Translational science aims to efficiently translate scientific discoveries into clinical practice, yet procedural barriers often hinder this process. Addressing these barriers requires understanding the specific types of support translational research teams utilize and value. This pilot study examines patterns of support utilization and perceived importance among translational research teams to guide resource allocation and program development.

We analyzed data from the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute’s (CTSI) Project Development Team (PDT) program, which provides advisory and developmental support to faculty investigators during early-stage research. Using a mixed-methods approach, we combined archival records with survey responses from 147 faculty investigators who received PDT support between 2019 and 2024. We assessed how frequently investigators reported receiving various types of support (e.g., refining study design and methods, identifying resources, connecting collaborators, mentorship, coordinating teams) and their ratings of each support type's importance. Additionally, we compared support utilization across translational stages (from Basic Science to Public Health).

Results showed distinctions among support types in utilization and perceived importance. The most frequently utilized support included refining study design and methods, identifying resources (e.g., funding sources, specialized equipment), and developing alternative strategies for key tasks. Investigators consistently rated these support types as critical across all translational stages. In particular, guidance on rigorous study design was highly valued for advancing research.

Conversely, supports related to team coordination, shared goal-setting, and managing team dynamics were least utilized. Investigators also rated these lowest in importance. Investigators at the clinical trial stage reported the greatest need for multiple types of support, including refining projects, feedback on early-stage ideas, assistance addressing reviewer comments, and guidance on managing team-based work. Compared to other stages, clinical trial investigators placed higher importance on structured team coordination support, highlighting the increased complexity of clinical trials.

Our findings suggest translational support programs can enhance effectiveness by aligning closely with investigator priorities. High utilization and valuation of methodological and resource-focused support across translational stages underscore the value of investing in these areas. Conversely, low demand for structured team coordination indicates either limited awareness or effective informal management by researchers. Leveraging these insights will enable translational science programs to allocate resources efficiently, streamline processes, and accelerate scientific discoveries into meaningful patient outcomes.