PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 9, 2026Journal of Clinical and Translational Science0 citationsOpen Access

487 Collaboration Planning & Research Jams: Evaluating feasibility, usability, and effectiveness of implementing Team Science interventions across 13 CTSA hubs

BRBetsy RollandSVShruthi VenkateshELElizabeth LaPensee

Key Points

  • The aim is to evaluate the feasibility, usability, and effectiveness of Team Science interventions in Clinical and Translational Research settings.
  • Implemented two evidence-informed interventions: Collaboration Planning and Research Jams across 13 CTSA hubs.
  • Collected pre-/post-implementation survey data on feasibility and usability, and post-training satisfaction.
  • Facilitators received training in delivering the interventions.
  • Implementers found the interventions feasible and usable, despite challenges such as leadership buy-in and scheduling conflicts.
  • Collaboration Planning participants reported increased understanding of team processes, deeming it valuable.
  • Research Jams participants found sessions helpful for idea generation and requested more resources to sustain progress.

Abstract

Objectives/Goals: Team Science is an essential element of Clinical and Translational Research (CTR), and a Translational Science Principle key for generating innovation. As CTSA hubs work to improve the practice of CTR through Translational Science, many seek evidence-based interventions from the field of the Science of Team Science to make teamwork more impactful. Methods/Study Population: Two evidence-informed Team Science interventions were offered to CTSA hubs for implementation and evaluation: Collaboration Planning 12 implemented at least one session by the end of the project. Four CTSAs signed up to implement Research Jams; all implemented at least one session. Implementers, CTSA-based Team Science leaders, received training in intervention delivery. We collected pre-/post-implementation survey data on feasibility and usability of the interventions, as well as post-training satisfaction. We also collected post-implementation data to capture implementers’ experience in delivering the interventions. Further, participants in each intervention were surveyed about their experience. Results/Anticipated Results: Implementers agreed that the interventions were feasible and usable, while sharing challenges they encountered. Key challenges included limited buy-in from leadership and teams and the need for better marketing about the benefits of participation to increase uptake. Scheduling busy researchers was also a challenge. Implementers noted that the interventions aligned with their CTSA’s Team Science goals and would help them provide additional support to teams. CP participants reported increases in understanding about their team processes and found the intervention to be both valuable and useful. Suggested improvements included longer, more personalized sessions. RJ participants agreed that RJs were helpful in surfacing shared ideas and requested additional resources to move the work forward post-session. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Team Science interventions can provide CTR teams with strategies that improve the conduct of CTR, while also serving the needs of CTSA-based Team Science leaders in facilitating more efficient and effective Team Science. Our data show the feasibility of implementing such interventions by providing training delivering team-based interventions.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Rolland et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fed0e2b9154b0b82877f10https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2026.10619
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper