Trust in biomedical research is essential, multidimensional, and shaped by individual experiences, culture, and communication. Participants’ trust relies on researchers’ commitment to ethical practices. As public trust in science declines due to misinformation and disinformation campaigns, biomedical researchers (BmRs) must ensure trust and cultivate trustworthiness. This study explores BmR’s perspectives on trust and trustworthiness.

We employed a qualitative, phenomenological approach to explore the experiences of BmRs. Through purposive sampling via the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, we invited BmRs to participate in semi-structured interviews. We employed rapid qualitative analysis (RQA) to identify key themes from interviews with BmRs. This action-oriented approach enables a research team to efficiently summarize experiences and perspectives, using structured templates and matrixes for systematic analysis and interpretation.

Fourteen BmRs were interviewed. Volunteer demographics were collected for race/ethnicity, gender, faculty rank, and investigator experience level. The following domains were identified: individual trust and trustworthiness, institutional trustworthiness, and trust and equity as a crucial part of structural and social drivers of health.

We recognize that BmRs are dedicated to health equity and addressing disparities. However, in addition to committing to “best practices,” BmRs should prioritize actions that foster genuine trust from the communities they serve. More development opportunities are needed for reflection of what it means to be trusted by research volunteers and communities. Furthermore, intentions alone aren’t sufficient; earned trust and trustworthiness are vital.

The Rockefeller Clinical Scholars (KL2) program began in 1976 and transitioned into a 3-year Master’s degree program in 2006 when Rockefeller joined the National Institute of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award program. The program consists of ∼15 trainees supported by the Clinical and Translational Science Award KL2 award and University funds. It is designed to provide an optimal environment for junior translational investigators to develop team science and leadership skills by designing and performing a human subjects protocol under the supervision of a distinguished senior investigator mentor and a team of content expert educators. This is complemented by a tutorial focused on important translational skills.

Since 2006, 40 Clinical Scholars have graduated from the programs and gone on to careers in academia (72%), government service (5%), industry (15%), and private medical practice (3%); 2 (5%) remain in training programs; 39/40 remain in translational research careers with 23 National Institute of Health awards totaling $23 million, foundation and philanthropic support of $20.3 million, and foreign government and foundation support of $6 million. They have made wide ranging scientific discoveries and have endeavored to translate those discoveries into improved human health.

The Rockefeller Clinical Scholars (KL2) program provides one model for translational science training.

General Practitioners (GPs) in Australia continue to provide primary medical care for patients enrolled in specialist-led clinical trials (CTs), yet research on GPs’ experiences in this role remains limited. This study explored Australian GPs’ experiences managing CT patients and their perspectives on primary care involvement in clinical research.

This phenomenological study involved 11 semi-structured interviews with GPs in New South Wales, Australia, between July to October 2024, who previously managed patients enrolled in other non-GP subspecialist CTs. The recruitment applied purposive, snowballing and convenience sampling approaches. Interviews were transcribed, inductively coded and thematically analyzed.

Analysis revealed four themes: (i) lack of communication from CT teams, (ii) patients’ insufficient understanding about their CTs, (iii) time and resource barriers to GP involvement in CTs, (iv) varied opinions about GPs playing an active role as researchers in CTs.

This exploratory study highlighted the lack of proper communication gaps between CT teams and GPs, potentially compromising the quality of patient care. Digital health records (such as Australia’s My Health Record) could facilitate information sharing. While GPs support primary care research, barriers include limited research training, time constraints, and inadequate resources. Integrating research education into GP training and establishing practice-based research networks could enhance GP participation in CTs.

Long COVID remains poorly characterized at the genomic level. The primary aim of this study was to examine the relationship between viral sequences and the incidence of Long COVID at a tertiary care center in Louisiana between April 2020 and December 2022. A secondary aim was analysis of the Spike protein to identify conserved regions for multivalent vaccine targets.

To estimate Long COVID incidence across variants, we linked 4789 SARS-CoV-2 sequences to 3090 de-identified patient electronic health record information. The base population was defined as any patient with an International Classification of Diseases-10-Clinical Modification COVID-19 diagnosis code (U07.1) based definitions of Long COVID presentation developed by the N3C consortium.

1,554 patients (1,536 Long COVID-negative) met Long COVID definitions, with 56.3% being female, 36.1% self-reported as African American, 5.5% self-reported as Hispanic/Latino, and 54.5% had received at least one vaccine dose 14 days prior to SARS-CoV-2 collection. Long COVID-positive patients were older (mean age 43.1 years) than negative patients (35.9 years; p = 0.0054) and were more likely to be female (p = 0.0001). Among unvaccinated patients, those with Long COVID were significantly younger than their vaccinated counterparts (p < 0.00001). Long COVID incidence varied by PANGO lineage, ranging between 14% in AY.13 to 67.8% in B.1.1.7. Analysis of spike protein diversity revealed eight conserved amino acid regions (Shannon entropy < 0.43), representing potential targets for vaccine design.

Long COVID rates across thousands of annotated SARS-CoV-2 sequences revealed lineage-specific risk and conserved epitopes for future interventions.

Research participants want to receive results from studies in which they participate. However, health researchers rarely share the results of their studies beyond scientific publication. Little is known about the barriers researchers face in returning study results to participants.

Using a mixed-methods design, health researchers (N = 414) from more than 40 US universities were asked about barriers to providing results to participants. Respondents were recruited from universities with Clinical and Translational Science Award programs and Prevention Research Centers.

Respondents reported the percent of their research where they experienced each of the four barriers to disseminating results to participants: logistical/methodological, financial, systems, and regulatory. A fifth barrier, investigator capacity, emerged from data analysis. Training for research faculty and staff, promotion and tenure incentives, and funding agencies supporting dissemination of results to participants were solutions offered to overcoming barriers.

Study findings add to literature on research dissemination by documenting health researchers’ perceived barriers to sharing study results with participants. Implications for policy and practice suggest that additional resources and training could help reduce dissemination barriers and increase the return of results to participants.

This paper reports on the baseline stage of a qualitative evaluation of the application of the Innovative Scorecard (ISC) to the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) at Galveston. The ISC is adopted from the established Balanced Scorecard system for strategic planning and performance management. In formulating the evaluation, we focused on the organizational identity literature.

The initial evaluation consisted of a series of semi-structured interviews with 22 participants of the ISC Boot Camp conducted in July 2015.

The logic of grounded theory pointed to the clustering of perceptions of the ISC around respondents’ occupational locations at UTMB. Administrators anticipate the expansion of planning activities to include a wider range of participants under the current CTSA award period (2015–2020) than under our first CTSA approval period (2009–2014). A common viewpoint among the senior scientists was that the scientific value of their work will continue to speak for itself without requiring the language of business. Junior scientists looked forward to the ISC’s emphasis on increasingly horizontal leadership that will give them more access to and more control over their work and resources. Postdocs and senior staff welcomed increased involvement in the total research process at UTMB.

The report concludes with strategies for future follow-up.

Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) and Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs) have complementary missions. We replicated a 2008 survey of CTSA-PBRN leaders to understand how organizational relationships have evolved.

We surveyed 60 CTSA community engagement (CE) Directors and 135 PBRN Directors and analyzed data using between and within-group comparisons.

In total, 43% of CTSA CE Directors (26/60) and 42% of PBRN Directors (57/135) responded. Quantitative responses revealed growing alignment between CTSA/PBRN perceptions, with a few areas of discordance. CE Directors noted declining financial support for PBRNs. PBRN Directors identified greater CTSA effectiveness in PBRN engagement, consultation, and collaborative grant submissions. Qualitative data revealed divergent experiences across CTSA/PBRN programs.

Relationships between CTSAs and PBRNs are maturing; for some that means strengthening and for others a growing vulnerability. Findings suggest a mutual opportunity for PBRNs and CTSAs around applied research. Studies to characterize exemplar CTSA-PBRN collaborations are needed.

There is growing evidence for both the need to manage work–life conflict and the opportunity for mentors to advise their mentees on how to do this in an academic research environment.

A multiphase approach was used to develop and implement an evidence-informed training module to help mentors guide their mentees in issues of work–life conflict. Analysis of existing data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a mentor training curriculum (n = 283 mentor/mentee dyads) informed the development of a work–life mentoring module which was incorporated into an established research mentor training curriculum and evaluated by faculty at a single academic medical center.

Only 39% of mentors and 36% of mentees in the RCT indicated high satisfaction with the balance between their personal and professional lives. The majority (75%) of mentors and mentees were sharing personal information as part of the mentoring relationship which was significantly associated with mentees’ ratings of the balance between their personal and professional lives. The effectiveness of the work–life module was assessed by 60 faculty mentors participating in a mentor training program at an academic medical center from 2013 to 2017. Among the respondents to the post-training survey, 82.5% indicated they were very/somewhat comfortable addressing work–life issues with their mentees as a result of the training, with significant improvements (p = 0.001) in self-assessments of mentoring skill in this domain.

Our findings indicate that a structured training approach can significantly improve mentors’ self-reported skills in addressing work–life issues with their mentees.