Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) | NIH |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Conduct and evaluate the impact of two week-long Innovation Labs on collaboration attitudes and behavior among early career scholars. Applicants to each Innovation Lab will be screened and then randomized to either the Innovation Lab group or a control group.
Building on the science of team science and preliminary work at the Buffalo and Vanderbilt CTSAs, the investigators worked with industry partner Knowinnovation to implement, assess, and disseminate an innovative and promising method for stimulating and nurturing new transdisciplinary research teams across the CTSA Program consortium: Innovation Labs. The study focused on early career investigators. The study took a translational science approach to identify and test "best practices". To accomplish this, the study critically evaluated the impact of Innovation Labs in two preliminary randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In collaboration with NCATs and broad input from the CTSA network, the investigators developed a clinical and translational research grand challenge focus for each Innovation Lab. A diverse applicant pool of early career investigators invited from every CTSA hub in the consortium was reviewed, and top applicants were randomized to a 5-day residential Innovation Lab or "treatment as usual" control group. Measures of process and outcome were collected from the application phase through 12-month follow-up and aggregated across the two RCTs. Given the preliminary nature of the work and an emerging consensus regarding the science of team science, primary outcomes were measures of the depth and breadth of participants collaborative networks and attitudes towards collaboration, which were predicted to be enhanced in the Innovation Lab group compared to the treatment as usual control group. Initial data on the degree to which Innovation Labs resulted in increased transdisciplinary collaborative output were also examined.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Innovation Lab Group | Experimental | Randomized to attend the Innovation Lab |
|
| Control Group | No Intervention | Randomized to NOT attend the Innovation Lab |
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Innovation Lab | Behavioral | An Innovation Lab is a facilitated 5-day residential event designed to create novel, transdisciplinary and potentially transformative research ideas and proposals to address a specific grand challenge. Participants, along with a director, organizers, subject matter guides, and KI facilitators communally explore the problem space, generate a broad range of ideas, and form transdisciplinary teams to pursue research projects. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| MATRICx Collaboration Benefits/Motivators Scale | Self-report: The Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx; Mallinson, Lotrecchiano, et al., 2016) benefits scale includes 17 items that tap into perceived motivators/benefits of collaboration. Each is rated on a 1-4 scale. Scale scores were computed as the mean of all 17 items, for a benefits scale score ranging from 1-4, with higher scores indicating greater collaboration readiness. | 15 months |
| MATRICx Collaboration Barriers/Threats Scale | Self-report: The Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx; Mallinson, Lotrecchiano, et al., 2016) Threats Scale includes 31 barriers to -- or threats of -- collaboration. Each is rated on a 1-4 scale. Scale scores were computed as the mean of all 31 items, for a Barriers/Threats scale score ranging from 1-4, with lower scores indicating greater collaboration readiness. | 15 months |
| Transdisciplinary Orientation Scale | Self-report: The Transdisciplinary Orientation scale (TDO; Misra, Stokols, & Cheng, 2015) is a 12-item scale that measures values, attitudes, and beliefs, and conceptual skills and behaviors, that assesses the degree to which participants are oriented towards transdisciplinary collaboration. Items are rated on a five-point scale (1="Strongly Disagree," 5="Strongly Agree"). The total score is the mean of all 12 items, with a resulting 1-5 range, in which higher scores indicate greater transdisciplinary collaboration orientation. | 15 months |
| Collaboration Network Size | Objective number of collaborators from published articles on PubMed | 36 Months (18-monts pre- and post-treatment, after excluding articles published within +/-3 months of the Innovation Lab) |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Self-Reported Number of Grants Submitted Per Year | Self-Reported Number of Grants Submitted per Year. For the post-treatment period, the number of grants submitted at 6- and 12-M follow-up were summed. To make the pre-treatment period (which covered only 9 months) comparable to the post-treatment period, the number of grants at baseline and EOT were summed, divided by 9, and then multiplied by 12. Participants who did not report the number of grants submitted were coded as zero for the ITT analysis. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University at Buffalo | Buffalo | New York | 14260 | United States |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 38384923 | Result | Hawk LW Jr, Murphy TF, Hartmann KE, Burnett A, Maguin E. A randomized controlled trial of a team science intervention to enhance collaboration readiness and behavior among early career scholars in the Clinical and Translational Science Award network. J Clin Transl Sci. 2023 Dec 14;8(1):e6. doi: 10.1017/cts.2023.692. eCollection 2024. |
Not provided
Not provided
Each application was rated by 2-4 raters on a 1-4 scale for bringing diverse expertise to the Innovation Lab topic and fit for the Innovation Lab approach. Applicants with consistently poor scores (~≤2) were excluded from RCT participation.
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Innovation Lab Group | Randomized to attend the Innovation Lab Innovation Lab: An Innovation Lab is a facilitated 5-day residential event designed to create novel, transdisciplinary and potentially transformative research ideas and proposals to address a specific grand challenge. Participants, along with a director, organizers, subject matter guides, and KI facilitators communally explore the problem space, generate a broad range of ideas, and form transdisciplinary teams to pursue research projects. |
| FG001 | Control Group | Randomized to NOT attend the Innovation Lab |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Innovation Lab Group | Randomized to attend the Innovation Lab Innovation Lab: An Innovation Lab is a facilitated 5-day residential event designed to create novel, transdisciplinary and potentially transformative research ideas and proposals to address a specific grand challenge. Participants, along with a director, organizers, subject matter guides, and KI facilitators communally explore the problem space, generate a broad range of ideas, and form transdisciplinary teams to pursue research projects. |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Mean |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | MATRICx Collaboration Benefits/Motivators Scale | Self-report: The Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx; Mallinson, Lotrecchiano, et al., 2016) benefits scale includes 17 items that tap into perceived motivators/benefits of collaboration. Each is rated on a 1-4 scale. Scale scores were computed as the mean of all 17 items, for a benefits scale score ranging from 1-4, with higher scores indicating greater collaboration readiness. | Differing number of participants responded at different assessment points. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | Score on a scale | 15 months |
|
1 year
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Innovation Lab Group | Randomized to attend the Innovation Lab Innovation Lab: An Innovation Lab is a facilitated 5-day residential event designed to create novel, transdisciplinary and potentially transformative research ideas and proposals to address a specific grand challenge. Participants, along with a director, organizers, subject matter guides, and KI facilitators communally explore the problem space, generate a broad range of ideas, and form transdisciplinary teams to pursue research projects. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Larry Hawk | University at Buffalo | 716-645-0192 | lhawk@buffalo.edu |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP | Yes | Yes | No | Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan | Jun 22, 2018 | Sep 8, 2025 | Prot_SAP_000.pdf |
| ICF | No | No | Yes | Informed Consent Form | Feb 13, 2019 | Sep 8, 2025 | ICF_001.pdf |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D001519 | Behavior |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| 21 months (9 months pre-treatment [obtained at baseline and EOT]; 12 months post-treatment [obtained at 6- and 12-month follow-up]) |
| ILab Met Goal - New Collab | The Innovation Lab group was asked to rate the degree to which "The Lab met the goal of forming new transdisciplinary collaborations", answering on a 6-point scale (0 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree"), with higher scores indicating a beneficial effect of the Innovation Lab. | 12 months (End of Treatment [3 months post-baseline], 6-Month Follow-Up [9 months post-baseline], and 12-Month Follow-Up [15 months post-baseline]) |
| ILab Met Goal - Novel Proposals | The Innovation Lab group was asked to rate the degree to which "The Lab met the goal of developing novel grant proposals", answering on a 6-point scale (0 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree"), with higher scores indicating a beneficial effect of the Innovation Lab. | 12 months (End of Treatment [3 months post-baseline], 6-Month Follow-Up [9 months post-baseline], and 12-Month Follow-Up [15 months post-baseline]) |
| ILab - Recommend | The Innovation Lab group was asked to rate the degree to which "I would recommend an Innovation Lab to a colleague", answering on a 6-point scale (0 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree"), with higher scores indicating a beneficial effect of the Innovation Lab. | 12 months (End of Treatment [3 months post-baseline], 6-Month Follow-Up [9 months post-baseline], and 12-Month Follow-Up [15 months post-baseline]) |
| ILab - Positive Impact | The Innovation Lab group was asked to rate the degree to which "My experience in the Innovation Lab will have a positive impact on my work at my home institution", answering on a 6-point scale (0 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree"), with higher scores indicating a beneficial effect of the Innovation Lab. | 12 months (End of Treatment [3 months post-baseline], 6-Month Follow-Up [9 months post-baseline], and 12-Month Follow-Up [15 months post-baseline]) |
| BG001 | Control Group | Randomized to NOT attend the Innovation Lab |
| BG002 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | One participant in the Innovation Lab group did not disclose their sex. | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Region of Enrollment | Number | participants |
|
| OG001 | Control Group | Randomized to NOT attend the Innovation Lab |
|
|
| Primary | MATRICx Collaboration Barriers/Threats Scale | Self-report: The Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx; Mallinson, Lotrecchiano, et al., 2016) Threats Scale includes 31 barriers to -- or threats of -- collaboration. Each is rated on a 1-4 scale. Scale scores were computed as the mean of all 31 items, for a Barriers/Threats scale score ranging from 1-4, with lower scores indicating greater collaboration readiness. | Differing number of participants responded at different assessment points. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | Score on a scale | 15 months |
|
|
|
| Primary | Transdisciplinary Orientation Scale | Self-report: The Transdisciplinary Orientation scale (TDO; Misra, Stokols, & Cheng, 2015) is a 12-item scale that measures values, attitudes, and beliefs, and conceptual skills and behaviors, that assesses the degree to which participants are oriented towards transdisciplinary collaboration. Items are rated on a five-point scale (1="Strongly Disagree," 5="Strongly Agree"). The total score is the mean of all 12 items, with a resulting 1-5 range, in which higher scores indicate greater transdisciplinary collaboration orientation. | Differing number of participants responded at different assessment points. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | Score on a scale | 15 months |
|
|
|
| Primary | Collaboration Network Size | Objective number of collaborators from published articles on PubMed | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | Unique Collaborators | 36 Months (18-monts pre- and post-treatment, after excluding articles published within +/-3 months of the Innovation Lab) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Self-Reported Number of Grants Submitted Per Year | Self-Reported Number of Grants Submitted per Year. For the post-treatment period, the number of grants submitted at 6- and 12-M follow-up were summed. To make the pre-treatment period (which covered only 9 months) comparable to the post-treatment period, the number of grants at baseline and EOT were summed, divided by 9, and then multiplied by 12. Participants who did not report the number of grants submitted were coded as zero for the ITT analysis. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | Grants per year | 21 months (9 months pre-treatment [obtained at baseline and EOT]; 12 months post-treatment [obtained at 6- and 12-month follow-up]) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | ILab Met Goal - New Collab | The Innovation Lab group was asked to rate the degree to which "The Lab met the goal of forming new transdisciplinary collaborations", answering on a 6-point scale (0 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree"), with higher scores indicating a beneficial effect of the Innovation Lab. | Differing number of participants responded at different assessment points. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Score on a scale | 12 months (End of Treatment [3 months post-baseline], 6-Month Follow-Up [9 months post-baseline], and 12-Month Follow-Up [15 months post-baseline]) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | ILab Met Goal - Novel Proposals | The Innovation Lab group was asked to rate the degree to which "The Lab met the goal of developing novel grant proposals", answering on a 6-point scale (0 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree"), with higher scores indicating a beneficial effect of the Innovation Lab. | Differing number of participants responded at different assessment points. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Score on a scale | 12 months (End of Treatment [3 months post-baseline], 6-Month Follow-Up [9 months post-baseline], and 12-Month Follow-Up [15 months post-baseline]) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | ILab - Recommend | The Innovation Lab group was asked to rate the degree to which "I would recommend an Innovation Lab to a colleague", answering on a 6-point scale (0 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree"), with higher scores indicating a beneficial effect of the Innovation Lab. | Differing number of participants responded at different assessment points. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Score on a scale | 12 months (End of Treatment [3 months post-baseline], 6-Month Follow-Up [9 months post-baseline], and 12-Month Follow-Up [15 months post-baseline]) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | ILab - Positive Impact | The Innovation Lab group was asked to rate the degree to which "My experience in the Innovation Lab will have a positive impact on my work at my home institution", answering on a 6-point scale (0 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree"), with higher scores indicating a beneficial effect of the Innovation Lab. | Differing number of participants responded at different assessment points. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Score on a scale | 12 months (End of Treatment [3 months post-baseline], 6-Month Follow-Up [9 months post-baseline], and 12-Month Follow-Up [15 months post-baseline]) |
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 47 |
| 0 |
| 47 |
| 0 |
| 47 |
| EG001 | Control Group | Randomized to NOT attend the Innovation Lab | 0 | 47 | 0 | 47 | 0 | 47 |
Not provided
Not provided
| Unknown or Not Reported |
|
| Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
|
| Black or African American |
|
| White |
|
| More than one race |
|
| Unknown or Not Reported |
|
| End of Treatment (Month 3) |
|
|
| 6-Month Follow-Up (Month 9) |
|
|
| 12-Month Follow-Up (Month 15) |
|
|
| End of Treatment (Month 3) |
|
|
| 6-Month Follow-Up (Month 9) |
|
|
| 12-month Follow-Up (Month 15) |
|
|
|
| 12-Month Follow-Up |
|
|
|
| 12-Month Follow-Up |
|
|
|
| 12-Month Follow-Up |
|
|
|
| 12-Month Follow-Up |
|
|