The DE-CTR partners appreciate the critical importance of evaluating the process and outcomes in each of the key Core and other program areas (KCAs) described in this proposal and in the DE-CTR as a whole. This includes process evaluation, both ofthe design and implementation and outcome evaluation ofthe products and effectiveness in each area. Even more important, evaluation requires assessing the consequences of collaborative efforts across the areas, beginning with increased communication and leading to changes in how decisions are made and resources shared. Since translational science is a dynamic and non-recursive process in T1 and T2 and ultimately T3 and T4 processes, evaluation has a critical role in (1) determining that these translation processes do in fact occur, (2) providing formative feedback to inform midcourse corrections, (3) providing summary results that demonstrate effects, and (4) disseminating findings among the DE-CTR partner institutions and more generally to the health services community. To fulfill this role, the Evaluation Core will involve all the DE-CTR partners in Delaware and South Carolina in a dynamic and participatory fashion, providing formative feedback to the other KCAs and the Steering and Advisory Committees throughout the course ofthe DE-CTR. Finally, the Evaluation Core will provide all ofthe grant-required summative feedback. The Evaluation Core recognizes that its evaluation program will be shaped by collaborative efforts with our South Carolina CTSA partners (SCTR), Delaware community partners, and other regional and national CTSA and IDeA-CTR programs;by cooperation with NIH's national evaluators;and by participation in plans for evaluating the IDeA-CTR grants nationally. Therefore, this proposal describes an evaluation plan that will evolve iteratively as the DE-CTR collaborative develops and will continue to monitor progress beyond the CTR grant.

Agency
National Institute of Health (NIH)
Institute
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
Type
Specialized Center--Cooperative Agreements (U54)
Project #
5U54GM104941-02
Application #
8741979
Study Section
Special Emphasis Panel (ZGM1-TWD-C)
Project Start
Project End
Budget Start
2014-06-01
Budget End
2015-05-31
Support Year
2
Fiscal Year
2014
Total Cost
$189,419
Indirect Cost
$41,904
Name
University of Delaware
Department
Type
DUNS #
059007500
City
Newark
State
DE
Country
United States
Zip Code
19716
Riley, Rachel S; Day, Emily S (2017) Gold nanoparticle-mediated photothermal therapy: applications and opportunities for multimodal cancer treatment. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 9:
Di Guglielmo, Matthew D; Tonb, Dalal; He, Zhaoping et al. (2017) A Pilot Study Measuring The Novel Satiety Hormone, Pro-Uroguanylin, In Adolescents With And Without Obesity. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr :
Whitney, Daniel G; Singh, Harshvardhan; Miller, Freeman et al. (2017) Cortical bone deficit and fat infiltration of bone marrow and skeletal muscle in ambulatory children with mild spastic cerebral palsy. Bone 94:90-97
Svigals, Philip Z; Chopra, Amit; Ravenel, James G et al. (2017) The accuracy of pleural ultrasonography in diagnosing complicated parapneumonic pleural effusions. Thorax 72:94-95
Klein, Lloyd W; Harjai, Kishore J; Resnic, Fred et al. (2017) 2016 Revision of the SCAI position statement on public reporting. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 89:269-279
Weintraub, William S (2017) Perspective on Trends in Statin Use. JAMA Cardiol 2:11-12
Shin, Ju Young; Pohlig, Ryan T; Habermann, Barbara (2017) Beliefs About Use of Complementary Health Approaches for Parkinson's Disease. Holist Nurs Pract 31:290-294
Driscoll, Jeremy N; Bender, Brian M; Archilla, Carlos A et al. (2017) Comparing incidence of emergence delirium between sevoflurane and desflurane in children following routine otolaryngology procedures. Minerva Anestesiol 83:383-391
Weintraub, William S; Garratt, Kirk N (2017) Public Reporting II: State of the Art-Current Public Reporting in Cardiovascular Medicine. Circulation 135:1772-1774
Dominick, Gregory M; Winfree, Kyle N; Pohlig, Ryan T et al. (2017) Authors' Reply to: Critique of ""Physical Activity Assessment Between Consumer- and Research-Grade Accelerometers: A Comparative Study in Free-Living Conditions"" - Does Location of the Device Matter? JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 5:e13

Showing the most recent 10 out of 201 publications