ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Building on the Translational Science Benefits Model to include team science: a practical and theory-based approach to continuous quality improvement and impact evaluation for Clinical and Translational Science Award programs.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effectiveness of symptom-oriented mind mapping combined with problem-based learning in critical care clerkships: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in public health · 2025Trial
- Assessing impact on health, health care, and public support: The evolution of a CTSA hub's evaluation and continuous improvement program.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- What Team Science leaders really want: leveraging the knowledge of CTSA-based Team Science leaders to advance the Science of Team Science.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) programs seek to improve the quality and impact of clinical and translational science. CTSA evaluation teams implement structured, evidence-based continuous quality improvement (CQI) processes to enhance activities and outcomes, ultimately benefiting public health. The Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) provides a framework for assessing translational science's health and societal impact, yet additional tools are needed to integrate CQI with impact evaluation. Addressing this gap requires combining CQI methodologies with team science approaches. Building on TSBM, CQI theories (e.g., Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles), and team science principles (e.g., inclusive leadership), we propose a theory-driven, evidence-based logic model to enhance CTSA programs. Using our TL1 Regenerative Medicine Training Program (RMTP) as a case study, we demonstrate its practical application for CTSA evaluation teams. Methods: We conducted a literature review on impact evaluation, CQI, and team science to develop a theory-based approach for CTSA evaluation teams. Using case study methodology, we analyzed RMTP data (2015-2023) through: (a) Interviews with RMTP leaders, mentors, and trainees to explore program implementation and outcomes; (b) Document analysis of program materials, meeting notes, and reports; (c) Bibliometric and policy analysis of publications, citations, and policy documents to assess impact; and (d) Surveys to capture trainees' perspectives on program quality and leadership. This mixed-methods approach provided a comprehensive assessment of RMTP's impact and demonstrated the utility of our team science-based approach to CQI and evaluation. Results: Our sample included RMTP directors ( Discussion: CTSA evaluation teams must integrate CQI and impact evaluation, yet few theory-based approaches exist. Our evaluation and CQI framework merges TSBM, CQI, and team science principles, providing a practical tool for guiding evaluation teams in continuous improvement while maximizing translational science impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.