Participatory needs assessment and action planning for a clinical and translational research network

Abstract

The goal of this study was to assess the utility of participatory needs assessment processes for continuous improvement of developing clinical and translational research (CTR) networks. Our approach expanded on evaluation strategies for CTR networks, centers, and institutes, which often survey stakeholders to identify infrastructure or resource needs, using the case example of the Great Plains IDeA-CTR Network. Our 4-stage approach (i.e., pre-assessment, data collection, implementation of needs assessment derived actions, monitoring of action plan) included a member survey (n = 357) and five subsequent small group sessions (n = 75 participants) to better characterize needs identified in the survey and to provide actionable recommendations. This participatory, mixed-methods needs assessment and strategic action planning process yielded 11 interrelated recommendations. These recommendations were presented to the CTR steering committee as inputs to develop detailed, prioritized action plans. Preliminary evaluation shows progress towards improved program capacity and effectiveness of the network to respond to member needs. The participatory, mixed-methods needs assessment and strategic planning process allowed a wide range of stakeholders to contribute to the development of actionable recommendations for network improvement, in line with the principles of team science.

Researcher Views of Barriers to Clinical and Translational Research in a Statewide Program

“…It is also consistent with the finding by Joly et al, noted in our introduction, that more experienced researchers were more concerned with institutional support and less concerned about lack of time than their inexperienced colleagues (Joly et al, 2020). The needs assessment process in Johnson et al (2020) also pointed to the special role of mentors for their unsuccessful grant applicants. Rather than a one-size-fits-all set of supports for CTR, these findings imply the best design of core services and funding opportunities would target some kinds of support to earlier-stage investigators, especially those from underrepresented groups, while also deploying and advertising other services more beneficial to established researchers.…”

“…Providing what became a model for other similarly funded programs (Estapé-Garrastazu et al, 2014; Johnson et al, 2020; Kataoka-Yahiro et al, 2015; Willey et al, 2018), the Tracking and Evaluation Core of RI Advance-CTR used an innovative participatory approach to conducted an online needs assessment survey at the program’s inception in 2016. At that time, we inquired about the barriers to research experienced by clinical and translational researchers at their individual institutions, the types of services that would be most beneficial, and their preferences for RI Advance-CTR’s services and pilot grant programs.…”

“…Providing what became a model for other similarly funded programs (Estapé-Garrastazu et al, 2014;Johnson et al, 2020;Kataoka-Yahiro et al, 2015;Willey et al, 2018), the Tracking and Evaluation Core of RI Advance-CTR used an innovative participatory approach to conducted an online needs assessment survey at the program's inception in 2016.…”

Enhancing translational team effectiveness: The Wisconsin Interventions in Team Science framework for translating empirically informed strategies into evidence-based interventions

“…Assessing the needs of translational scientists and teams can be achieved using quantitative and qualitative data collected through needs assessments or structured observation. 26 An important component of this phase is convening a group of stakeholders to define and understand the problem space of interest, taking an ecosystem perspective-discovering needs of the priority population (individuals), the teams in which they operate, and the institution/institutional multiteam system that may influence the implementation of the intervention. It is also important in this process is to understand what the team's desired state is; in other words, what will success for this intervention look like, and for whom?…”

“…Table 1 contains a summary of the goals, activities, and process indicators for each phase. To give a better sense for how the framework might play out in developing an intervention, here we also briefly present our development process for adapting the Hall, Vogel, and Crowston Collaboration Planning framework [25] into an intervention (Phase 1 and 2) and how we anticipate translating that into an evidence-based intervention (Phase 3 and 4) [24].…”