Lessons learned in evaluating the infrastructure of a Centre for Translational Research
| Author | Ralph Renger,Jessica Renger,Jirina Foltysova,Marc D Basson,Eric Souvannasacd,Gary Hart,Rick Van Eck |
| Published date | 01 March 2020 |
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X20909910 |
| Subject Matter | Practice Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X20909910
Evaluation Journal of Australasia
2020, Vol. 20(1) 6 –22
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1035719X20909910
journals.sagepub.com/home/evj
Lessons learned in
evaluating the
infrastructure of a
Centre for
Translational Research
Ralph Renger
JUST Evaluation Services, USA
Marc D Basson, Gary Hart, Rick Van
Eck, Eric Souvannasacd
University of North Dakota, USA
Jessica Renger
Claremont Graduate University, USA
Jirina Foltysova
Walden University, USA
Abstract
This article shares lessons learned while evaluating the implementation of a Clinical
and Translational Research Centre (CTR). To meet its overarching goals, the
CTR consists of numerous research support units (e.g., biostatistics, community
engagement, professional development) that are intended to work together
collaboratively. It is then argued that an evaluation approach grounded in system
thinking was the best fit to evaluate this key CTR design feature. The rationale for
selecting systems evaluation theory (SET) as the evaluation framework best suited
to evaluate the CTR infrastructure is then presented. The application of SET and the
lessons learned are then shared. This article concludes that there are many similarly
Corresponding author:
Ralph Renger, JUST Evaluation Services, LLC, 14777 E. Circle M Ranch Pl, Vail, AZ, 85641, USA.
Email: ralph@justevaluation.com
909910EVJ0010.1177/1035719X20909910Evaluation Journal of AustralasiaRenger et al.
research-article2020
Practice Article
Renger et al. 7
structured programmes worldwide to which the lessons learned can be applied and
upfront investments in using a system approach are rewarded by providing meaningful
and useful evaluation recommendations for system change.
Keywords
evaluation, logic models, systems evaluation theory, systems thinking
This article shares lessons learned while evaluating the implementation of a Clinical
and Translational Research Centre (CTR) funded by the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS) National Institutes of Health (NIH). According to the NIH
(2017), CTR funding is primarily intended to ‘. . . enhance the competitiveness of the
CTR trained investigators [in the CTR] to obtain additional funding for clinical and
translational research’ (p. 2). To meet this goal, the NIH mandates that each CTR
develops a supporting infrastructure comprised of several key component activities
(KCAs), or cores, including (1) Professional Development; (2) Biostatistics,
Epidemiology and Research Design; (3) Community Engagement and Outreach;
(4) Pilots Programme (i.e., studies with the potential to grow into independent research
programmes); (5) Administration (overall CTR leadership and organization as well as
such activities as purchase and sharing of lab equipment across CTR collaborating
institutions) and (6) Tracking and Evaluation (TAE).
The Dakota Cancer Collaborative on Translational Research (DaCCoTA) concen-
trates on advancing cancer research in rural populations as well as American Indians
and other minorities. The DaCCoTA CTR organizational structure is shown in
Figure 1. The CTR organizational structure mirrors that of many government-funded
initiatives worldwide. The Australian health infrastructure grants (https://www.nhmrc.
gov.au/research-policy/research-translation/recognised-health-research-andtranslation-
centres), the Canadian National Research Council Collaboration and Research Centers
(https://nrc.canada.ca/en/research-development/research-collaboration/), the Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Germany (https://www.giz.de/
en/worldwide/germany.html) and initiatives in the United Kingdom, including (https://
mrc.ukri.org/research/initiatives/) and (https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/part-rel/
ahsn/) are examples of where governments provide infrastructure funding to support
the coordination of research support units. Thus, it is our hope the lessons learned and
shared here are of utility to evaluators worldwide.
In addition to providing clinical and translational researchers with the support neces-
sary to achieve independent funding, all CTRs have a second overarching goal to
move projects along the translational research continuum (see Figure 2; Institute for
Clinical and Translational Research [ICTR], 2019; Rubio et al., 2010).
The exact organizational structure of other CTRs may vary slightly, and some CTRs
add ‘optional KCAs’. However, CTRs generally have similar educational and service
objectives that include professional development and mentorship, familiarity with
principles of clinical and translational research, an understanding of ethnic cancer dis-
parities related to CTR geography and behaviour, creation of a system by which
To continue reading
Request your trial