Thematic analysis of interviews with researchers identified six main themes contributing to difficulties in finding available resources and services, leading to targeted mitigation strategies.
Thematic analysis of researcher interviews identified key institutional barriers to research and generated actionable mitigation strategies to improve CTSI program awareness and efficiency.
Objectives/Goals: Addressing institutional barriers for research using multicriteria ranking focusing on a top institutional barrier, difficulties in finding available resources and services to support research, using qualitative analysis technique by identifying, summarizing barriers contributing to this barrier, and recommending improvement strategies. Methods/Study Population: On an annual basis, we surveyed users who utilized CTSI services and resources regarding their level of satisfaction and the degree of various institutional barrier affecting their ability to conduct clinical and translational research. Using Multicriteria Ranking, the top barrier in 2021 and 2022 was difficulties in finding available resources and services to support research. We contacted each one of the consenting respondents who identified it as a top institutional barrier ( n = 26) for interview. Out of 26, 10 individuals consented to be interviewed. We conducted one-on-one interviews following the individualized semi-structured interview methodology. We conducted thematic qualitative analysis to find common barriers and suggested mitigation strategies. Results/Anticipated Results: Using thematic analysis, six main themes were identified that contributed to difficulties in finding available resources and services to support research: Complexity of access and multi-institutional organizational structure, Finding knowledgeable assistance, Time delays, CTSA Hub operational difficulties, Non-CTSA Hub researcher difficulties, and Non-physician researcher difficulties. Once we synthesized and analyzed the themes, we reviewed the data and searched for suggestions researchers made. We identified and linked mitigations to each relevant theme. The mitigations ranged from implementation of concierge and tiered structured costing systems, as well as conducting follow-on process improvement project, and enhancing education. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Implementation of the thematically driven mitigation will increase awareness of CTSI programs and services and reduce a barrier to research, which will increase the speed of research. The use of our approach fosters continuous improvement environment by using mitigation that are based on users’ input, using a structured data-driven approach.
Mitrayani et al. (Wed,) conducted a other in Institutional barriers for research (n=10). Thematic analysis of interviews with researchers identified six main themes contributing to difficulties in finding available resources and services, leading to targeted mitigation strategies.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: