Participant Completion and Demographics

Of the 56 Rutgers Cancer Institute clinical research staff invited to complete the CRC Badge training, 38 participants (67%) completed the course. Demographic data collected through REDCap surveys showed that the majority of participants identified as female (76%), followed by male (18%) and those who preferred not to disclose gender (5%). The largest racial/ethnic group was Asian (45%), followed by White (37%) and Black or African American (11%). Most participants were between the ages of 25–34 (39%) and 35–44 (29%).

In terms of educational background, 55% held a bachelor’s degree, 21% held a doctoral degree, and 18% held a master’s degree. A majority (58%) had a healthcare-related undergraduate major, while 26% reported a science-related major. All participants completed Human Subjects Research training via the CITI Program. Clinical research experience levels varied: 34% of participants reported having 2 to 5 years of experience, while 11% were new to the field. (See Table 1 for full demographic data.)

Table 1Learning Outcomes (Immediate Post-survey)

All 38 CRC badge completers participated in the immediate post-course survey. Participants were asked to evaluate their perceived knowledge gains in key research domains using the response options “I learned a lot,” “I learned a little,” or “No change.” A substantial proportion of participants reported learning a lot in the areas of Regulatory Activities (n = 25), Responsibilities of Different Research Roles (n = 23), and Differences in Research Design (n = 22). Learning gains were also reported for Data Collection (n = 18), Data Management (n = 17), Informed Consent (n = 16), and Recruitment and Enrollment (n = 16). Only a small number of participants indicated no change in their knowledge across any domain. (See Fig. 1 for a breakdown of perceived learning outcomes.)

Fig. 1

Realtime learning outcomes

Learning Outcomes by Educational and Experiential Background

Stratified analysis of responses showed that participants with advanced degrees (master’s or doctoral) were more likely to report learning a lot in domains related to research design, regulatory processes, and data collection—areas in which they likely had prior academic exposure. Participants with bachelor’s degrees, by contrast, reported notable gains in understanding Regulatory Activities and Research Design, suggesting that the badge filled important foundational knowledge gaps. These findings support the badge’s ability to foster skill development across a range of educational levels and enhance readiness for clinical research coordinator roles (See Fig. 2 Learning Outcomes by Educational Level and Fig. 3 Learning Outcomes by Experiential Level).

Fig. 2

Learning outcomes by educational Level

Fig. 3

Learning outcomes by experiential Level

Longitudinal Survey Participation

While 38 participants completed the immediate post-course survey, response rates for longitudinal follow-up surveys declined significantly. The six-month survey yielded seven responses, and the twelve-month survey received only three. Although early responses provided insights into short-term impacts—particularly related to onboarding and initial job performance—the low follow-up response rate limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions about the long-term educational or professional effects of the training. Future evaluations may benefit from integrating follow-up surveys into formal performance reviews or offering completion incentives.

Professional Development Intentions

The post-course survey also assessed whether the CRC badge influenced participants’ future professional goals. More than half (55%) of respondents reported that the course introduced them to new areas of clinical research they wished to explore further. A total of 26% indicated an intention to take additional clinical research courses, and 52% reported plans to pursue further credentialing, such as certifications or advanced degrees. Only one participant reported no effect on their future plans. These results indicate that the CRC Badge was successful in sparking interest in continued education and advancement in clinical research careers.

RCI Administrative Feedback

Administrative feedback collected at 3 and 6 months post-implementation reflected strong support for the CRC Badge as an onboarding tool. Rutgers Cancer Institute managers reported that newly hired staff who completed the badge reached job readiness more quickly, demonstrated improved understanding of key concepts, and required less time for training on foundational topics. Administrators noted that the badge enhanced performance in specific areas such as informed consent, serious adverse event reporting, and data management. Many CRC badged employees remained in their positions over the following year, with some having received promotions. As a result, Rutgers Cancer Institute formally integrated the CRC Badge into its standard onboarding procedures.

However, the use of the CRC badge for continuing education among existing staff was less successful. Of the 56 staff members enrolled, 18 did not complete the training, and this group consisted largely of existing employees. Administrators attributed non-completion to time constraints and workload demands that made it difficult for staff to engage with the 20-h course. Attempts to complete the modules in short intervals between work tasks reportedly hindered learning retention. This limitation led administrators to conclude that while the badge is highly effective for onboarding, its application for continuing education would require structural adjustments to better accommodate staff schedules.

Overall, the results strongly support the CRC Badge as an effective, scalable training strategy for onboarding clinical research staff, with potential to strengthen workforce readiness and foster long-term professional growth, particularly in resource-constrained institutional environments.