Organizing a Multidisciplinary Research Team: Strategies, Execution, and Outcomes

Listening to patients, for the patients: The COVAD Study-Vision, organizational structure, and challenges

BACKGROUND

The pandemic presented unique challenges for individuals with autoimmune and rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) due to their underlying condition, the effects of immunosuppressive treatments, and increased vaccine hesitancy.

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune diseases (COVAD) study, a series of ongoing, patient self-reported surveys were conceived with the vision of being a unique tool to gather patient perspectives on AIRDs. It involved a multinational, multicenter collaborative effort amidst a global lockdown.

METHODS

Leveraging social media as a research tool, COVAD collected data using validated patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The study, comprising a core team, steering committee, and global collaborators, facilitated data collection and analysis. A pilot-tested, validated survey, featuring questions regarding COVID-19 infection, vaccination and outcomes, patient demographics, and PROs was circulated to patients with AIRDs and healthy controls (HCs).

DISCUSSION

We present the challenges encountered during this international collaborative project, including coordination, data management, funding constraints, language barriers, and authorship concerns, while highlighting the measures taken to address them.

CONCLUSION

Collaborative virtual models offer a dynamic new frontier in medical research and are vital to studying rare diseases. The COVAD study demonstrates the potential of online platforms for conducting large-scale, patient-focused research and underscores the importance of integrating patient perspective into clinical care. Care of patients is our central motivation, and it is essential to recognize their voices as equal stakeholders and valued partners in the study of the conditions that affect them.

How to Start a Microsurgery Practice: Success and Sustainability in Academic Practice

Starting an academic microsurgery practice is a daunting task for plastic surgery graduates. Despite this, academic practice provides many advantages as a starting point for a career. Microsurgical faculty can make use of several unique benefits within an academic center. These include vast resources of clinical and basic science departments, communications and public affairs divisions, and quality improvement teams. Building a multi-disciplinary microsurgery practice with specific focus will jumpstart research questions and outcome data. Using residents and students to their full potential is both rewarding and efficient as a microsurgeon. Finally, peer faculty in an academic environment provide a stimulating resource for growth and assistance when needed. This special topic provides insight into starting a microsurgery practice for any resident considering a career in academics.

The Role of a Longitudinal, Multidisciplinary Clinic in Building a Unique Research Collaborative

Multidisciplinary neuro-oncology clinics allow collaboration between various specialties and training levels. Building a tenable clinical research program based in the longitudinal dialogue and practice of collaborative clinicians and trainees can bridge clinical observations to research execution. However, forming a research team around a multidisciplinary clinic’s activities is constrained by a lack of literature or guidelines. As well, challenges in sustaining team logistics, communication, and productivity can persist without a standardized team framework. This perspective discusses the state of research teams in clinical oncology, and uses experiences from the McMaster Pediatric Brain Tumour Study Group to guide those seeking to form a research team based on the collective activities and observations of a multidisciplinary clinic.

Articulating the "So, What?" in Clinical Research: Insight from the M-CHOIR Group

With the academic culture of "publish or perish," authors must ensure that they are delivering high-quality data with a meaningful impact on clinical practice. Even for physician-scientists at the top of their fields, establishing the relevance of a study to clinical practice is a challenge. Thus, it is essential that research proposals ask questions that are clinically important, use appropriate methodologies, and examine outcomes that are relevant to both the physicians and the patients. The question of "so, what?" or in other words, "who cares?" is one that can make or break a study's impact on clinical practice. Researchers should use models such as PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study design) and FINER (Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant) and ask why readers will care about their study's findings before the study is conducted. By doing so, researchers can ensure the successful execution of their study and a meaningful impact of their findings, in both academia and clinical practice. This Special Topic article aims to guide researchers in producing relevant, impactful conclusions of their studies by providing input and resources from the Michigan Center for Hand Outcomes and Innovation (M-CHOIR) group.