Exploring team dynamics during the development of a multi-institutional cross-disciplinary translational team: Implications for potential best practices.

Introduction: A recent literature review revealed no studies that explored teams that used an explicit theoretical framework for multiteam systems in academic settings, such as the increasingly important multi-institutional cross-disciplinary translational team (MCTT) form. We conducted an exploratory 30-interview grounded theory study over two rounds to analyze participants' experiences from three universities who assembled an MCTT in order to pursue a complex grant proposal related to research on post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, also called "long COVID." This article considers activities beginning with preliminary discussions among principal investigators through grant writing and submission, and completion of reviews by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, which resulted in the proposal not being scored. Methods: There were two stages to this interview study with MCTT members: pre-submission, and post-decision. Round one focused on the process of developing structures to collaborate on proposal writing and assembly, whereas round two focused on evaluation of the complete process. A total of 15 participants agreed to be interviewed in each round. Findings: The first round of interviews was conducted prior to submission and explored issues during proposal writing, including (1) importance of the topic; (2) meaning and perception of "team" within the MCTT context; and (3) leadership at different levels of the team. The second round explored best practices-related issues including (1) leadership and design; (2) specific proposal assembly tasks; (3) communication; and (4) critical events. Conclusion: We conclude with suggestions for developing best practices for assembling MCTTs involving multi-institutional teams.

Bootstrapping implementation research training: A successful approach for academic health centers.

Demand for building competencies in implementation research (IR) outstrips supply of training programs, calling for a paradigm shift. We used a bootstrap approach to leverage external resources and create IR capacity through a novel 2-day training for faculty scientists across the four Texas Clinical & Translational Science Awards (CTSAs). The Workshop combined internal and external expertise, targeted nationally established IR competencies, incorporated new National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute OpenAccess online resources, employed well-known adult education principles, and measured impact. CTSA leader buy-in was reflected in financial support. Evaluation showed increased self-reported IR competency; statewide initiatives expanded. The project demonstrated that, even with limited onsite expertise, it was possible to bootstrap resources and build IR capacity de novo in the CTSA community.

Implementing an evidence-based competency model for science team training and evaluation: TeamMAPPS.

INTRODUCTION: In response to a call issued by the National Research Council to investigate the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of effective science teams, we designed a team training program for conducting science in collaborative contexts. METHODS: We reviewed the literature to develop an evidence-based competency model for effective science teams along with exemplary behaviors that can be used for founding team training and evaluation. We discuss the progress of teamwork and team development research that serves as a foundation for this work, as well as previous research involving team-based competencies. RESULTS: Three overarching competencies emerged from the literature as key for science team effectiveness: psychological safety, awareness and exchange, and self-correction and adaptation. These competencies are fully described, including their evidence base. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a competency model and implementation plan for a team training program specific to science teams - TeamMAPPS (Team Methods to Advance Processes and Performance in Science). This paper details steps in the implementation process, including plans for consortia dissemination, evaluation, and future development.

Individual and team competencies in translational teams.

Translational scientists create, advance, and translate knowledge as a result of research, learning, and application. Translational teams are composed of dynamic and diverse interprofessional and cross-disciplinary members that generate new knowledge to address a shared translational objective. The objective involves advancing an interventional product, behavioral intervention, or evidence-based approach to improve human health. This paper focuses on identifying individual and team competencies using a modified Delphi method to reach a consensus on the competencies needed by translational teams (TTs).

Integration of leadership training for graduate and medical students engaged in translational biomedical research: Examining self-efficacy and self-insight.

INTRODUCTION: Formal training in team leadership is not taught in biomedical research graduate training programs or medical schools. METHODS: We piloted a Leadership Training Workshop for graduate biomedical and medical students enrolled in our Interprofessional Research Design Course. RESULTS: The Kane-Baltes self-efficacy survey demonstrated improved leadership skills (median scores pretraining and post-training were 71 and 76.6; paired t-test, p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Most students demonstrated significant improvement in self-awareness pertaining to their own innate leadership styles.

The innovation scorecard for continuous improvement applied to translational science.

INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: The initial evaluation consisted of a series of semi-structured interviews with 22 participants of the ISC Boot Camp conducted in July 2015. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: The report concludes with strategies for future follow-up.

The Multidisciplinary Translational Team (MTT) Model for Training and Development of Translational Research Investigators.

Multiinstitutional research collaborations now form the most rapid and productive project execution structures in the health sciences. Effective adoption of a multidisciplinary team research approach is widely accepted as one mechanism enabling rapid translation of new discoveries into interventions in human health. Although the impact of successful team-based approaches facilitating innovation has been well-documented, its utility for training a new generation of scientists has not been thoroughly investigated. We describe the characteristics of how multidisciplinary translational teams (MTTs) promote career development of translational research scholars through competency building, interprofessional integration, and team-based mentoring approaches. Exploratory longitudinal and outcome assessments from our experience show that MTT membership had a positive effect on the development of translational research competencies, as determined by a self-report survey of 32 scholars. We also observed that all trainees produced a large number of collaborative publications that appeared to be associated with their CTSA association and participation with MTTs. We conclude that the MTT model provides a unique training environment for translational and team-based learning activities, for investigators at early stages of career development.

Evolution of Multidisciplinary Translational Teams (MTTs): Insights for Accelerating Translational Innovations.

There is growing consensus about the factors critical for development and productivity of multidisciplinary teams, but few studies have evaluated their longitudinal changes. We present a longitudinal study of 10 multidisciplinary translational teams (MTTs), based on team process and outcome measures, evaluated before and after 3 years of CTSA collaboration. Using a mixed methods approach, an expert panel of five judges (familiar with the progress of the teams) independently rated team performance based on four process and four outcome measures, and achieved a rating consensus. Although all teams made progress in translational domains, other process and outcome measures were highly variable. The trajectory profiles identified four categories of team performance. Objective bibliometric analysis of CTSA-supported MTTs with positive growth in process scores showed that these teams tended to have enhanced scientific outcomes and published in new scientific domains, indicating the conduct of innovative science. Case exemplars revealed that MTTs that experienced growth in both process and outcome evaluative criteria also experienced greater innovation, defined as publications in different areas of science. Of the eight evaluative criteria, leadership-related behaviors were the most resistant to the interventions introduced. Well-managed MTTs demonstrate objective productivity and facilitate innovation.

Assessing and evaluating multidisciplinary translational teams: a mixed methods approach.

A case report illustrates how multidisciplinary translational teams can be assessed using outcome, process, and developmental types of evaluation using a mixed-methods approach. Types of evaluation appropriate for teams are considered in relation to relevant research questions and assessment methods. Logic models are applied to scientific projects and team development to inform choices between methods within a mixed-methods design. Use of an expert panel is reviewed, culminating in consensus ratings of 11 multidisciplinary teams and a final evaluation within a team-type taxonomy. Based on team maturation and scientific progress, teams were designated as (a) early in development, (b) traditional, (c) process focused, or (d) exemplary. Lessons learned from data reduction, use of mixed methods, and use of expert panels are explored.

Translational Science Project Team Managers: Qualitative Insights and Implications from Current and Previous Postdoctoral Experiences.

The development of leadership and project management skills is increasingly important to the evolution of translational science and team-based endeavors. Team science is dependent upon individuals at various stages in their careers, inclusive of postdocs. Data from case histories, as well as from interviews with current and former postdocs, and those supervising postdocs, indicate six essential tasks required of project managers in multidisciplinary translational teams, along with eight skill-related themes critical to their success. To optimize the opportunities available and to ensure sequential development of team project management skills, a life cycle model for the development of translational team skills is proposed, ranging from graduate trainees, postdocs, assistant professors, and finally to mature scientists. Specific goals, challenges and project management roles and tasks are recommended for each stage for the life cycle.

The CTSA as an exemplar framework for developing multidisciplinary translational teams.

Translational science requires that scientists from multiple disciplines work together to improve the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of human disease. Although a literature exists on the design and management of multidisciplinary teams, little has been written on multidisciplinary translational teams (MTTs). MTTs are distinct hybrid entities, with goals taken from both industry and academic models. We identified 30 design factors in 10 domains from a literature survey relevant to our MTT model: specific goals, structures, and processes. These dimensions were adapted to our own institutional environment in the selection and management of 11 MTTs that exploited resources of University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) Clinical and Translational Sciences Awards (CTSA). Case illustrations of two specific MTTs illustrate some of the challenges encountered and opportunities realized in terms of education and scientific advances. Network depiction of disciplinarity indicated that CTSA KRs and CTSA leadership contributed to discipline diversity especially in small (or nascent) MTTs. A separate depiction of MTT-KR utilization indicated that data analysis, translational technologies, and novel methods were heavily utilized by MTTs, whereas other KRs contributed significant effort to infrastructure development. We conclude that the CTSA can provide a rich infrastructural framework and scientific environment for the development of successful MTTs.

The Culture of Translational Science Research: Participants' Stories.

We apply a symbolic interactionist framework and a qualitative methodology to the examination of the everyday reality of translational science research (TSR). This is a growing scientific movement that aims to facilitate the efficient application of basic research to clinical service design and delivery. We describe the emerging culture of translational research at a mid-size medical center that received a Clinical and Translational Science Award from the National Institutes of Health. The stories related by scientists, clinicians, and students in interviews indicate that they make sense of the emerging inter- and cross-disciplinary, team-oriented culture of TSR through the refinement and redefinition of the significant symbols that inform their work while they attempt to master translational research by addressing the dilemmas it produces for them and their work. We see the strength, currency, adaptability, and energy of the core self-definition of "scientist" to be significant in shaping the emerging culture of translational research. We conclude by celebrating the value of interpretive ethnography for evaluation research.