fastPACE Train-the-Trainer: A scalable new educational program to accelerate training in biomedical innovation, entrepreneurship, and commercialization.

INTRODUCTION: The Institute of Medicine recommended the advance of innovation and entrepreneurship training programs within the Clinical & Translational Science Award (CTSA) program; however, there remains a gap in adoption by CTSA institutes. The University of Michigan's Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research and Fast Forward Medical Innovation (FFMI) partnered to develop a pilot program designed to teach CTSA hubs how to implement innovation and entrepreneurship programs at their home institutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The program provided a 2-day onsite training experience combined with observation of an ongoing course focused on providing biomedical innovation, commercialization and entrepreneurial training to a medical academician audience (FFMI fastPACE). RESULTS: All 9 participating CTSA institutes reported a greater connection to biomedical research commercialization resources. Six launched their own version of the FFMI fastPACE course or modified existing programs. Two reported greater collaboration with their technology transfer offices. CONCLUSION: The FFMI fastPACE course and training program may be suitable for CTSA hubs looking to enhance innovation and entrepreneurship within their institutions and across their innovation ecosystems.

Strengthening community involvement in grant review: insights from the Community-University Research Partnership (CURES) pilot review process.

In 2007, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR) at the University of Michigan received a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). Within MICHR, the Community Engagement (CE) program supports partnership efforts between researchers, practitioners, and community-based organizations in specific focal communities throughout Michigan. A key component of the CE program is the Community Engagement Coordinating Council, a group that provides input and guidance on program priorities, strategic planning, and reviews pilot funding proposals for community-academic partnerships. This paper will describe a unique MICHR pilot funding mechanism for Community-University Research Partnerships (CURES) with an emphasis on the ways that community partners are involved in the review process, as well as the benefits, challenges, and insights gained over 5 years of pilot review. There is a growing need for community involvement and expertise in review of funding proposals for community-engaged research at both institutional and federal levels. The CURES pilot review process is one example of an institutional effort to engage community partners in university funding decisions and has demonstrated clear benefit toward accomplishing the aims of the CTSA.

Use of computer modeling for emergency preparedness functions by local and state health officials: a needs assessment.

The authors, collaborating from several public health institutes, present the methodology, results, and lessons learned from a multistate needs assessment of local and state public health and safety officials regarding their familiarity and use of formal computer modeling for preparedness activities. The study was undertaken to provide information to the newly formed Preparedness Modeling Unit within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The focus was on the use of sophisticated mathematical models associated with three public health threats: pandemic influenza, radiologic release, and severe heat waves. The use of computer modeling and scenario-based analyses can be used to better frame problems and opportunities, integrate data sources, expect outcomes, and improve multistakeholder decision making. The results of the eight state needs assessment demonstrated that preparedness officials are familiar with models and would use computer modeling as a tool, along with other tools and general experiences, depending upon the perceived quality and validity of the model and the assumptions, as well as the applicability, of the model to their particular setting and population. More needs to be done to improve awareness and dissemination of available models and share best practices in both knowledge and use of models. Use of preparedness modeling would enhance the planning for vulnerable and at-risk populations, all-hazard emergencies and infectious disease containment strategies, as well as for response functions including evacuation, sheltering, quarantine, and distribution of medications and supplies.