Best practices and inclusion of team science principles in appointment promotion and tenure documents in research intensive schools of nursing

Barriers and facilitators of conducting research with team science approach: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The present review aimed to systematically identify and classify barriers and facilitators of conducting research with a team science approach.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Emerald, and ProQuest databases were searched for primary research studies conducted using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. Studies examining barriers and facilitators of research with a team science approach were included in search. Two independent reviewers screened the texts, extracted and coded the data. Quality assessment was performed for all 35 included articles. The identified barriers and facilitators were categorized within Human, Organization, and Technology model.

RESULTS

A total of 35 studies from 9,381 articles met the inclusion criteria, from which 42 barriers and 148 facilitators were identified. Human barriers were characteristics of the researchers, teaming skills, and time. We consider Human facilitators across nine sub-themes as follows: characteristics of the researchers, roles, goals, communication, trust, conflict, disciplinary distances, academic rank, and collaboration experience. The barriers related to organization were institutional policies, team science integration, and funding. Organizational facilitators were as follows: team science skills training, institutional policies, and evaluation. Facilitators in the field of technology included virtual readiness and data management, and the technology barriers were complexity of techniques and privacy issues.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified major barriers and facilitators for conducting research with team science approach. The findings have important connotations for ongoing and future implementation of this intervention strategy in research. The analysis of this review provides evidence to inform policy-makers, funding providers, researchers, and students on the existing barriers and facilitators of team science research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO database (PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021278704).

Team science criteria and processes for promotion and tenure of Health Science University Faculty

Although team science has expanded with far-reaching benefits, universities generally have not established criteria to recognize its value in faculty promotion and tenure. This paper recommends how institutions might weigh a faculty member's engagement in team science in the promotion and tenure process. Seventeen team science promotion and tenure criteria are recommended based on four sources - an evaluation framework, effectiveness metrics, collaborative influences, and authorship criteria. Suggestions are made for adaptation of the 17 criteria to committee guidelines, faculty team science portfolios, and the roles of individuals and institutions participating in large, cross-disciplinary research projects. Future research recommendations are advanced.

DORA-compliant measures of research quality and impact to assess the performance of researchers in biomedical institutions: Review of published research, international best practice and Delphi survey

OBJECTIVE

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) advocates for assessing biomedical research quality and impact, yet academic organizations continue to employ traditional measures such as Journal Impact Factor. We aimed to identify and prioritize measures for assessing research quality and impact.

METHODS

We conducted a review of published and grey literature to identify measures of research quality and impact, which we included in an online survey. We assembled a panel of researchers and research leaders, and conducted a two-round Delphi survey to prioritize measures rated as high (rated 6 or 7 by ≥ 80% of respondents) or moderate (rated 6 or 7 by ≥ 50% of respondents) importance.

RESULTS

We identified 50 measures organized in 8 domains: relevance of the research program, challenges to research program, or productivity, team/open science, funding, innovations, publications, other dissemination, and impact. Rating of measures by 44 panelists (60%) in Round One and 24 (55%) in Round Two of a Delphi survey resulted in consensus on the high importance of 5 measures: research advances existing knowledge, research plan is innovative, an independent body of research (or fundamental role) supported by peer-reviewed research funding, research outputs relevant to discipline, and quality of the content of publications. Five measures achieved consensus on moderate importance: challenges to research productivity, potential to improve health or healthcare, team science, collaboration, and recognition by professional societies or academic bodies. There was high congruence between researchers and research leaders across disciplines.

CONCLUSIONS

Our work contributes to the field by identifying 10 DORA-compliant measures of research quality and impact, a more comprehensive and explicit set of measures than prior efforts. Research is needed to identify strategies to overcome barriers of use of DORA-compliant measures, and to "de-implement" traditional measures that do not uphold DORA principles yet are still in use.

Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Criteria: Does It Matter?

University faculty are called upon to address complex, contemporary problems using interdisciplinary approaches. But do appointment, reappointment, promotion, and tenure (ARPT) criteria reflect and reward this fundamental change in the nature of scholarly inquiry? We conducted a content analysis of ARPT criteria at one university to determine how interdisciplinary work is valued across disciplines and over time. We found noteworthy differences between colleges and disciplines: generally, creative disciplines placed higher value on individual contributions while the sciences supported interdisciplinary work. The emphasis on interdisciplinary work over time increased in only a few disciplines, as criteria became more current.

Creating Interdisciplinary Engagement Through a Hospital-Based Endowed Chair in Nursing Research: The "Conway Chair Conversations"

Although clinical nurses' involvement in research is a role expectation, efforts to engage clinical nurses in nurse-led research have had notably mixed results. These efforts have most typically been single discipline-focused (nursing), although nursing care is a collaborative, interdisciplinary practice. Adding an interdisciplinary strategy to multiple other efforts to engage clinical nurses in research may contribute to more nurse involvement. Here, we describe the use of a hospital-based endowed chair in nursing research to simultaneously engage nursing and other disciplines in a monthly dialogue about clinically relevant, research-related challenges and solutions. Outcomes indicate that the research-related dialogue among nurses and interprofessional colleagues would likely not have taken place without this approach.

PhD programs and the advancement of nursing science

Nurses are well-positioned to be groundbreaking researchers, scientists, leaders, and innovators to improve the health and well-being of individuals, families, and communities. Nurse scientists are needed to contribute to scientific discoveries that inform effective strategies to improve patient care and outcomes and to inform future policies. Thoughtful consideration is required about the preparation of nurse scientists to ensure they are equipped with the knowledge and skill sets to meet the needs of society. Evolving health needs and priority areas of inquiry along with an ever-increasing array of sophisticated methodologies and centrality of interdisciplinary teams to solve complex problems should drive how we prepare PhD students. This paper reflects a panel and subsequent dialogue with nurse leaders at the PhD summit held at the University of Pennsylvania in October 2019. Three aspects of PhD education and the advancement of nursing science are discussed 1) examining important elements to support nurse scientist development; 2) identifying key gaps in science that the discipline needs to address in educating the next generation of nurse scientists; and 3) preparing nurse scientists for the competitive funding environment.

Promotion and tenure policies for team science at colleges/schools of medicine

INTRODUCTION

Advancing understanding of human health promotion and disease prevention and treatment often requires teamwork. To evaluate academic medical institutions' support for team science in the context of researchers' career development, we measured the value placed on team science and specificity of guidance provided for documenting team science contributions in the promotion and tenure (P&T) documents of Colleges/Schools of Medicine (CoMs) in the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences' Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program.

METHOD

We reviewed complete P&T documents from 57 of 63 CTSA CoMs to identify career paths defined by three dimensions: academic rank (associate versus full professor), tenure eligibility (tenure track versus not), and role (research, clinical, education, and administrative), and we rated team science value and documentation guidance for each path. Multilevel models were estimated to compare team science value and documentation guidance as a function of the three career path dimensions while accounting for the clustered data (N = 357 career paths within 57 CoMs).

RESULTS

Team science value was greater for associate than full professors, non-tenure-eligible versus tenure-eligible positions, and roles prioritizing clinical, education, and administrative responsibilities versus those prioritizing research. Guidance for documenting team science achievements was more explicit for roles that prioritized research.

DISCUSSION

Although P&T policies at most CTSA institutions express value for team science, inconsistent within-institutional patterns of recognition and reward across career paths may have implications for researchers' involvement in team science. We discuss the implications of our findings for research and for P&T policies that promote team science.