Cargando…

30718 Evaluating and advancing the CTSA external advisory board: Best practices

ABSTRACT IMPACT: The goal of this evaluation study is to enhance the ability of the External Review Board to advise the CTSA at UTMB how to improve translational science activities. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the work of the External Review Board (EAB) for the Institu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kotarba, Joseph A., Wiseman, Lori, Wooten, Kevin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8827937/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.580
_version_ 1784647750377275392
author Kotarba, Joseph A.
Wiseman, Lori
Wooten, Kevin
author_facet Kotarba, Joseph A.
Wiseman, Lori
Wooten, Kevin
author_sort Kotarba, Joseph A.
collection PubMed
description ABSTRACT IMPACT: The goal of this evaluation study is to enhance the ability of the External Review Board to advise the CTSA at UTMB how to improve translational science activities. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the work of the External Review Board (EAB) for the Institute for Translational Sciences/CTSA at the University of Texas Medical Branch-Galveston. This evaluation is conducted through the perceptions of professional and community board members. The outcome consists of an inventory of best practices. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We collected data by means of semi-structured interviews with all eight member of the EAB. The interviews were conducted via telephone, lasted approximately 30 minutes each, and were audio-recorded with respondents’ permission. Respondents’ identities were held in confidence. The IRB at UTMB reviewed our study. The interviews were transcribed. The data were analyzed by means of an inductively-oriented, grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2006). Emergent themes led to the formation of a series of best practices. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Common concerns included the need for more extensive training for new members; circulation of the agenda before the meeting; and the value of more structured main leadership. The members generally agreed that the breakout groups were valuable because they encouraged them to engage in hands-on responses to practical problems. One of the key epistemological findings was the consensus view that the evaluation of the EAB should be an ongoing project, as opposed to a yearly task. This serious approach to evaluation would be conducive to a process analysis of the EAB, since medical, social, economic, and cultural conditions surrounding and influencing translational science are generally in flux (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic and the various stages in the CTSA grant). Overall, the EAB experience was quite positive for them. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: The strongest sentiment expressed in the interviews was that the CTSA at UTMB should focus and build on its strength--the science of team science--as opposed to any concerted search for weaknesses that the term “evaluation” occasionally implies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8827937
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88279372022-02-28 30718 Evaluating and advancing the CTSA external advisory board: Best practices Kotarba, Joseph A. Wiseman, Lori Wooten, Kevin J Clin Transl Sci Evaluation ABSTRACT IMPACT: The goal of this evaluation study is to enhance the ability of the External Review Board to advise the CTSA at UTMB how to improve translational science activities. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the work of the External Review Board (EAB) for the Institute for Translational Sciences/CTSA at the University of Texas Medical Branch-Galveston. This evaluation is conducted through the perceptions of professional and community board members. The outcome consists of an inventory of best practices. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We collected data by means of semi-structured interviews with all eight member of the EAB. The interviews were conducted via telephone, lasted approximately 30 minutes each, and were audio-recorded with respondents’ permission. Respondents’ identities were held in confidence. The IRB at UTMB reviewed our study. The interviews were transcribed. The data were analyzed by means of an inductively-oriented, grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2006). Emergent themes led to the formation of a series of best practices. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Common concerns included the need for more extensive training for new members; circulation of the agenda before the meeting; and the value of more structured main leadership. The members generally agreed that the breakout groups were valuable because they encouraged them to engage in hands-on responses to practical problems. One of the key epistemological findings was the consensus view that the evaluation of the EAB should be an ongoing project, as opposed to a yearly task. This serious approach to evaluation would be conducive to a process analysis of the EAB, since medical, social, economic, and cultural conditions surrounding and influencing translational science are generally in flux (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic and the various stages in the CTSA grant). Overall, the EAB experience was quite positive for them. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: The strongest sentiment expressed in the interviews was that the CTSA at UTMB should focus and build on its strength--the science of team science--as opposed to any concerted search for weaknesses that the term “evaluation” occasionally implies. Cambridge University Press 2021-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8827937/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.580 Text en © The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Evaluation
Kotarba, Joseph A.
Wiseman, Lori
Wooten, Kevin
30718 Evaluating and advancing the CTSA external advisory board: Best practices
title 30718 Evaluating and advancing the CTSA external advisory board: Best practices
title_full 30718 Evaluating and advancing the CTSA external advisory board: Best practices
title_fullStr 30718 Evaluating and advancing the CTSA external advisory board: Best practices
title_full_unstemmed 30718 Evaluating and advancing the CTSA external advisory board: Best practices
title_short 30718 Evaluating and advancing the CTSA external advisory board: Best practices
title_sort 30718 evaluating and advancing the ctsa external advisory board: best practices
topic Evaluation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8827937/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.580
work_keys_str_mv AT kotarbajosepha 30718evaluatingandadvancingthectsaexternaladvisoryboardbestpractices
AT wisemanlori 30718evaluatingandadvancingthectsaexternaladvisoryboardbestpractices
AT wootenkevin 30718evaluatingandadvancingthectsaexternaladvisoryboardbestpractices