临床和转化研究评估者的元评价实践。

IF 2 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2025-08-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1017/cts.2025.10121
Sue Giancola, John F Stevenson, Ingrid Philibert
{"title":"临床和转化研究评估者的元评价实践。","authors":"Sue Giancola, John F Stevenson, Ingrid Philibert","doi":"10.1017/cts.2025.10121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Institutional Development Award (IDeA) program was created to build capacity and enhance research in states with historically low levels of NIH funding. IDeA Clinical and Translational Research (CTR) networks are focused on building statewide and regional capacity to conduct biomedical research. The tracking and evaluation component of each CTR is tasked with collecting data to facilitate continuous improvement and measure impact.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This paper presents findings from a survey conducted with IDeA-CTR evaluators examining the following questions: 1) To what extent do evaluators use meta-evaluative practices and how does meta-evaluation inform their evaluation? and 2) What challenges evaluators face in their evaluation planning and implementation?</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings show that 50% of CTRs conducted some form of meta-evaluation. Further, quantitative and qualitative responses tell a compelling story of the challenges in translational research evaluation. The most prominent were the development of feasible and useful data management systems, the selection and endorsement of program-wide impact metrics, and the promulgation of realistic expectations regarding feasibility and utility for recipients of the evaluation, including expectations for project impacts that lead to systemic change.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings suggest the importance of internally adopting a participatory, collaborative approach to evaluation and externally sharing insights with and adopting strategies from fellow evaluators within a learning community. This study promotes the value of conducting meta-evaluation in CTR settings, demonstrates means for and results from doing so, and shares best practices for addressing challenges encountered by many CTR evaluators.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"e193"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12444698/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-evaluative practices of Clinical and Translational Research evaluators.\",\"authors\":\"Sue Giancola, John F Stevenson, Ingrid Philibert\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cts.2025.10121\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Institutional Development Award (IDeA) program was created to build capacity and enhance research in states with historically low levels of NIH funding. IDeA Clinical and Translational Research (CTR) networks are focused on building statewide and regional capacity to conduct biomedical research. The tracking and evaluation component of each CTR is tasked with collecting data to facilitate continuous improvement and measure impact.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This paper presents findings from a survey conducted with IDeA-CTR evaluators examining the following questions: 1) To what extent do evaluators use meta-evaluative practices and how does meta-evaluation inform their evaluation? and 2) What challenges evaluators face in their evaluation planning and implementation?</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings show that 50% of CTRs conducted some form of meta-evaluation. Further, quantitative and qualitative responses tell a compelling story of the challenges in translational research evaluation. The most prominent were the development of feasible and useful data management systems, the selection and endorsement of program-wide impact metrics, and the promulgation of realistic expectations regarding feasibility and utility for recipients of the evaluation, including expectations for project impacts that lead to systemic change.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings suggest the importance of internally adopting a participatory, collaborative approach to evaluation and externally sharing insights with and adopting strategies from fellow evaluators within a learning community. This study promotes the value of conducting meta-evaluation in CTR settings, demonstrates means for and results from doing so, and shares best practices for addressing challenges encountered by many CTR evaluators.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"e193\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12444698/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.2025.10121\",\"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.2025.10121","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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)机构发展奖(IDeA)项目的设立是为了在历史上NIH资助水平较低的州建立能力和加强研究。IDeA临床和转化研究(CTR)网络的重点是建立全州和区域开展生物医学研究的能力。每个CTR的跟踪和评估部分的任务是收集数据,以促进持续改进和衡量影响。方法:本文介绍了对IDeA-CTR评估者进行的调查结果,研究了以下问题:1)评估者在多大程度上使用元评估实践,元评估如何为他们的评估提供信息?2)评估人员在评估计划和实施中面临哪些挑战?结果:研究结果显示,50%的CTRs进行了某种形式的元评价。此外,定量和定性的回应讲述了转化研究评估中挑战的引人注目的故事。最突出的是开发可行和有用的数据管理系统,选择和认可项目范围内的影响指标,以及公布对评估接受者的可行性和效用的现实期望,包括对导致系统变化的项目影响的期望。结论:研究结果表明,在内部采用参与性、合作性的方法进行评估,在外部与学习社区内的其他评估人员分享见解并采用策略是非常重要的。本研究促进了在点击率设置中进行元评估的价值,展示了这样做的方法和结果,并分享了解决许多点击率评估者遇到的挑战的最佳实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Meta-evaluative practices of Clinical and Translational Research evaluators.

Meta-evaluative practices of Clinical and Translational Research evaluators.

Meta-evaluative practices of Clinical and Translational Research evaluators.

Meta-evaluative practices of Clinical and Translational Research evaluators.

Introduction: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Institutional Development Award (IDeA) program was created to build capacity and enhance research in states with historically low levels of NIH funding. IDeA Clinical and Translational Research (CTR) networks are focused on building statewide and regional capacity to conduct biomedical research. The tracking and evaluation component of each CTR is tasked with collecting data to facilitate continuous improvement and measure impact.

Methods: This paper presents findings from a survey conducted with IDeA-CTR evaluators examining the following questions: 1) To what extent do evaluators use meta-evaluative practices and how does meta-evaluation inform their evaluation? and 2) What challenges evaluators face in their evaluation planning and implementation?

Results: Findings show that 50% of CTRs conducted some form of meta-evaluation. Further, quantitative and qualitative responses tell a compelling story of the challenges in translational research evaluation. The most prominent were the development of feasible and useful data management systems, the selection and endorsement of program-wide impact metrics, and the promulgation of realistic expectations regarding feasibility and utility for recipients of the evaluation, including expectations for project impacts that lead to systemic change.

Conclusions: Findings suggest the importance of internally adopting a participatory, collaborative approach to evaluation and externally sharing insights with and adopting strategies from fellow evaluators within a learning community. This study promotes the value of conducting meta-evaluation in CTR settings, demonstrates means for and results from doing so, and shares best practices for addressing challenges encountered by many CTR evaluators.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
26.90%
发文量
437
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信