The CTSA as an exemplar framework for developing multidisciplinary translational teams

Abstract

Translational science requires that scientists from multiple disciplines work together to improve the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of human disease. Although a literature exists on the design and management of multidisciplinary teams, little has been written on multidisciplinary translational teams (MTTs). MTTs are distinct hybrid entities, with goals taken from both industry and academic models. We identified 30 design factors in 10 domains from a literature survey relevant to our MTT model: specific goals, structures, and processes. These dimensions were adapted to our own institutional environment in the selection and management of 11 MTTs that exploited resources of University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) Clinical and Translational Sciences Awards (CTSA). Case illustrations of two specific MTTs illustrate some of the challenges encountered and opportunities realized in terms of education and scientific advances. Network depiction of disciplinarity indicated that CTSA KRs and CTSA leadership contributed to discipline diversity especially in small (or nascent) MTTs. A separate depiction of MTT-KR utilization indicated that data analysis, translational technologies, and novel methods were heavily utilized by MTTs, whereas other KRs contributed significant effort to infrastructure development. We conclude that the CTSA can provide a rich infrastructural framework and scientific environment for the development of successful MTTs.

Figure 1

Dynamics of MTT‐network collaborations. Shown is an illustration of the dynamic relationship between MTT and network collaborators. (A) external universities; (B) external research centers; (C) independent research labs; (D) pharmaceutical companies; (E) governmental agencies, (F) CTSA clinical research support‐bio‐repositories, biostatistics, clinical research units, etc.

Figure 2

Developmental stages of MTTs. Shown are the major proposed stages of development for MTTs.

Figure 3

Disciplinarity in MTTs. Shown is a bipartite network of 11 translational teams and 119 members. The nodes were laid out using the Kamada Kawai algorithm suitable for mid‐sized networks in the range of 100 nodes. The algorithm pushes together nodes that share many connections, and pushes apart nodes that do not, resulting in a layout that approximates the relationship between nodes.

Figure 4

Development phases of a CTSA Translational Project. Shown are typical Key Resource needs for distinct stages of an MTT‐CTSA collaborative project.

Figure 5

CTSA Key Resource Utilization by MTTs. Shown is a bipartite network of 11 MTTs and 10 Key Resources. The size of the KR nodes is proportional to the total time spent with each MTT (shown by the thickness of the edges connecting each MTT and KR), plus the total time spent for general activities such as infrastructure building that are useful across MTTs. The Clinical Research Center Key Resource, heavily used by one MTT, obscured the network analysis and was excluded from the visualization.