Implementing an evidence-based competency model for science team training and evaluation: TeamMAPPS

Proposed Framework for Developing and Evaluating Total Worker Health ® Education and Training Programs

OBJECTIVE

Propose a framework for developing and evaluating Total Worker Health ® (TWH) education and training efforts by implementing institutions.

METHODS

This is a review of TWH information from symposia, workshops, academic offerings, and publications, along with a review of education and training development and evaluation resources applicable across various disciplines.

RESULTS

Examples of knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) are provided for each TWH core competency, and a framework for developing and evaluating a TWH competency-based education or training program.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed set of KSAs and framework for developing and evaluating TWH education or training programs may inform future pilot testing of KSAs and framework by implementing institutions and help standardize practices across the discipline. Academic, business, community, labor, and government stakeholders are encouraged to provide further input to assist in its maturation and uptake.

Critical Partnerships: How to Develop a Trans-Disciplinary Research Team

Trans-disciplinary science will continue to be critical for the next wave of scientific advancement to fully understand cancer development, progression, and treatment. The shift from the independent investigator to either leading or being a productive member of a scientific team can be successful by focusing on some key elements that can build and strengthen interactions with a diverse group of people. These include the selection of the team, communication, leadership and mentorship, shared goals, responsibility to the team, authorship, and proactively dealing with conflict. While there are extensive books written on developing teams in the business world, and larger pieces in the medical arena, we attempt to provide here a concise, high-level view as a starting point for those that may be moving from being an independent researcher and are developing their own, larger, trans-disciplinary teams.

Developing a Translational Team Training Program using the Wisconsin Interventions in Team Science Framework

The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program supports a national network of medical research institutions working to improve the translational process. High-performing translational teams (TTs) are critical for advancing evidence-based approaches that improve human health. When focused on content-appropriate knowledge, skills, and attitudes, targeted training results in the substantial internalization of training content, producing new skills that can be applied to improve team outputs, outcomes, and benefits. More rigorous approaches to develop, test, and evaluate interventions are needed, and we used the Wisconsin Interventions in Team Science framework as a model to systematize our efforts. We designed, built, and tested a five-session TT Training Program for translational researchers. The 90-minute sessions were pilot-tested with 47 postdoctoral fellows and evaluated through a structured evaluation plan. Ninety-five percent of post-session survey respondents indicated that the content and skills provided would make them more effective collaborators, and one hundred percent would recommend the sessions to colleagues. Respondents' scores increased from pretest to posttest for most learning outcomes. Refinements from participant feedback are described. This work provides a foundation for the continued evolution of evidence-based training programs in the CTSA environment.

Learning to Prioritize Our Collaborative Opportunities: Overcoming the Bright Shiny Object Syndrome

ABSTRACT

There are multiple opportunities to participate in team science, leading to long-term benefits (eg, research impact, novelty, productivity). Scholars are not well-trained in how to choose among these opportunities, often learning via trial and error. The ability to navigate collaborations is framed by several principles and considerations: (1) locus of control (what control we have over our own behavior) and how it affects academic job satisfaction; (2) the scarcity mindset that may manifest as a result of the fear of missing future opportunities; and (3) power dynamics and inequities (eg, among women and racial/ethnic minority individuals). To provide a more systematic approach to weighing academic opportunities, the authors offer 30 questions across six overlapping domains. The domains include: the big picture (eg, Is the opportunity a building block for your career?), context (eg, How much do you have on your plate?), person (eg, Who is asking?), team (eg, Is the team productive?), role (eg, Will you lead or assist?), and outcomes (eg, Might the opportunity lead to publications and/or grants?). We offer advice for decision-making. For example, when presented with an opportunity involving a significant time commitment, it is useful to allow at least 24 hours before deciding. The authors offer advice and sample language for communicating your decision. Although every situation is different, there are several fundamental issues and questions to consider when one is presented with a new opportunity-these questions are suggested for mentors and mentees.

Team principles for successful interdisciplinary research teams

Interdisciplinary research teams can be extremely beneficial when addressing difficult clinical problems. The incorporation of conceptual and methodological strategies from a variety of research disciplines and health professions yields transformative results. In this setting, the long-term goal of team science is to improve patient care, with emphasis on population health outcomes. However, team principles necessary for effective research teams are rarely taught in health professional schools. To form successful interdisciplinary research teams in cardio-oncology and beyond, guiding principles and organizational recommendations are necessary. Cardiovascular disease results in annual direct costs of $220 billion (about $680 per person in the US) and is the leading cause of death for cancer survivors, including adult survivors of childhood cancers. Optimizing cardio-oncology research in interdisciplinary research teams has the potential to aid in the investigation of strategies for saving hundreds of thousands of lives each year in the United States and mitigating the annual cost of cardiovascular disease. Despite published reports on experiences developing research teams across organizations, specialties and settings, there is no single journal article that compiles principles for cardiology or cardio-oncology research teams. In this review, recurring threads linked to working as a team, as well as optimal methods, advantages, and problems that arise when managing teams are described in the context of career development and research. The worth and hurdles of a team approach, based on practical lessons learned from establishing our multidisciplinary research team and information gleaned from relevant specialties in the development of a successful team are presented.

"Technical" Contributors and Authorship Distribution in Health Science

In health sciences, technical contributions may be undervalued and excluded in the author byline. In this paper, I demonstrate how authorship is a historical construct which perpetuates systemic injustices including technical undervaluation. I make use of Pierre Bourdieu's conceptual work to demonstrate how the power dynamics at play in academia make it very challenging to change the habitual state or "habitus". To counter this, I argue that we must reconceive technical contributions to not be a priori less important based on its nature when assigning roles and opportunities leading to authorship. I make this argument based on two premises. First, science has evolved due to major information and biotechnological innovation; this requires 'technicians' to acquire and exercise a commensurate high degree of both technical and intellectual expertise which in turn increases the value of their contribution. I will illustrate this by providing a brief historical view of work statisticians, computer programmers/data scientists and laboratory technicians. Second, excluding or undervaluing this type of work is contrary to norms of responsibility, fairness and trustworthiness of the individual researchers and of teams in science. Although such norms are continuously tested because of power dynamics, their importance is central to ethical authorship practice and research integrity. While it may be argued that detailed disclosure of contributions (known as contributorship) increases accountability by clearly identifying who did what in the publication, I contend that this may unintentionally legitimize undervaluation of technical roles and may decrease integrity of science. Finally, this paper offers recommendations to promote ethical inclusion of technical contributors.

Strategic Team Science Promotes Collaboration and Practice-Based Research at the Research Centers in Minority Institutions

BACKGROUND

This paper reports on the implementation and evaluation of a strategy to promote collaborations and team science among investigators at the Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI). The strategy presented in this paper was a hands-on workshop that allowed the application of strategic team science through structured dialogue, asset sharing, and systematic exploration of opportunities for collaboration.

METHODS

The workshop was attended by more than 100 participants, including RCMI and non-RCMI investigators, practice-based research network (PBRN) supplement program directors, and an NIH Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Program Officer.

RESULTS

A post-workshop survey was administered to collect participant feedback, assess the relevance of the workshop to the participants' professional development goals, and gauge the applicability of the tool as a support strategy to promote collaborative research. Most of the participants acknowledged that the session met the conference objectives (95.8%), and 93.7% noted that the workshop, to a high degree, met their personal goals and objectives. During the workshop, participants shared 35 resources they were willing and able to offer for prospective collaborative projects.

CONCLUSION

The experience reported and evaluated in this paper paves the way to understanding methods for disseminating effective strategies for inter-institutional collaborations for the sustainable growth and operation of PBRNs.