Motolani E Ogunsanya, Laura A Beebe, Janis E Campbell, Nicole Holmes, Timothy VanWagoner, Judith James
{"title":"探索俄克拉何马州临床和转化研究的障碍、需求和促进因素:一项连续的混合方法研究。","authors":"Motolani E Ogunsanya, Laura A Beebe, Janis E Campbell, Nicole Holmes, Timothy VanWagoner, Judith James","doi":"10.1017/cts.2025.10066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clinical and translational research (CTR) plays a vital role in improving health outcomes, but its success relies heavily on institutional support, infrastructure, and workforce capacity. This study aimed to explore the barriers, needs, and facilitators to conducting CTR in Oklahoma, highlighting both the strengths and gaps within the research ecosystem.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sequential, descriptive mixed-methods design was employed, combining survey data (<i>n</i> = 164) with four qualitative focus groups (<i>n</i> = 23 total participants). The survey assessed research infrastructure, funding, and workforce needs, while the focus groups explored researchers' lived experiences and institutional challenges. Mixed-methods meta-inference approaches, such as convergence, complementarity, and explanatory integration, were used to identify overlapping and distinct patterns across data strands.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Key barriers included lack of protected research time (23.9%), limited pilot funding (15.3%), and administrative hurdles such as IRB delays. Researchers expressed a strong need for centralized tools to support networking, scientific writing, and data access. Qualitative findings revealed additional needs, such as bridge funding and mentorship, not fully captured in the survey. Facilitators included Oklahoma Shared Clinical and Translational Resources (OSCTR)-supported professional development and mentoring programs, though participants noted a heavy reliance on OSCTR as the primary support source, with few decentralized alternatives.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While CTR infrastructure in Oklahoma has expanded, critical gaps remain in mentorship, data access, and institutional support. To build a more resilient and inclusive research environment, stakeholders should consider investing in decentralized systems, bridge funding, structured mentorship, and collaborative tools tailored to the state's rural, tribal, and academic diversity. These findings may inform policy and strategic planning in Oklahoma and other underserved regions aiming to strengthen CTR capacity.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"e155"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12392360/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring barriers, needs, and facilitators for clinical and translational research in Oklahoma: A sequential mixed-methods study.\",\"authors\":\"Motolani E Ogunsanya, Laura A Beebe, Janis E Campbell, Nicole Holmes, Timothy VanWagoner, Judith James\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cts.2025.10066\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Clinical and translational research (CTR) plays a vital role in improving health outcomes, but its success relies heavily on institutional support, infrastructure, and workforce capacity. This study aimed to explore the barriers, needs, and facilitators to conducting CTR in Oklahoma, highlighting both the strengths and gaps within the research ecosystem.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A sequential, descriptive mixed-methods design was employed, combining survey data (<i>n</i> = 164) with four qualitative focus groups (<i>n</i> = 23 total participants). The survey assessed research infrastructure, funding, and workforce needs, while the focus groups explored researchers' lived experiences and institutional challenges. Mixed-methods meta-inference approaches, such as convergence, complementarity, and explanatory integration, were used to identify overlapping and distinct patterns across data strands.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Key barriers included lack of protected research time (23.9%), limited pilot funding (15.3%), and administrative hurdles such as IRB delays. Researchers expressed a strong need for centralized tools to support networking, scientific writing, and data access. Qualitative findings revealed additional needs, such as bridge funding and mentorship, not fully captured in the survey. Facilitators included Oklahoma Shared Clinical and Translational Resources (OSCTR)-supported professional development and mentoring programs, though participants noted a heavy reliance on OSCTR as the primary support source, with few decentralized alternatives.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While CTR infrastructure in Oklahoma has expanded, critical gaps remain in mentorship, data access, and institutional support. To build a more resilient and inclusive research environment, stakeholders should consider investing in decentralized systems, bridge funding, structured mentorship, and collaborative tools tailored to the state's rural, tribal, and academic diversity. These findings may inform policy and strategic planning in Oklahoma and other underserved regions aiming to strengthen CTR capacity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"e155\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12392360/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.10066\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.10066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Exploring barriers, needs, and facilitators for clinical and translational research in Oklahoma: A sequential mixed-methods study.
Introduction: Clinical and translational research (CTR) plays a vital role in improving health outcomes, but its success relies heavily on institutional support, infrastructure, and workforce capacity. This study aimed to explore the barriers, needs, and facilitators to conducting CTR in Oklahoma, highlighting both the strengths and gaps within the research ecosystem.
Methods: A sequential, descriptive mixed-methods design was employed, combining survey data (n = 164) with four qualitative focus groups (n = 23 total participants). The survey assessed research infrastructure, funding, and workforce needs, while the focus groups explored researchers' lived experiences and institutional challenges. Mixed-methods meta-inference approaches, such as convergence, complementarity, and explanatory integration, were used to identify overlapping and distinct patterns across data strands.
Results: Key barriers included lack of protected research time (23.9%), limited pilot funding (15.3%), and administrative hurdles such as IRB delays. Researchers expressed a strong need for centralized tools to support networking, scientific writing, and data access. Qualitative findings revealed additional needs, such as bridge funding and mentorship, not fully captured in the survey. Facilitators included Oklahoma Shared Clinical and Translational Resources (OSCTR)-supported professional development and mentoring programs, though participants noted a heavy reliance on OSCTR as the primary support source, with few decentralized alternatives.
Conclusions: While CTR infrastructure in Oklahoma has expanded, critical gaps remain in mentorship, data access, and institutional support. To build a more resilient and inclusive research environment, stakeholders should consider investing in decentralized systems, bridge funding, structured mentorship, and collaborative tools tailored to the state's rural, tribal, and academic diversity. These findings may inform policy and strategic planning in Oklahoma and other underserved regions aiming to strengthen CTR capacity.