Early-stage clinical and translational researchers require not only technical expertise but also leadership and communication skills for long-term success. Many training programs lack structured approaches to building these essential “soft skills.”

To evaluate the impact and perceived value of a structured coaching and leadership program for trainees in KL2 and T32 programs.

This qualitative evaluation assessed a Coaching and Leadership Program (CLP) that include individualized coaching and group workshops incorporating leadership development and the DISC behavioral communication model (Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, and Conscientiousness). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twelve KL2 and postdoctoral T32 trainees between July and August 2025. Transcripts were analyzed using descriptive content analysis and inductive coding by two analysts in MAXQDA.

Five key themes emerged: 1) Both T and K trainees consistently described the CLP as a broadly positive and beneficial experience; 2) Coaching helped trainees build concrete organizational strategies, particularly around time management and logistical processes; 3) The CLP helped build trainees’ confidence and professional identity, especially around communication with mentors, bosses, or their team; 4) The CLP was perceived as complementary and well integrated within KL2 and T32 training, particularly by addressing “soft skills” missing elsewhere; and 5) Participants recommended stronger orientation, more opportunities for practical skill-building during sessions, and offering greater variety and choice in coaches.

The CLP complements scientific training for early-career translational researchers. Trainees gained practical tools for team management, conflict resolution, and strategic planning, while benefiting from a confidential space for professional growth. Findings suggest coaching is a valuable enhancement to training programs for developing translational research leaders.

One in five children who undergo cardiac surgery report experiencing moderate to severe pain lasting more than 3 months after surgery which has a significant impact on quality of life. iCanCope with PostOperative Pain (“iCanCope POP”) is a smartphone app that provides adolescents with evidence-based strategies to manage postoperative pain. The goal of this study was to explore the unique needs and pain-management experiences of youth undergoing cardiac surgery to inform the development of a tailored iteration of iCanCope POP.

A descriptive qualitative design using semi-structured interviews and focus groups was conducted with adolescents ages 12–18 who had received cardiac surgery, caregivers of youth undergoing cardiac surgery, and interdisciplinary healthcare providers (HCPs). Qualitative data were inductively and deductively coded using a content analysis approach to outline participants’ pain management experiences and perspectives on the iCanCope POP app.

14 interviews and 1 focus group were completed with 6 children, 6 parents, and 12 HCPs (n = 24 participants). Content analysis resulted in 3 key categories: 1. Riding the rollercoaster of the surgical journey (e.g., ups and downs of pre- and post-operative phases); 2. Postoperative pain experience (e.g., tubes, technologies, and devices; pain management strategies); and 3. App feedback (e.g., usefulness, appropriateness, suggested modifications).

Participants reported significant challenges during the perioperative pediatric cardiac surgery journey and identified potential opportunities for a tailored mobile self-management app to improve their surgical experience. Future research should use these perspectives to inform a new iteration of the iCanCope POP app for youth undergoing cardiac surgery.

During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH) partnered with 31 community-based organizations (CBOs) to implement contact tracing to identify and manage potential COVID-19 infection cases in the city of Chicago.

To evaluate the performance of the COVID-19 contact tracing, we utilized data between September 16, 2020, and December 31, 2021. Contact tracers collected data through phone interviews with potentially affected individuals. The level of initiation, timeliness, and completion of the contact tracing process were examined.

A total of 38,086 unique individuals were included in the analysis. Compared to White contacts, Blacks were more likely to refuse contact tracing, and Hispanics were less likely to be contacted within 7 days of exposure. Community areas with a greater number of contact tracing cases had a lower proportion of call completion.

There was significant difficulty conducting contact tracing in the early months of COVID-19 due to the high volume of infected individuals. Contact tracing efforts were less successful among racial/ethnic minority residents despite the city’s efforts to hire and train community members as contact tracers by engaging a wide range of CBOs. Preparedness plans for future pandemic events will benefit from strategies to improve community response to surveillance programs.

The Community Engagement (CE) Studio is an established approach for integrating community and patient perspectives into research. Despite its widespread implementation, little information is available about how this model has been adapted across institutions to accommodate varying resources and capacities.

The Patient and Community Engagement in Research (PaCER) Program at UNC-Chapel Hill modified the CE Studio model – with adaptations to recruitment, onboarding, virtual delivery, compensation, and session planning – resulting in the development of a new Community Feedback Session (CFS) service. This adaptation yielded a scalable model that requires fewer resources, supports capacity-building within research teams, and leverages technology. We then evaluated the CFS approach via surveys distributed to CFS attendees and researchers.

Between January 2022 and August 2025, we conducted 46 CFSs across 19 projects engaging 302 attendees; 149 attendees and 34 researchers completed evaluation surveys. Of these, 99% of attendees indicated they would participate again, and 97% of researchers rated the CFS service as Good or Excellent and recommended it to colleagues. Respondents appreciated the structure, facilitation, composition, and size of the sessions, and many had no suggestions for improvement. Researchers described changes they made to projects based on feedback received during CFSs, including amending study protocols, altering intervention content and delivery modalities, and revising a variety of study-related materials.

Evaluation data support the acceptability, feasibility, and utility of the CFS approach, indicating that this modified and scalable service accomplishes researcher goals, informs research in an impactful way, and provides value to partners.

Participants in NIH-funded multicenter clinical trial received the compound opposite to the randomization intention. We report the problem, subsequent root cause analysis (RCA) and corrective and preventative action (CAPA).

The RCA was independently facilitated to identify study-level causes of the problem. Results were reviewed by institutional research administration leaders to identify institution-level causes and formulate corresponding CAPA. Both culminated in consensus.

The resulting causal chain consisted of two physical causes, two study-level system causes, and two institution-level system causes for which two institution-level CAPAs were formulated by institutional leadership. The CAPAs established institutional procedures for independent verification of critical processes, their specification, and their planned control on high-risk studies.

Lack of study-level procedural infrastructure jeopardized a multicenter study led by our institution. Lack of institutional infrastructure supporting identification of critical study processes, risks to them, and appropriate controls enabled the problem to occur. Studies conducted in settings lacking institutional or study-level procedural infrastructure are susceptible to similar problems. Adding the needed institutional processes to support identification of critical study processes, risks to them, and appropriate controls required reprioritizing existing resources.

There are growing efforts to recruit and retain individuals from various populations in clinical trials to increase trial representativeness. Nonetheless, these challenges can hamper the development of clinical trials, contributing to increased inequities. This study explored the barriers and facilitators of participating in a mobile health trial designed to improve blood pressure (BP) among Blacks with uncontrolled hypertension from underserved communities.

Participants were recruited from a larger mHealth clinical trial, MI-BP, across emergency departments, mobile health units, and community-based settings. We conducted an explanatory sequential mixed methods design to quantitatively examine participants’ experiences with the MI-BP trial including satisfaction and reasons for dropping out. The qualitative semi-structured interviews expanded on participant experiences based on the quantitative results. Quantitative and qualitative results were integrated to provide a more comprehensive understanding.

Fifty-two participants completed the survey and a subset of 22 were interviewed. There were no statistically significant differences on reasons for joining the MI-BP study regardless of study completion. Participants were generally motivated to learn about ways to improve their BP, with many noting positive experiences, including completers and non-completers. Some who dropped out indicated meeting their goal of lowering their BP. Despite a robust consent process, some in the non-completer group reported not understanding certain components of the study compared to the completer group. Additional barriers included concerns over adverse effects and missing worktime.

Findings illuminate the barriers and facilitators participants encountered in the MI-BP trial and provides considerations for reducing barriers among this population.

Asynchronous online courses are plagued with the challenge of engaging students consistently. Behavioral interventions, such as bottlenecks (enforced deadlines) and nudges (automated reminders), may modulate behaviors that lead to engagement and can now be easily applied and measured in a Learning Management System (LMS).

This study included three groups of three asynchronous online courses each over three academic quarters. Two distinct behavioral interventions, bottlenecks and nudges, were implemented to increase engagement with the course compared to non-intervention controls.

The results showed that behavioral intervention tools increase student engagement with course materials by measures of increased student access to the course and reduced time to quiz completion. However, there was no significant impact in grades across the three groups.

The use of nudges and bottlenecks as behavioral interventions to increase engagement in asynchronous courses for Clinical and Translational Science Education is recommended as part of best practice in course design with the same or similar structure.

In preparing for our Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) UM1 application, we recognized the need to develop a shared understanding of the distinctions between translational science (TS) and translational research (TR). We describe our efforts to develop and evaluate the reliability of a concise instrument that investigators and reviewers could use to distinguish between TS and TR.

Groups of faculty and staff individually reviewed published translational studies to determine whether the project involved TS and, separately, TR. One group (n = 10) first reviewed 14 publications with limited guidance; the same group and a second group (n = 9) then reviewed another set of 14 publications guided by a detailed algorithm. We used kappa statistics to measure agreement in the determinations of TS and TR for each publication.

The overall kappa coefficients in the three sets of TS determinations (two by the first group and one by the second group) were 0.61, 0.33, and 0.18, respectively. The overall kappa coefficients in the three sets of TR determinations were 0.26, 0.11, and 0.40, respectively. The median kappa coefficients for all 42 determinations were 0.39 for TS and 0.22 for TR, both indicating only fair agreement. We found no evidence that the algorithm helped to improve agreement rates.

Our results show gaps in understanding the distinction between TS and TR among CTSA hub faculty and staff. We discuss some reasons for this gap and propose ways that could improve the recognition of TS and TR.