Team science training needs and preferences for clinical research professionals
School of Nursing and Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Alabama at Birmingham
How they used Delve
Researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, working with colleagues at Ohio State, Rockefeller, Michigan, Virginia Commonwealth and Cincinnati, used Delve to organize focus group and interview transcripts and surface preliminary patterns in a needs assessment of team science training for 22 clinical research professionals, analyzed with qualitative content analysis.
“AI-assisted tools Delve (delvetool.com) were used in a limited capacity during the early stages of analysis to support data organization and preliminary pattern identification, reflecting emerging approaches that position AI as a tool for augmenting, rather than replacing, human analytic processes [24].”
- Field
- Clinical and translational science workforce development / team science training
- Data
- Three focus groups and two individual interviews with 22 clinical research professionals drawn from 193 survey respondents across seven CTSA institutions
- Approach
- Qualitative content analysis of focus group and interview transcripts combining deductive coding against established team science competencies with inductive emergent coding, alongside a quantitative survey
- Data types
- Focus groups, Interviews, Open-ended survey responses
Abstract
Abstract Background: Clinical research professionals (CRPs) are essential members of clinical translational science teams. Team science (TS) training exists for clinical research investigators and trainees; however, such training has been lacking for CRP staff. We sought to better understand the TS training and learning preferences for CRPs using a survey and focus group mixed methods study to inform future training. Methods: The survey was distributed to CRP institutional networks and to the members of the Association of Clinical Translational Science CRP Taskforce Special Interest Group. Post-survey, focus groups were also conducted with volunteers from the survey to further elucidate CRP TS training preferences, including facilitators and barriers to training. Results: A total of 193 CRPs completed the survey over 7 weeks. Most respondents were clinical research coordinators or clinical research nurses. CRPs responded that TS competencies were important and frequently used in their roles; however, TS training was lacking. Respondents preferred a variety of training modalities such as interactive case studies, webinars, and micro-learning. Qualitative focus group results validated the survey results and provided additional insights into facilitators and barriers to CRP professional development, particularly time constraints for training. Discussion/conclusion: This is the first learning needs assessment focusing on CRP TS learning needs and training preferences. Together with recently published CRP TS competencies, this study sets the stage for focused training development to enhance CRP roles and interdisciplinary TS.
Citation
Carolynn Thomas Jones, Jessica M. Fritter, Bernadette Capili, Nicole Exe, Shirley L.T. Helm, Jacqueline Knapke, Elizabeth Kopras, Jill McCabe, Jack Kues, Meredith B. Fitz-Gerald, Angela Mendell (2026). Team science training needs and preferences for clinical research professionals. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2026.10803