar S, Desai T, Li S. Mastering translational medicine: interdisciplinary education for a new generation. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(218):218fs2. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3006858 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Libby AM, Ingbar DH, Nearing KA, Moss M, Albino J. Developing senior leadership for clinical and translational science. J Clin Transl Sci. 2018;2(3):124‐128. doi: 10.1017/cts.2018.34 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Loftus PD, Elder CT, D'Ambrosio T, Langell JT. Addressing challenges of training a new generation of clinician‐innovators through an interdisciplinary medical technology design program: Bench‐to‐Bedside. Clin Transl Med. 2015;4:15. doi: 10.1186/s40169-015-0056-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Meagher EA. Training translators in the PENN CTSA. Clin Transl Sci. 2011;4(5):314‐316. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00343.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Morrato EH, Rabin B, Proctor J, et al. Bringing it home: expanding the local reach of dissemination and implementation training via a university‐based workshop. Implement Sci. 2015;10:94. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0281-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Naar S, Czajkowski SM, Spring B. Innovative study designs and methods for optimizing and implementing behavioral interventions to improve health. Health Psychol. 2018;37(12):1081‐1091. doi: 10.1037/hea0000657 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Neuhauser L, Richardson D, Mackenzie S, Minkler M. Advancing transdisciplinary and translational research practice: issues and models of doctoral education in public health. J Res Pract. 2007;3(2):1‐24. [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Petrelli A, Prakken BJ, Rosenblum ND, Fellows E. Developing translational medicine professionals: the Marie Sklodowska‐Curie action model. J Transl Med. 2016;14:329. doi: 10.1186/s12967-016-1088-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Plaksin J, Cymerman RM, Caso RC, Galeano C, Ramasamy R, Gold‐von SG. New York University School of Medicine Drug Development Educational Program: 2‐year benchmark. Clin Transl Sci. 2016;9(5):274‐280. doi: 10.1111/cts.12410 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Proctor EK, Landsverk J, Baumann AA, et al. The implementation research institute: training mental health implementation researchers in the United States. Implement Sci. 2013;8:105. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Reiss TF, Moss J, Watkins TR, Malhotra A. BEAR Cage: mentoring through engagement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(7):714‐716. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201602-0297ED [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Robinson GF, Erlen JA, Rubio DM, Kapoor WN, Poloyac SM. Development, implementation, and evaluation of an interprofessional course in translational research. Clin Transl Sci. 2013;6(1):50‐56. doi: 10.1111/cts.12024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Rose LM, Wills F, Bourassa‐Shaw C, et al. Collaborative academic medical product development: An 8‐year review of commercialization outcomes at the Institute of Translational Health Sciences. J Clin Transl Sci. 2017;1(4):229‐234. doi: 10.1017/cts.2017.13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Santacroce SJ, Leeman J, Song MK. A training program for nurse scientists to promote intervention translation. Nurs Outlook. 2018;66(2):149‐156. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2017.09.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Rios R, Estape E, Diaz C, Segarra B, San MM. Evaluation retreat: a sensible method for program's assessment. In: Chova LG, Martinez AL, Torres IC, eds. Inted2015: 9th International Technology, Education and Development Conference. INTED Proceedings. Iated‐Int Assoc Technology Education a& Development; 2015:7577‐7584. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Adamo JE, Wilhelm EE, Steele SJ. Advancing a vision for regulatory science training. Clin Transl Sci. 2015;8(5):615‐618. doi: 10.1111/cts.12298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Bentires‐Alj M, Rajant A, van Hartedh W, et al. Stimulating translational research: several European life science institutions put their heads together. Trends Mol Med. 2015;21(9):525‐527. doi: 10.1016/j.molmed.2015.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Dilmore TC, Moore DW, Bjork Z. Developing a competency‐based educational structure within clinical and translational science. Clin Transl Sci. 2013;6(2):98‐102. doi: 10.1111/cts.12030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Estapé‐Garrastazu ES, Noboa‐Ramos C, De Jesús‐Ojeda L, De Pedro‐Serbiá Z, Acosta‐Pérez E, Camacho‐Feliciano DM. Clinical and translational research capacity building needs in minority medical and health science hispanic institutions. Clin Transl Sci. 2014;7(5):406‐412. doi: 10.1111/cts.12165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Garbutt J, Antes A, Mozersky J, et al. Validating curricular competencies in innovation and entrepreneurship for biomedical research trainees: A modified Delphi approach. J Clin Transl Sci. 2019;3(4):165‐183. doi: 10.1017/cts.2019.390 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Holbein ME, Berglund JP, O'Reilly EK, et al. Recommendations from the Investigational New Drug/Investigational Device Exemption Task Force of the clInical and Translational Science Award Consortium: developing and implementing a sponsor‐investigators training program. J Investig Med. 2014;62(5):797‐803. doi: 10.2310/jim.0000000000000083 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Lotrecchiano GR, McDonald PL, Corcoran M, Harwood K, Ekmekci O. Learning theory, operative model and challenges in developing a framework for collaborative, translational and implementable doctoral research. In: Chova LG, Martinez AL, Torres IC, eds. Iceri2016: 9th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation. ICERI Proceedings. Iated‐Int Assoc Technology Education & Development; 2016:671‐686. doi: 10.21125/iceri.2016.0116 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Mason C. ISSCR 2009 Industry Panel Session: promoting translation and commercialization. Cell Stem Cell. 2009;5(4):379‐384. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2009.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Moore DW, Dilmore TC, Robinson GF. Advancing knowledge and research: developing a doctoral program in clinical and translational science. Clin Transl Sci. 2011;4(5):359‐362. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00288.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Rubio DM, Schoenbaum EE, Lee LS, et al. Defining translational research: implications for training. Acad Med. 2010;85(3):470‐475. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ccd618 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Valenta AL, Meagher EA, Tachinardi U, Starren J. Core informatics competencies for clinical and translational scientists: what do our customers and collaborators need to know? J Am Med Informatics Association. 2016;23(4):835‐839. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Windle M, Lee HD, Cherng ST, et al. From epidemiologic knowledge to improved health: a vision for translational epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2019;188(12):2049‐2060. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwz085 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Yoon HB, Park DJ, Shin JS, Ahn C. Developing a core competency model for translational medicine curriculum. Korean J Med Educ. 2018;30(3):243‐256. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2018.99 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Hussain SF, Vogel AL, Faupel‐Badger JM, et al. DEIA is essential to advance the goals of translational science: perspectives from NCATS. J Clin Transl Sci. 2022;7(1):e33. doi: 10.1017/cts.2022.482 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Egede LE, Ruiz R, Mosley‐Johnson E, et al. Laying the groundwork to make diversity, equity, and inclusion front and center in clinical and translational research. J Clin Transl Sci. 2023;7(1):e95. doi: 10.1017/cts.2023.524 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79. Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD. Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. 3rd ed. Berrett‐Koehler Publishers; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Vogel AL, Hussain SF, Faupel‐Badger JM. Evaluation of an online case study‐based course in translational science for a broad scientific audience: impacts on students' knowledge, attitudes, planned scientific activities, and career goals. J Clin Transl Sci. 2022;6(1):e82. doi: 10.1017/cts.2022.415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81. Boulware LE, Corbie G, Aguilar‐Gaxiola S, et al. Combating structural inequities–diversity, equity, and inclusion in clinical and translational research. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(3):201‐203. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2112233 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82. Faupel‐Badger JM, Vogel AL, Hussain SF, et al. Teaching principles of translational science to a broad scientific audience using a case study approach: a pilot course from the national center for advancing translational sciences. J Clin Transl Sci. 2022;6:e66. doi: 10.1017/cts.2022.374 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83. NCATS Education Branch . Summary report from the NCATS Translational Science Education Roundtable, March 2022. Accessed July 8, 2023. https://ncats.nih.gov/files/Translational‐Science‐Education‐Roundtable‐Summary_508.pdf
  • 84. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1

Click here for additional data file. (63KB, docx)

Table S2

Click here for additional data file. (52.1KB, docx)

Table S3

Click here for additional data file. (57KB, docx)

Figure S1

Click here for additional data file. (84.2KB, docx)

Figure S2

Click here for additional data file. (54.9KB, docx)

Figure S3

Click here for additional data file. (61.3KB, docx)

Articles from Clinical and Translational Science are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES