Updating and evaluating a research best practices training course for social and behavioral research professionals

Elias Samuels; Mary R Janevic; Alexandra E Harper; Angela K Lyden; Gina M Jay; Ellen Champagne; Susan L Murphy

doi:10.1017/cts.2023.702

Updating and evaluating a research best practices training course for social and behavioral research professionals

J Clin Transl Sci. 2023 Dec 27;8(1):e12. doi: 10.1017/cts.2023.702. eCollection 2024.

Authors

Elias Samuels¹, Mary R Janevic^{2

3}, Alexandra E Harper³, Angela K Lyden^{1

4}, Gina M Jay³, Ellen Champagne¹, Susan L Murphy^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ Michigan Institute of Clinical and Health Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
² Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
³ Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
⁴ Clinical Trials Support Office, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Abstract

Introduction: The clinical and translational research workforce involved in social and behavioral research (SBR) needs to keep pace with clinical research guidance and regulations. Updated information and a new module on community and stakeholder engagement were added to an existing SBR training course. This article presents evaluation findings of the updated course for the Social and Behavioral Workforce.

Methods and materials: Participants working across one university were recruited. Course completers were sent an online survey to evaluate the training. Some participants were invited to join in a focus group to discuss the application of the training to their work. We performed descriptive statistics and conducted a qualitative analysis on focus group data.

Results: There were 99 participants from diverse backgrounds who completed the survey. Most reported the training was relevant to their work or that of the study teams they worked with. Almost half (46%) indicated they would work differently after participating. Respondents with community or stakeholder engaged research experience vs. those without were more likely to report that the new module was relevant to study teams they worked with (t = 5.61, p = 0.001), and that they would work differently following the training (t = 2.63, p = 0.01). Open-ended survey responses (n = 99) and focus group (n = 12) data showed how participants felt their work would be affected by the training.

Conclusion: The updated course was rated highly, particularly by those whose work was related to the new course content. This course provides an up-to-date resource for the training and development for the Social and Behavioral Workforce.

Keywords: Social and behavioral research; clinical and translational research; community and stakeholder engagement; mixed methods; program evaluation.