150 Envisioning a Multi-Site Translational Studio to Promote Scientific Integrity and Ethical Innovation
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The goal of this study is to develop a multi-centered Translational Studio model that can help in the development of quality translational studies using resources from four different institutional partners (University of Texas Medical Branch, Texas Southern University, University o...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2024-04-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Clinical and Translational Science |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2059866124001468/type/journal_article |
| _version_ | 1827296070398377984 |
|---|---|
| author | Emma Tumilty Elise Smith Alison Zill Veronica Ajewole Omonike A. Olaleye Ivy Poon Mary Short Kathy Vincent |
| author_facet | Emma Tumilty Elise Smith Alison Zill Veronica Ajewole Omonike A. Olaleye Ivy Poon Mary Short Kathy Vincent |
| author_sort | Emma Tumilty |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The goal of this study is to develop a multi-centered Translational Studio model that can help in the development of quality translational studies using resources from four different institutional partners (University of Texas Medical Branch, Texas Southern University, University of Houston Clear Lake and Houston Methodist). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted two rounds of four Futures Workshops for a total participation of 28 stakeholders from four different partners. Future Workshops were used to critique, envision, and articulate novel “futures” that can be achieved at least partly through design practices (Muller, 2002). In the first round of workshops, we asked participants about their institutions’ strengths, weaknesses, resources and investigator needs regarding the Studio. In the second round we asked about different studio models, pros and cons of each model and guiding principles for a studio. Alongside a pragmatic content analysis, multi-stage deductive and inductive qualitative analyses were used to understand people’s views on the future of a multi-institutional Clinical Trials Studio. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The first-round workshops’ analysis described peoples’ goals for what the studio should be. The future desired studio was described as guide, matchmaker, initiator and advocate. The second-round workshops’ analysis discussed the pros and cons of a variety of possible models including, centralized, decentralized, and topic-specific (and allowed other suggestions) while also describing principles for the guidance of a studio. Here the analysis showed people wanted certain characteristics for the studio (i.e. effective, efficient, locally-responsive, consistent, etc.). They also prescribed four principles that a studio should be guided by: non-hierarchical partnership, user-centeredness, respect/collegiality, and sharing. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The future workshops were useful in developing a shared multi-institutional Clinical Trials Studio model that is planned to be deployed in 2025. Participants valued a studio that was both directly supportive to participants and played a role in creating or advocating for institutional resources and policy for research. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T14:32:57Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-200f2474517046108d5d01733efd8c07 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2059-8661 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T14:32:57Z |
| publishDate | 2024-04-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Clinical and Translational Science |
| spelling | doaj.art-200f2474517046108d5d01733efd8c072024-04-03T01:59:55ZengCambridge University PressJournal of Clinical and Translational Science2059-86612024-04-018454510.1017/cts.2024.146150 Envisioning a Multi-Site Translational Studio to Promote Scientific Integrity and Ethical InnovationEmma Tumilty0Elise Smith1Alison Zill2Veronica Ajewole3Omonike A. Olaleye4Ivy Poon5Mary Short6Kathy Vincent7Department of Bioethics and Health Humanities & Institute for Translational Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB)Department of Bioethics and Health Humanities & Institute for Translational Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB)John Sealy School of Medicine, UTMB Victoria McNamara, Institute for Translational Sciences, University of Texas Medical BranchDepartment of Pharmacology and Practice, Texas Southern UniversityDepartment of Pharmacology and Practice, Texas Southern UniversityDepartment of Pharmacology and Practice, Texas Southern UniversityDepartment of Clinical Psychology, College of Human Sciences and Humanities, University of Houston Clear LakeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Medical BranchOBJECTIVES/GOALS: The goal of this study is to develop a multi-centered Translational Studio model that can help in the development of quality translational studies using resources from four different institutional partners (University of Texas Medical Branch, Texas Southern University, University of Houston Clear Lake and Houston Methodist). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted two rounds of four Futures Workshops for a total participation of 28 stakeholders from four different partners. Future Workshops were used to critique, envision, and articulate novel “futures” that can be achieved at least partly through design practices (Muller, 2002). In the first round of workshops, we asked participants about their institutions’ strengths, weaknesses, resources and investigator needs regarding the Studio. In the second round we asked about different studio models, pros and cons of each model and guiding principles for a studio. Alongside a pragmatic content analysis, multi-stage deductive and inductive qualitative analyses were used to understand people’s views on the future of a multi-institutional Clinical Trials Studio. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The first-round workshops’ analysis described peoples’ goals for what the studio should be. The future desired studio was described as guide, matchmaker, initiator and advocate. The second-round workshops’ analysis discussed the pros and cons of a variety of possible models including, centralized, decentralized, and topic-specific (and allowed other suggestions) while also describing principles for the guidance of a studio. Here the analysis showed people wanted certain characteristics for the studio (i.e. effective, efficient, locally-responsive, consistent, etc.). They also prescribed four principles that a studio should be guided by: non-hierarchical partnership, user-centeredness, respect/collegiality, and sharing. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The future workshops were useful in developing a shared multi-institutional Clinical Trials Studio model that is planned to be deployed in 2025. Participants valued a studio that was both directly supportive to participants and played a role in creating or advocating for institutional resources and policy for research.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2059866124001468/type/journal_article |
| spellingShingle | Emma Tumilty Elise Smith Alison Zill Veronica Ajewole Omonike A. Olaleye Ivy Poon Mary Short Kathy Vincent 150 Envisioning a Multi-Site Translational Studio to Promote Scientific Integrity and Ethical Innovation Journal of Clinical and Translational Science |
| title | 150 Envisioning a Multi-Site Translational Studio to Promote Scientific Integrity and Ethical Innovation |
| title_full | 150 Envisioning a Multi-Site Translational Studio to Promote Scientific Integrity and Ethical Innovation |
| title_fullStr | 150 Envisioning a Multi-Site Translational Studio to Promote Scientific Integrity and Ethical Innovation |
| title_full_unstemmed | 150 Envisioning a Multi-Site Translational Studio to Promote Scientific Integrity and Ethical Innovation |
| title_short | 150 Envisioning a Multi-Site Translational Studio to Promote Scientific Integrity and Ethical Innovation |
| title_sort | 150 envisioning a multi site translational studio to promote scientific integrity and ethical innovation |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2059866124001468/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT emmatumilty 150envisioningamultisitetranslationalstudiotopromotescientificintegrityandethicalinnovation AT elisesmith 150envisioningamultisitetranslationalstudiotopromotescientificintegrityandethicalinnovation AT alisonzill 150envisioningamultisitetranslationalstudiotopromotescientificintegrityandethicalinnovation AT veronicaajewole 150envisioningamultisitetranslationalstudiotopromotescientificintegrityandethicalinnovation AT omonikeaolaleye 150envisioningamultisitetranslationalstudiotopromotescientificintegrityandethicalinnovation AT ivypoon 150envisioningamultisitetranslationalstudiotopromotescientificintegrityandethicalinnovation AT maryshort 150envisioningamultisitetranslationalstudiotopromotescientificintegrityandethicalinnovation AT kathyvincent 150envisioningamultisitetranslationalstudiotopromotescientificintegrityandethicalinnovation |