Table 2:

Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance: Lessons learned for future implementation

Selection criteria	• It was beneficial to include trainees who already obtained a K award as well as those who planned to submit K award. • Participants who had not written a K award reported learning a lot from those who had been awarded one.
Value of diversity	• Participants should intentionally select a balance of participants across gender, race/ethnicity and professions.   “I think it would have been nice to see more women in the peer group… I really appreciated the effort to bring women speakers in who were all highly accomplished.”   “There can also be challenges to the group being multi-disciplinary, including struggling to form productive peer relationship if you are in an ‘underrepresented’ discipline.”
One-on-one time	• Participants wanted to have more one-on-one time with the visiting faculty to build those relationships and get to know them personally
Ongoing evaluations	• Completing a mid-term evaluation after the first year to make any suggested modifications and complete faculty evaluations at the end of each session
Retreat timing (frequency/duration)	• Participants noted that the frequency and duration (3 times/year for a full Friday) was ideal.
Retreat organization	• Participants reported that they appreciated having the first year of sessions designed for them and then taking the lead on developing a full session of programming in the second year.
Timing in tandem with a conference to minimize travel	For those who are traveling for the retreats one suggestion was to hold them in tandem with a national conference and getting the program approved for CMEs.   “At the least, it seems like we could try to get the [geographically local] people together or potentially try to arrange something at meetings such as AGS.”
Participant involvement	• Facilitating more of the speakers to give talks on their current research so that it was clear where points of collaboration may be. • Tapping the resources within the group also enables more of a shared understanding of methods, consistent outcome measurement and methods for measurement that are applicable to all participants. • New ideas include inviting basic scientists to present to broaden perspectives and knowledge about basic scientific principles and how they inform a translational perspective.
Communication between meetings	There are some modifications that were suggested moving forward with the program including more electronic communication between meetings:   “It would be great to continue to have some electronic interaction and way of keeping up with the group as a whole….I know it’s a challenge with people being all over the country and at different institutions to consider something in person.”
Grantsmanship	• Moving forward one suggestion is to focus a retreat topic exclusively on co-writing grants so that more collaborative grants can come from this group.   “It would be really helpful to have opportunities to come together for day-long grant writing or manuscript writing sessions together to carve out time to make that happen.” “I wasn’t in the right stage of my career to write a collaborative R01—I needed to get my first one.”
Addressing barriers	• For individuals, the largest reported barrier to collaboration was balancing that with competing clinical, administrative and research demands.