CRSUA Highlights

CRSUA World Cafe: Summary of Participant Input

September 7, 2016

Station 1 – Pilots 
Facilitated by Liz Arnold & Michael Nader

Our current thinking on the pilots (what was presented at the beginning):

  • $40 k per year is budgeted (FY 17, FY 18, FY 19)
    • Likely scenario:  cap funding for any one pilot at $20k
  • Focus: promoting research that:
    • Stimulates collaborations across basic, clinical, and population researchers (at least 2 of the 3)
    • Is likely to lead to extramural funding.
    • Timing of the RFA will coincide with CTSI pilots (and common pilot application deadline that is being encouraged): November 14, 2016
    • Review will be conducted by peer-review panel consisting of individuals with expertise in basic, clinical, and population research.

Main Points from the Discussions

  1. There was agreement on a common date with CTSI of November 14, 2016
    1. - Discussed multiple submissions of a pilot to other Centers and CTSI. This is allowed, but requires separate submissions for each
    2. - Discussed Supplements through CTSI for clinician scientists to protect 10% of their effort
    3. - No faculty salary permitted on pilot proposals
    4. - Tie pilots to Med Center outcomes of interest  
  2. Letter of Intent:
    1. - Maximum 2-page document; it does not have to be mandatory, but there are advantages to encouraging LOI
    2. - Advantage: provide feedback to the PI regarding eligibility prior to them making the effort to submit
    3. - Advantage: CRSUA EC could provide suggestions, including other faculty to collaborate with, that would enhance the application
    4. - It was decided that for this first round of pilots, the requirement that the project cover at least 2 of the 3 primary disciplines (basic, population, clinical) was unrealistic and we should simply fund the best project even if it is singular in focus
    5. - Reynolda faculty would be eligible, assuming they were CRSUA members
  3. Other Pilot-related issues:
    1. - Regarding whether the pilots should be hypothesis driven or technology driven, there was no consensus
    2. - The Center’s metric for a successful pilot is a future NIH (or other source) grant application
    3. - Most people attending the Meet and Greet said they would gladly review pilot proposals, if it was in their area of expertise. This was preferred over internal reviews via INRC. 
    4. - CRSUA members participate in Grand Rounds to encourage more clinical interactions (which would lead to more pilot applications in the future)

Station 2 – Education 
Facilitated by Jeff Weiner

Our current thinking on education  (what was presented at the beginning)

  • Journal Club
  • Sending clinicians to basic science meeting and basic scientist to clinical meeting 
  • Seminars

Main Points from the Discussions

  1. A Center-related journal club was met with mixed enthusiasm.   Participants noted that there are already many journal clubs and that the focus of this one might be too broad to attract a consistent group.  One good suggestion, if we still decide to do this, would be to make sure that each meeting features a translational group of related papers, covering basic, clinical and PHS views of some topic.  That is probably the only way that this journal club will get traction.
  2. There was also very little enthusiasm for the idea of supporting clinicians to attend basic science meetings and vice versa.  Most stated that they would be uncomfortable attending meeting far outsight of their area of expertise and that these funds could be better spent elsewhere.
  3. There was more support for a seminar series, however even here there was some pushback as there are already so many seminars.   One idea was to use our limited funds to add speakers to existing successful seminar programs where there is already a consistent audience (of course, giving our Center sponsor credit).  Another excellent suggestion was that we create a member “Speaker Bureau”, highlighting everyone’s areas of expertise and advertise this extensively throughout the institution.  That way, if, for example, a clinical grand rounds in internal medicine wanted an addiction specialist, they could reach out to our Center.  Alternatively, if a basic science seminar series wanted a PHS or clinically-focused talk, the organizers could also use our speaker bureau.
  4. Everyone really liked the idea of creating a centralized list of all institutional addiction-related seminars on our website.
  5. By far, the most support came for having our Center play a leadership role in increasing addiction-related content throughout all of our curricula (undergrad campus, grad school, med school, residents).  Several clinicians noted that there is still a stigma among faculty and staff related to the diagnosis of addiction.  There was a strong consensus that we should develop or adopt existing addiction-related continuing ed. Programs, not only for our faculty but also our staff (particularly nurses who are on the front lines every day).  
  6. Another great idea was to broaden the scope of the pilot grant program to include not only basic, clinical and PHS research but also evidence-based education research.  Several people expressed an interest in working to develop, integrate and evaluate addiction-related curricular for our students, faculty and staff but noted that an opportunity to receive support for these efforts would definitely increase their motivation.
  7. Finally, everyone liked the idea of a retreat in which Center members could get to know each other’s research and interests. The consensus was that anything we could do to facilitate communication between our members would be helpful.

Station 3 – Dissemination 
Facilitated by Laura Veach & Mark Wolfson

Our current thinking on dissemination  (what was presented at the beginning):

  • Will provide Letters of Support for grant applications and have a paragraph available on our website for the Resources and Environment page of grant applications.
  • We are working with the Development Office to promote our research and to encourage philanthropic endeavors.
  • Work with WFBMC Centers, including joint retreats to encourage multi-disciplinary and cross-discipline research projects

Main Points from the Discussions

  1. Publication in peer-reviewed journals remains a critical vehicle for disseminating the results of substance abuse research conducted at WFSM.
  2. The Center’s website is also a very important vehicle for dissemination.  The website should include highlights of recent publications.  It was also recommended that we work to place links to the Center’s websites on other key websites, to generate “traffic” to ours.
  3. Dissemination to key organizations in the state and beyond should be included in our dissemination efforts.
  4. Social media is an important vehicle for dissemination in this day and age.  Some individuals now use Twitter as an important means of keeping up with the work of key researchers in their field.  Facebook, Yammer, ResearchGate, and other social media outlets could also be useful.
  5. It will be important to encourage WFSM/WFBH researchers to list their affiliation with the Center on new publications. 
  6. Press releases remain important.  It would be useful to work with WFBH Communications, Marketing, & Media Development department to educate them about the range of substance abuse research at the institution, and perhaps designate a primary contact for the center.  It was mentioned that at one time, some people referred to Wake Forest/Bowman Grey as “NIDA South.”  The long history of substance abuse research at the institution could be useful in “branding” and promoting the Center. 
  7. Community events can be a powerful means of disseminating the results of our research to the community, as well as establishing recognition of the Center.  For example, the movie nights that are being planned could be followed by a panel discussion related to the theme of the movie.  These events would be open to, and advertised to, the public.  
  8.  A partnership with the Forsyth County School system could be useful for dissemination, as well as for gaining research access to the schools. There may be other local public officials, including law enforcement, that would have a strong interest in the research that we are conducting here.  
  9. Medical students may be an important group to which research findings should be disseminated. 
  10. Linkages with Reynolda Campus could also be useful.
  11. The Winston-Salem Journal is an important outlet for our dissemination efforts.  

 

Quick Reference

Center for Research on Substance Use and Addiction
Michael A. Nader, PhD
Co-Director

336-713-7172

mnader@wakehealth.edu

Mark Wolfson, PhD
Co-Director

336-716-0380

mwolfson@wakehealth.edu

Cindy Salley
Business Representative

336-716-8509

csalley@wakehealth.edu

Find A Doctor Ways to Give
Last Updated: 09-30-2016
Comprehensive Cancer Centers National Designation is RenewedMagnet Hospital RecognitionConsumer Choice2015 Best DoctorsJoint Commission Report

Disclaimer: The information on this website is for general informational purposes only and SHOULD NOT be relied upon as a substitute for sound professional medical advice, evaluation or care from your physician or other qualified health care provider.

© Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157. All Rights Reserved.