4.6 Article

Clinical and Translational Research Studios: A Multidisciplinary Internal Support Program

Journal

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
Volume 87, Issue 8, Pages 1052-1059

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31825d29d4

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health [1 UL1 RR024975]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research implemented the Studio Program in 2007 to bring together experts to provide free, structured, project-specific feedback for medical researchers. Studios are a series of integrated, dynamic, and interactive roundtable discussions that bring relevant research experts from diverse academic disciplines together to focus on a specific research project at a specific stage. Vanderbilt's Clinical and Translational Science Award supports the program, which is designed to improve the quality and impact of biomedical research. In this article, the authors describe the program's design, and they provide an evaluation of its first four years. After an investigator completes a brief online Studio application, a Studio manager reviews the request, assembles a panel of three to six experts (research faculty from multiple disciplines), and circulates the pre-review materials electronically. Investigators can request one of seven Studio formats: hypothesis generation, study design, grant review, implementation, analysis and interpretation, manuscript review, or translation. A Studio moderator leads each Studio session, managing the time (90 minutes) and discussion to optimize the usefulness of the session for the investigator. Feedback from the 157 Studio sessions in the first four years has been overwhelmingly positive. Investigators have indicated that their Studios have improved the quality of their science (99%; 121/122 responses), and experts have reported that the Studios have been a valuable use of their time (98%; 398/406 responses).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available