Objectives/Goals: UW-Madison ICTR Collaborative Network (ICON) is a team of research navigators who provide wrap-around services for investigators (e.g. study and recruitment planning). In 2025, an ICON objectives was to consult with newly awarded investigators to expedite their study activities. Methods/Study Population: The ICON team assisted postdoctoral (n=3) and faculty (n=8) investigators awarded 12- or 18-month Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (ICTR) pilot awards beginning in May or July 2025. ICON addressed concerns related to regulatory documentation creation, recruitment and retention, study personnel training, document editing, etc. Ten of 11 investigators consulted with ICON shortly after award onset, with plans for check-ins at the 6- and 12-month mark of their grant. Following the initial consultation, ICON devised an individualized assistance plan for each investigator. Investigators completed multiple surveys regarding their opinion on the usefulness of the service. Results/Anticipated Results: The results of the first survey indicated that three investigators found the ICON service to be highly valuable (highest ranking), overall, the mean value was 4.1 on a 5-point Likert scale. The written feedback from the investigators indicated that the service would have been more useful earlier in the pilot award process, such as prior to submission. The ICON team continues to execute the individualized assistance plan for each investigator and will provide tailored assistance at the 6- and 12-month check-ins to meet the investigator’s needs. We will survey the investigators quarterly for feedback on the usefulness of the service. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Survey feedback indicates the value of the ICON service but suggests that for some the consultation was delayed. The ICON team will continue to check-in with this cohort to determine if further assistance is needed. In the future, ICON will meet with awardees earlier in the application process.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mrotek et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: