1
|
Kim JS, Kargotich S, Lee SH, Yajima R, Garcia AA, Ehrenkaufer G, Romeo M, Santa Maria P, Grimes KV, Mochly-Rosen D. SPARKing academic technologies across the valley of death. Nat Biotechnol 2024; 42:339-342. [PMID: 38361072 DOI: 10.1038/s41587-024-02130-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/17/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Jeewon Sylvia Kim
- SPARK Translational Research Program, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Stephen Kargotich
- SPARK Translational Research Program, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Sophia H Lee
- SPARK Translational Research Program, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Rieko Yajima
- SPARK Translational Research Program, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Adriana Ann Garcia
- SPARK Translational Research Program, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Gretchen Ehrenkaufer
- SPARK Translational Research Program, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Mary Romeo
- SPARK Translational Research Program, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Peter Santa Maria
- SPARK Translational Research Program, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Kevin V Grimes
- SPARK Translational Research Program, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
- Department of Chemical and Systems Biology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Daria Mochly-Rosen
- SPARK Translational Research Program, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
- Department of Chemical and Systems Biology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hawk LW, Murphy TF, Hartmann KE, Burnett A, Maguin E. A randomized controlled trial of a team science intervention to enhance collaboration readiness and behavior among early career scholars in the Clinical and Translational Science Award network. J Clin Transl Sci 2023; 8:e6. [PMID: 38384923 PMCID: PMC10877513 DOI: 10.1017/cts.2023.692] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2023] [Revised: 11/27/2023] [Accepted: 12/01/2023] [Indexed: 02/23/2024] Open
Abstract
Introduction Despite the central importance of cross-disciplinary collaboration in the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) network and the implementation of various programs designed to enhance collaboration, rigorous evidence for the efficacy of these approaches is lacking. We conducted a novel randomized controlled trial (RCT; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05395286) of a promising approach to enhance collaboration readiness and behavior among 95 early career scholars from throughout the CTSA network. Methods Participants were randomly assigned (within two cohorts) to participate in an Innovation Lab, a week-long immersive collaboration experience, or to a treatment-as-usual control group. Primary outcomes were change in metrics of self-reported collaboration readiness (through 12-month follow-up) and objective collaboration network size from bibliometrics (through 21 months); secondary outcomes included self-reported number of grants submitted and, among Innovation Lab participants only, reactions to the Lab experience (through 12 months). Results Short-term reactions from Innovation Lab participants were quite positive, and controlled evidence for a beneficial impact of Innovation Labs over the control condition was observed in the self-reported number of grant proposals in the intent-to-treat sample. Primary measures of collaboration readiness were near ceiling in both groups, limiting the ability to detect enhancement. Collaboration network size increased over time to a comparable degree in both groups. Conclusions The findings highlight the need for systematic intervention development research to identify efficacious strategies that can be implemented throughout the CTSA network to better support the goal of enhanced cross-disciplinary collaboration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Larry W. Hawk
- Department of Psychology, University at
Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Timothy F. Murphy
- Jacobs School of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences,
University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY,
USA
- Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University at
Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Katherine E. Hartmann
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt
University, Nashville, TN,
USA
- Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University,
Nashville, TN, USA
- Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research,
Vanderbilt University, Nashville,
TN, USA
| | | | - Eugene Maguin
- Department of Psychology, University at
Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Waite KA, Pronovost PJ, Barnholtz-Sloan JS. Critical Partnerships: How to Develop a Trans-Disciplinary Research Team. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:5078. [PMID: 37894444 PMCID: PMC10605766 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15205078] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2023] [Revised: 10/10/2023] [Accepted: 10/18/2023] [Indexed: 10/29/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristin A. Waite
- Trans Divisional Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
| | - Peter J. Pronovost
- University Hospitals Health System, Shaker Heights, OH 44106, USA
- UH Quality Care Organization and UH Accountable Care Organization, University Hospitals Health System, Shaker Heights, OH 44106, USA
| | - Jill S. Barnholtz-Sloan
- Trans Divisional Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
- Center for Biomedical Informatics and Information Technology, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kotarba JA, Molldrem S, Smith E, Spratt H, Bhavnani SK, Farroni JS, Wooten K. Exploring team dynamics during the development of a multi-institutional cross-disciplinary translational team: Implications for potential best practices. J Clin Transl Sci 2023; 7:e220. [PMID: 38028346 PMCID: PMC10643934 DOI: 10.1017/cts.2023.640] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2023] [Revised: 09/06/2023] [Accepted: 09/21/2023] [Indexed: 12/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction A recent literature review revealed no studies that explored teams that used an explicit theoretical framework for multiteam systems in academic settings, such as the increasingly important multi-institutional cross-disciplinary translational team (MCTT) form. We conducted an exploratory 30-interview grounded theory study over two rounds to analyze participants' experiences from three universities who assembled an MCTT in order to pursue a complex grant proposal related to research on post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, also called "long COVID." This article considers activities beginning with preliminary discussions among principal investigators through grant writing and submission, and completion of reviews by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, which resulted in the proposal not being scored. Methods There were two stages to this interview study with MCTT members: pre-submission, and post-decision. Round one focused on the process of developing structures to collaborate on proposal writing and assembly, whereas round two focused on evaluation of the complete process. A total of 15 participants agreed to be interviewed in each round. Findings The first round of interviews was conducted prior to submission and explored issues during proposal writing, including (1) importance of the topic; (2) meaning and perception of "team" within the MCTT context; and (3) leadership at different levels of the team. The second round explored best practices-related issues including (1) leadership and design; (2) specific proposal assembly tasks; (3) communication; and (4) critical events. Conclusion We conclude with suggestions for developing best practices for assembling MCTTs involving multi-institutional teams.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph A. Kotarba
- Institute for Translational Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
- Department of Sociology, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA
| | - Stephen Molldrem
- Institute for Translational Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
- Institute for Bioethics and Health Humanities, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
| | - Elise Smith
- Institute for Translational Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
- Institute for Bioethics and Health Humanities, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
| | - Heidi Spratt
- Institute for Translational Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
- Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
| | - Suresh K. Bhavnani
- Institute for Translational Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
- Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
| | - Jeffrey S. Farroni
- Institute for Translational Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
- Institute for Bioethics and Health Humanities, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
| | - Kevin Wooten
- Institute for Translational Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
- University of Houston Clear Lake, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ghamgosar A, Nemati-Anaraki L, Panahi S. Barriers and facilitators of conducting research with team science approach: a systematic review. BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION 2023; 23:638. [PMID: 37670349 PMCID: PMC10478305 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-023-04619-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2023] [Accepted: 08/28/2023] [Indexed: 09/07/2023]
Abstract
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).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arezoo Ghamgosar
- School of Health Management and Medical Information Science, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
- Medical Biotechnology Research Centre, School of Paramedicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
| | - Leila Nemati-Anaraki
- Department of Medical library and Information Science,School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
| | - Sirous Panahi
- Department of Medical library and Information Science,School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Chladek J, Kelly PW, Rolland B. Freelance information management agents: why information management is so hard on translational teams. J Clin Transl Sci 2023; 7:e209. [PMID: 37900349 PMCID: PMC10603359 DOI: 10.1017/cts.2023.616] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2023] [Revised: 08/17/2023] [Accepted: 08/20/2023] [Indexed: 10/31/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction To conduct high-quality, rigorous research, and advance scientific knowledge, Translational Teams (TTs) engage in information behaviors, including seeking, using, creating, sharing, storing, and retrieving information, in ways specific to the translational context. Currently, little is known about TTs' approach to information management. This qualitative pilot study explored how TTs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison interact with information, as well as the scientific and organizational impact of their interactions. Methods We conducted interviews with ten members of UW TTs. Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted. Results Four themes emerged: (1) TT members did not recognize the centrality of information or information behaviors to their scientific work; (2) TT members engaged in similar information behaviors and used similar tools across disciplines and topics; (3) TT members did not receive support or guidance from their institution in managing information; and (4) Individualized choices of TT members conflicted at the team level, causing confusion and increasing the potential for data and information loss. Acting as freelance information management agents, TT members made individualized decisions about what tools to use and how to use them, often in a piecemeal manner and without communicating these decisions to other team members. Conclusion Research institutions should both encourage teams to discuss their information management approaches at the beginning of a project and provide leaders with training on how to have these conversations and what topics should be included. Additionally, institutions can provide researchers with guidelines for using software platforms to help mitigate information management challenges.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jason Chladek
- Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
- Social and Administrative Sciences Division, School of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Patrick W. Kelly
- Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Betsy Rolland
- Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
- Carbone Cancer Center, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Kelly PW, Chladek J, Rolland B. Toward a translational team science hierarchy of needs: Exploring the information management challenges of team science. J Clin Transl Sci 2023; 7:e210. [PMID: 37900351 PMCID: PMC10603362 DOI: 10.1017/cts.2023.614] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2023] [Revised: 07/07/2023] [Accepted: 08/04/2023] [Indexed: 10/31/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Clinical and Translational Research (CTR) requires a team-based approach, with successful teams engaging in skilled management and use of information. Yet we know little about the ways that Translational Teams (TTs) engage with information across the lifecycle of CTR projects. This qualitative study explored the challenges that information management imposes on the conduct of team-based CTR. Methods We conducted interviews with ten members of TTs at University of Wisconsin. Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted. Results TTs' piecemeal and reactive approaches to information management created conflict within the team and slowed scientific progress. The lack of cohesive information management strategies made it more difficult for teams to develop strong team processes like communication, scientific coordination, and project management. While TTs' research was hindered by the institutional challenges of interdisciplinary team information sharing, TTs who had developed shared approaches to information management that foregrounded transparency, accountability, and trust, described substantial benefits to their teamwork. Conclusion We propose a new model for the Science of Team Science field - a Translational Team Science Hierarchy of Needs - that suggests interventions should be targeted at the appropriate stage of team development in order to maximize a team's scientific potential.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick W. Kelly
- Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Jason Chladek
- Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
- Social and Administrative Sciences Division, School of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Betsy Rolland
- Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
- Carbone Cancer Center, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Duda GN, Grainger DW, Guldberg RE, Goldsobel G, Prestwich GD, Rauw B, Volk HD. Measuring translational research impact requires reaching beyond current metrics. Sci Transl Med 2023; 15:eabp8258. [PMID: 37531418 DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abp8258] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/04/2023]
Abstract
Translational impact assessment is key to selecting those biomedical research discoveries most likely to be converted into viable new products to improve human health. However, metrics for translational success are variable, are not limited to commercial success, and may not be relevant to every case or institution. Societal impact is a top translational priority in a globalized society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Georg N Duda
- Berlin Institute of Health Center for Regenerative Therapies, BIH at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Julius Wolff Institute, BIH at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - David W Grainger
- Department of Molecular Pharmaceutics, Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Robert E Guldberg
- Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA
| | - Gady Goldsobel
- Berlin Institute of Health Center for Regenerative Therapies, BIH at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | | | | | - Hans-Dieter Volk
- Berlin Institute of Health Center for Regenerative Therapies, BIH at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- Institute Medical Immunology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Maurer ME, Hilliard‐Boone T, Frazier K, Forsythe L, Mosbacher R, Carman KL. Examining how study teams manage different viewpoints and priorities in patient-centered outcomes research: Results of an embedded multiple case study. Health Expect 2023; 26:1606-1617. [PMID: 37254610 PMCID: PMC10349253 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13765] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2022] [Revised: 02/24/2023] [Accepted: 04/04/2023] [Indexed: 06/01/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Limited evidence exists about which patient and stakeholder engagement practices support or hinder study teams as they negotiate different viewpoints in decisions about the design and conduct of patient-centered outcomes research. METHODS We applied a multiple-embedded descriptive case study design for six studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). We interviewed 32 researchers and stakeholder partners, including patients, caregivers and clinicians, and reviewed documents related to each study (e.g., publications, and progress reports submitted to PCORI). FINDINGS Overall, researchers reported that incorporating different viewpoints was a strength or opportunity to learn rather than something to be avoided or dreaded. Across cases, different viewpoints and priorities, often related to ethical or pragmatic considerations, emerged between researchers and stakeholders, between stakeholder groups (e.g., patients and clinicians) or within groups (e.g., amongst researchers). Examples of navigating different viewpoints arose across study phases. The length of time to resolve issues depended on how strongly people disagreed and the perceived importance or impact of decisions on the study. All cases used collaborative decision-making approaches, often described as consensus, throughout the study. Interviewees described consensus as using negotiation, compromise or working towards an agreeable decision. To encourage consensus, cases actively facilitated group discussions with an openness to diverse opinions, remained flexible and open to trying new things, referenced a ground rule or common goal and delegated decisions to partners or smaller workgroups. When viewpoints were not easily resolved, cases used different approaches to reach final decisions while maintaining relationships with partners, such as elevating decisions to leadership or agreeing to test out an approach. No one engagement structure (e.g., advisory group, coinvestigator) stood out as better able to manage different viewpoints. Teams adjusted engagement structures and behaviours to facilitate an overall culture of inclusion and respect. Partners acknowledged the intentional efforts of researchers to incorporate their perspectives, navigate challenges and communicate the value of partner input. CONCLUSION By using collaborative decision-making in the early stages and throughout the study, researchers built trust with partners so that when decisions were difficult to resolve, partners still felt listened to and that their input mattered. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION Members of the PCORI Patient Engagement Advisory Panel in 2019-2020 provided input into the design of the study, including the research questions and approaches to data collection and analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Karen Frazier
- American Institutes for Research (AIR)Chapel HillNorth CarolinaUSA
| | - Laura Forsythe
- Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)WashingtonDistrict of ColumbiaUSA
| | - Rachel Mosbacher
- Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)WashingtonDistrict of ColumbiaUSA
| | - Kristin L. Carman
- Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)WashingtonDistrict of ColumbiaUSA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Casey S, Siebert-Evenstone A, Brasier AR. Win-win interactions: Results and implications of a user needs assessment of clinical and translational scientists. J Clin Transl Sci 2023; 7:e73. [PMID: 37008601 PMCID: PMC10052438 DOI: 10.1017/cts.2023.6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2022] [Revised: 11/23/2022] [Accepted: 01/10/2023] [Indexed: 02/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction This study describes a needs assessment of clinical and translational research (CTR) scientists at a large, distributed, School of Medicine within a public university and affiliated clinics. Method We performed an Exploratory Conversion Mixed-Methods analysis using a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews with CTR scientists across the training continuum, from early-career scholars, mid-career mentors, and senior administrators at the University of Wisconsin and Marshfield Clinics. Qualitative findings were confirmed using epistemic network analysis (ENA). A survey was distributed to CTR scientists in training. Results Analyses supported that early-career and senior-career scientists have unique needs. Scientists who identified as non-White or female reported needs that differed from White male scientists. Scientists expressed the needs for educational training in CTR, for institutional support of career development, and trainings for building stronger relationships with community stakeholders. The tension between meeting tenure clocks and building deep community connections was particularly meaningful for scholars who identified as under-represented, including based on race, gender, and discipline. Conclusions This study yielded clear differences in support needs between scientists based upon their years in research and diversity of identities. The validation of qualitative findings, through quantification with ENA, enables robust identification of unique needs of CTR investigators. It is critically important to the future of CTR that scientists are provided with supports throughout the career. Delivery of that support in efficient and timely ways improves scientific outcomes. Advocacy at the level of the institution for under-represented scientists is of utmost importance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shannon Casey
- Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | | | - Allan R. Brasier
- Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
- Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin–Madison, School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Slade E, Kern PA, Kegebein RL, Liu C, Thompson JC, Kelly TH, King VL, DiPaola RS, Surratt HL. Collaborative team dynamics and scholarly outcomes of multidisciplinary research teams: A mixed-methods approach. J Clin Transl Sci 2023; 7:e59. [PMID: 37008617 PMCID: PMC10052417 DOI: 10.1017/cts.2023.9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2022] [Revised: 12/22/2022] [Accepted: 01/19/2023] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction Impactful, transdisciplinary scientific discoveries are created by teams of researchers spanning multiple disciplines, but collaboration across disciplines can be challenging. We examined how team dynamics and collaboration are related to successes and barriers faced by teams of researchers from multiple disciplines. Methods A mixed-methods approach was used to examine 12 research teams granted multidisciplinary pilot awards. Team members were surveyed to assess their team dynamics and individual views about transdisciplinary research. Forty-seven researchers (59.5%) responded, including two to eight members from each funded team. Associations were examined between collaborative dynamics and scholarly product outcomes, including manuscripts, grant proposals, and awarded grants. One member from each team was selected for an in-depth interview to contextualize and extend information about collaborative processes, successes, and barriers to performing transdisciplinary research. Results Quality of team interactions was positively associated with achievement of scholarly products (r = 0.64, p = 0.02). Satisfaction with team members (r = 0.38) and team collaboration scores (r = 0.43) also demonstrated positive associations with achievement of scholarly products, but these were not statistically significant. Qualitative results support these findings and add further insight into aspects of the collaborative process that were particularly important to foster success on multidisciplinary teams. Beyond scholarly metrics, additional successes from the multidisciplinary teams were identified through the qualitative portion of the study including career development and acceleration for early career researchers. Conclusions Both the quantitative and qualitative study results indicate that effective collaboration is critical to multidisciplinary research team success. Development and/or promotion of team science-based trainings for researchers would promote these collaborative skills.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily Slade
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Philip A. Kern
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
- Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Robert L. Kegebein
- Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Chang Liu
- Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Joel C. Thompson
- Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Thomas H. Kelly
- Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Victoria L. King
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | | | - Hilary L. Surratt
- Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
- Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Surratt HL, Otachi JK, Slade E, Kern PA, King V, Kelly TH, DiPaola RS. Optimizing team science in an academic medical center: A qualitative examination of investigator perspectives. J Clin Transl Sci 2023; 7:e57. [PMID: 37008610 PMCID: PMC10052375 DOI: 10.1017/cts.2023.3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/14/2022] [Revised: 12/22/2022] [Accepted: 01/03/2023] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction Optimizing the effectiveness of a team-based approach to unite multiple disciplines in advancing specific translational areas of research is foundational to improving clinical practice. The current study was undertaken to examine investigators' experiences of participation in transdisciplinary team science initiatives, with a focus on challenges and recommendations for improving effectiveness. Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted with investigators from twelve multidisciplinary teams awarded pilot research funding by the University of Kentucky College of Medicine to better understand the barriers and facilitators to effective team science within an academic medical center. An experienced qualitative researcher facilitated one-on-one interviews, which lasted about one hour. Structured consensus coding and thematic analysis were conducted. Results The sample was balanced by gender, career stage (five were assistant professor at the time of the award, seven were senior faculty), and training (six were PhDs; six were MD physicians). Key themes at the team-level centered on the tension between clinical commitments and research pursuits and the limitations for effective team functioning. Access to tangible support from home departments and key university centers was identified as a critical organizational facilitator of successful project completion. Organizational barriers centered on operationalizing protected time for physicians, gaps in effective mentoring, and limitations in operational support. Conclusions Prioritizing tailored mentoring and career development support for early career faculty, and particularly physician faculty, emerged as a key recommendation for improving team science in academic medical centers. The findings contribute to establishing best practices and policies for team science in academic medical centers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hilary L. Surratt
- Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA
- Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Janet K. Otachi
- University of Kentucky Health Care, Psychiatric Services, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Emily Slade
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Kentucky, College of Public Health, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Philip A. Kern
- Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Victoria King
- Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Thomas H. Kelly
- Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA
- Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
The AI field needs translational Ethical AI research. AI MAG 2022. [DOI: 10.1002/aaai.12062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
|
14
|
Rolland B, Cross JE, Hohl SD, Johnson LJ, Wooten K, Brasier AR. Introduction to the themed issue on the design, development, evaluation, and dissemination of team science interventions in clinical and translational research. J Clin Transl Sci 2021; 5:e202. [PMID: 35047214 PMCID: PMC8727717 DOI: 10.1017/cts.2021.870] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2021] [Accepted: 10/11/2021] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Betsy Rolland
- Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
- Carbone Cancer Center, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Jennifer E. Cross
- Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Institute for Research in the Social Sciences, Sociology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
| | - Sarah D. Hohl
- Carbone Cancer Center, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - LaKaija J. Johnson
- Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Kevin Wooten
- Office of the President, University of Houston Clear Lake, Houston, TX, USA
- Institute for Translational Science, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
| | - Allan R. Brasier
- Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
- Internal Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| |
Collapse
|