Form 2 Interview Guide – Principle Investigators & Key Personne

OMB #0925-XXXX

Expiration Date: XX/XXXX

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 50 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: NIH, Project Clearance Branch, 6705 Rockledge Drive, MSC 7974, Bethesda, MD 20892-7974, ATTN: PRA (0925-XXXX). Do not return the completed form to this address.

NHLBI Proteomic Centers Program Study

Key Informant Interview Guide – Principal Investigators and Key Personnel

Interview Information

Interviewee:
Title:
Interview Format	□ In-person □ Phone □ Skype/video chat
Phone/Email:
Video chat ID:	Skype:	GooglePlus:
Date:	Start time:	End time:
Interviewer:

Introduction

Opening Script: Thank you for taking the time to participate in this study. My name is __________, and I am with Concept Systems, Inc. We are an evaluation firm that has been contracted to conduct an evaluation of the NHLBI Proteomics Centers Program (which I will refer to as "the Program" from now on).

The overall goals of the evaluation are to better understand the contributions of the Program and the experiences of the Program staff and affiliates. Please note that this evaluation is being performed with the understanding that each Center within the Program is unique based on its areas of concentration.  To that end, the findings of the evaluation will not be used to compare individual Centers. 

This interview is designed to take about 45-50 minutes, though you are welcome to continue our discussion beyond that time if you choose. I will take notes during the interview and, with your permission, I will also audio record the interview. This project is not research and does not require IRB review. However, your participation in this interview is voluntary. You have the option of ending the interview at any time, and you are also free to skip any questions that you would prefer not to answer.

Please note that this evaluation only covers the past five years of the NHLBI Proteomics Centers Program, from 2010 to 2015. If you were involved in previous iterations of this program, please make sure that your responses to my questions reflect your experience only over the past five years.

The information you provide will not be disclosed to anyone but the researchers conducting the study, except otherwise required by law. With that said, are you willing to continue with the interview? [YES/NO]. And is it okay if I audio record the interview? [YES/NO]

Do you have any questions before we begin? Let’s get started.

Background Questions

Script: First, I want to gather some basic information about your role and position.

1. Please verify the following background information:

Title:
Center/Organization:

2. During what years have you worked at the Center? _________________________________

1. If before 2010, prompt: In responding to my questions, please remember that we are focused only on the past 5 years.

3. Did your position or title change during that time? ___________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Very briefly, how would you describe your current role at the Center? _____________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Section A: Scientific Advancements & Influence of the Program

Script: I would like to begin by asking you some questions about the scientific advancements made through the Program over the past five years, and the influence of the Program in the fields of proteomics and heart, lung, and blood research.

5. Thinking back over the past five years, what would you say are the top two or three major discoveries or advancements to come out of your Center?

1. How, if at all, would you say these discoveries have influenced proteomics and heart, lung, and blood research?

6. Based on the work of your Center, what do we know about the connections between proteomes and the molecular phenotypes of disease that we did not know five years ago?

1. In what ways, if at all, has your Center contributed to our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of heart, lung, and blood disease biology?

7. Broadly speaking, what were the goals that your Center set out to achieve related to research applicable to clinical or translational questions?

8. How would you describe the progress that your Center made in achieving these goals?

1. What, if any, specific discoveries, knowledge advances, or tools emerged from the work of your Center that contributed to achieving these goals?

2. How would you describe the next steps needed to fully achieve these aims?

3. In your opinion, what role, if any, did the 3-part interactive team structure of the Program play in achieving these goals?

9. In your opinion, how has the Program, as a whole, advanced the field toward the development of mature technologies that are applicable to clinical outcomes, and what remains to be done?

10. Thinking again about the field as a whole, how would you describe the next steps needed in terms of clinical applications of proteomic research? In other words, where are we now, as this five year phase of the Program is wrapping up?

11. How, if at all, has the Program increased the capacity of the field as a whole to engage in innovative proteomics and heart, lung, and blood research?

1. What role, if any, has collaboration played in influencing the capacity of the field?

Section B: Evolution of the Centers and Program (Investigators only)

Script: Thank you. Now I would like to ask you a few questions about factors that have influenced the work of your Centers.

12. In the past five years, what, if any, changes has your Center undergone in terms of focus? In other words, how has the overall focus or purpose of the Center evolved?

1. If there was a change in focus, how was that change implemented?

13. What factors, if any, have constrained or hindered the work of your Center?

14. In what ways, if at all, has the work of your Center been influenced by discoveries or advancements made elsewhere in the fields of proteomics and/or heart, lung, and blood research?

Section C: Application & Dissemination of New Knowledge and Tools

Script: Great. Now I am going to ask you a series of questions related to the application and dissemination of knowledge and tools developed through the Program.

15. Within your Center, how is new knowledge shared and integrated across researchers and labs?

1. How is this process similar to or different from activities facilitated through other grants or contracts?

16. In what ways, if at all, did researchers at your Center access new knowledge, methods, or tools created through the other Centers?

1. In what ways, if at all, was this information integrated into the work and research of your Center?

17. In what ways, if at all, has the sharing of knowledge and tools influenced the overall process of discovery for the Program?

18. In what ways, if at all, were knowledge and tools developed at your Center made available to the broader proteomics and NHLBI research communities?

1. Please describe the process and timeframe through which tools and prototypes were made available.

Section D: Collaboration

Script: Now I would like to ask you about the role that collaboration played in your work and the work of your Center.

19. How would you characterize the collaborations that stemmed from your work at the Center (for example, the type, number, and quality)?

1. In what ways, if at all, did these collaborations impact your work at the Center?

2. How, if at all, has the focus of the Program shaped decisions regarding collaboration within your Center?

20. What, if any, achievements or accomplishments of your Center might not have been successful without collaboration, in your opinion?

1. How would you describe the role of collaboration in these instances?

21. Now I would like to ask about more formal collaborative relationships that may have developed with other Centers or researchers outside of the Program. In your work at the Center, what, if any, formal collaborations did you participate in that involved working collectively with researchers outside of the Center to achieve a common goal?

1. How would you describe the nature of these collaborations?

2. In your opinion, how valuable were those collaborations in terms of accomplishing your goals or the goals of the Center? For example, would you say that they were instrumental, generally productive, or generally unproductive?

Section E: Recognition & Advancement

Script: My final question focuses on the recognition and professional advancement of researchers involved in the Program.

22. In what ways, if at all, has your work at the Center contributed to the advancement of your career?

23. That is the last of my formal questions. Before we close, is there anything about the Centers or the Program that you feel is important for us to know, that I didn’t ask about?

Closing Remarks

Script: Thank you again for taking time out of your schedule to participate in this study. We will be using the data we collect through these interviews to inform our evaluation of the Program. If, after revisiting our interview, I have questions for clarification, is it okay if I contact you again? [YES/NO]

Great. Thank you again for your time. Please feel free to contact us if you have any follow-up questions or comments.

Interviewer notes

Methodological comments

• How did the process go? What worked well? What didn't?

• Functionality of or issues with the technology

• Observations on the questions/guide: (Redundancy; Flow; Specificity/generality of the questions)

• Other

Analytical comments

• Thoughts/observations on the content of the interview

• Themes or connection

• Demeanor of interviewee

• Key new information

• Other

7