scholarly journals Measuring quality and outcomes of research collaborations: An integrative review

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 261-289
Author(s):  
Beth B. Tigges ◽  
Doriane Miller ◽  
Katherine M. Dudding ◽  
Joyce E. Balls-Berry ◽  
Elaine A. Borawski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Group Dynamics ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Psychometric Testing ◽  
Integrative Review ◽  
Team Science ◽  
Research Collaborations ◽  
Collaboration Quality ◽  
Quality And Outcomes ◽  
Science Of Team Science

AbstractIntroduction:Although the science of team science is no longer a new field, the measurement of team science and its standardization remain in relatively early stages of development. To describe the current state of team science assessment, we conducted an integrative review of measures of research collaboration quality and outcomes.Methods:Collaboration measures were identified using both a literature review based on specific keywords and an environmental scan. Raters abstracted details about the measures using a standard tool. Measures related to collaborations with clinical care, education, and program delivery were excluded from this review.Results:We identified 44 measures of research collaboration quality, which included 35 measures with reliability and some form of statistical validity reported. Most scales focused on group dynamics. We identified 89 measures of research collaboration outcomes; 16 had reliability and 15 had a validity statistic. Outcome measures often only included simple counts of products; publications rarely defined how counts were delimited, obtained, or assessed for reliability. Most measures were tested in only one venue.Conclusions:Although models of collaboration have been developed, in general, strong, reliable, and valid measurements of such collaborations have not been conducted or accepted into practice. This limitation makes it difficult to compare the characteristics and impacts of research teams across studies or to identify the most important areas for intervention. To advance the science of team science, we provide recommendations regarding the development and psychometric testing of measures of collaboration quality and outcomes that can be replicated and broadly applied across studies.

Understanding Cross-Disciplinary Team-Based Research

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kara Hall ◽  
Brooke A. Stipelman ◽  
Amanda L. Vogel ◽  
Daniel Stokols
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Models ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Team Science ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Collaborative Interactions ◽  
Institutional Funding ◽  
Team Characteristics ◽  
Science Of Team Science

Cross-disciplinary team-based research is conducted by collaborators from more than one area of expertise. The quality of the scholarship they produce can be influenced strongly by the quality of their collaborative interactions. A new field of study has emerged, called the science of team science (SciTS), that aims to develop an evidence base for the multilevel factors that hinder or facilitate effective research collaboration, such as team characteristics and processes and institutional, funding, and other conditions. This chapter begins with an overview of team science, including a discussion of the major dimensions and processes that shape science teams and unique considerations for cross-disciplinary teams. The chapter then introduces key concepts and milestones in the SciTS field, and reviews conceptual models that explicate the processes and contextual factors that influence research collaboration. The chapter concludes with a discussion of future directions, including additional evidence needed to promote effective cross-disciplinary teamwork.

scholarly journals Multidisciplinary collaboration among young specialists: results of an international survey by the emerging EULAR network and other young organisations

RMD Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. e001398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurélie Najm ◽  
Marie Kostine ◽  
John D Pauling ◽  
Ana Carina Ferreira ◽  
Kate Stevens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Research ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Basic Research ◽  
Multidisciplinary Collaboration ◽  
Collective Work ◽  
Research Collaborations ◽  
Complex Patients ◽  
Multidisciplinary Meetings

BackgroundMultidisciplinary collaboration is defined as a collective work involving multiple disciplines and is common in clinical care and research. Our aim was to describe current clinical and research collaboration among young specialists and to identify unmet needs in this area.MethodsAn online survey was disseminated by email and social media to members of the EMerging EUlar NETwork, the Young Nephrologists’ Platform, the Paediatric Rheumatology European Society Emerging Rheumatologists and Researchers and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Junior Members.ResultsOf 303 respondents from 36 countries, 61% were female, 21% were aged below 30 years and 67% were aged 31–40 years. Young rheumatologists were the most represented (39%), followed by young nephrologists (24%), young paediatricians (20%), young allergologists (11%) then young internists (3%) and 3% other specialities. Collaborations were reported frequently by phone and email, also by various combined clinics while common local multidisciplinary meetings were uncommon. 96% would like to develop clinical research collaborations and 69% basic research collaborations. The majority of young specialists would be interested in online (84%) and/or 1–2 days (85%) common courses including case discussion (81%) and training workshops (85%), as well as webinars recorded with several specialists on a specific disease (96%).ConclusionsThis collaborative initiative highlighted wishes from young specialists for developing (1) regular local multidisciplinary meetings to discuss complex patients, (2) clinical research collaboration with combined grants and (3) multidisciplinary online projects such as common courses, webinars and apps.

Developing a Guideline of Good Practice in a North–South Health Research Collaboration: A Participatory Approach

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Birgit Jentsch ◽  
Julia Hussein
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
International Health ◽  
Participatory Approach ◽  
Colonial History ◽  
Poor Countries ◽  
Research Collaborations ◽  
Open Relationships ◽  
Reference Document

North–South health research collaborations have a colonial history, and a contested presence in which organisations from resource-poor countries depend on collaborations with grant-holding institutions from affluent countries. Despite this sensitive context, there is a remarkable lack of guidance to support North–South health research collaborations in a comprehensive manner. A reference document of practical advice can establish standards from the beginning, thereby promoting equitable and open relationships. This article explains the process and some results of the development of such a document – a Guideline of Good Practice (GGP)– for the international health research collaboration Initiative for Maternal Mortality Programme Assessment (IMMPACT).

scholarly journals The European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC): experiences from a successful ERS Clinical Research Collaboration

Breathe ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 180-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. Chalmers ◽  
Megan Crichton ◽  
Pieter C. Goeminne ◽  
Michael R. Loebinger ◽  
Charles Haworth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
List Type ◽  
European Respiratory Society ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Research Education

In contrast to airway diseases like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, and rare diseases such as cystic fibrosis, there has been little research and few clinical trials in bronchiectasis. Guidelines are primarily based on expert opinion and treatment is challenging because of the heterogeneous nature of the disease.In an effort to address decades of underinvestment in bronchiectasis research, education and clinical care, the European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC) was established in 2012 as a collaborative pan-European network to bring together bronchiectasis researchers. The European Respiratory Society officially funded EMBARC in 2013 as a Clinical Research Collaboration, providing support and infrastructure to allow the project to grow.EMBARC has now established an international bronchiectasis registry that is active in more than 30 countries both within and outside Europe. Beyond the registry, the network participates in designing and facilitating clinical trials, has set international research priorities, promotes education and has participated in producing the first international bronchiectasis guidelines. This manuscript article the development, structure and achievements of EMBARC from 2012 to 2017.Educational aimsTo understand the role of Clinical Research Collaborations as the major way in which the European Respiratory Society can stimulate clinical research in different disease areasTo understand some of the key features of successful disease registriesTo review key epidemiological, clinical and translational studies of bronchiectasis contributed by the European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC) project in the past 5 yearsTo understand the key research priorities identified by EMBARC for the next 5 years

Instruments That Measure Nurses’ Knowledge About Diabetes: An Integrative Review

2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Ann Francisco
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Psychometric Testing ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Integrative Review ◽  
Basic Knowledge ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Prevalent Disease ◽  
Nurses Knowledge

Background and Purpose: Diabetes mellitus is an increasingly prevalent disease among hospitalized patients. Educators are challenged to build evidence-based programs for nurses based on sound nursing needs assessments using valid and reliable measures. The purpose of this integrative review is to examine instruments that measure nurses’ knowledge about diabetes. Methods: The Databases PubMed (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for articles published between 1983 and 2012 using the keywords: diabetes knowledge; diabetes mellitus; diabetes self-management, nurse, and nursing knowledge. Fifteen articles reflecting the psychometric properties of 7 published instruments were reviewed. Results: The most commonly used instruments are the Diabetes Basic Knowledge Test (DBKT) and Diabetes Self-Report Test (DSRT). Several replication studies using the DBKT and DSRT did not consistently report reliability and validity measures. Five additional investigator-developed tools also lack strong validity and reliability measures. Conclusions: The findings suggest the need for continued development and psychometric testing of instruments to measure nurses’ knowledge about diabetes.

scholarly journals A Multi-Level Systems Perspective for the Science of Team Science

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (49) ◽  
pp. 49cm24-49cm24 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Borner ◽  
N. Contractor ◽  
H. J. Falk-Krzesinski ◽  
S. M. Fiore ◽  
K. L. Hall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Team Science ◽  
Systems Perspective ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Science Of Team Science

scholarly journals Cultural diversity drives innovation: empowering teams for success

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-343
Author(s):  
Graham Jones ◽  
Bernardita Chirino Chace ◽  
Justin Wright
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
Cultural Awareness ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Thinking Styles ◽  
Team Science ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Team Diversity ◽  
Diversity And Inclusion ◽  
Innovation Teams ◽  
Science Of Team Science

Purpose Though there is broad agreement on the beneficial impact of diversity in management and leadership roles, much of the innovative capacity of an organization is realized at the unit level in working teams. Recent research points to cultural diversity having an especially significant impact on innovation team performance. The reports also highlight the need for the optimal team operating principles to derive maximum benefit. To prepare such innovation teams for success, it is valuable to understand the dynamics of team diversity at the project level and the underlying barriers and opportunities presented. Design/methodology/approach This paper reviews the literature and case studies on cultural inputs to ideation and innovation, assessing team diversity through readily available instruments and the deployment of the science of team science (SciTS) principles in innovation teams. Findings The key learnings include the importance of establishing communication standards, SciTS principles, team assessment of thinking styles and the utility of cultural awareness instruments. Practical implications Diversity provides a creative advantage for innovation teams. However, team dynamics play an important role in maximizing these advantages, and cross-cultural competence of team members is required. Deployment of appropriate assessment tools and team methodologies enhances the likelihood of successful outcomes including in remote team settings. Originality/value Literature from diverse functional areas is summarized including the science of team science, organizational management, diversity and inclusion methodologies and ethnocultural dynamics. It provides pointers for the optimal formation and operating principles with highly culturally diverse teams.

scholarly journals Collaborative Research: Techniques for Conducting Collaborative Research From the Science of Team Science (SciTS)

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Turner ◽  
Rose Baker
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Human Resource Development ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Team Science ◽  
Collaborative Environments ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Science Of Team Science ◽  
Collaborative Efforts ◽  
Improved Methods

The Problem The field of human resource development (HRD) is a multidisciplinary field of research and practice requiring collaboration. Unfortunately, the literature on how to conduct collaborative research is incomplete within HRD and other disciplines. Any breakdown in the communication, exchange of ideas, agreed-upon methodologies, or shared credit for dissemination has the potential of preventing research from moving forward. Promotion and tenure policies also hamper collaborative efforts in that these policies often reward individual initiative as opposed to collaborative outcomes. These behavioral patterns provide constraints to the improvement and betterment of efforts to changing of the guard. The Solution This article highlights new and improved methods for working in collaborative environments. During an academic’s transition and professional development, these methods will help emerging scholars, new to collaborative research, when facing the team science revolution. The Stakeholders Scholars and scholar-practitioners engaged in collaborative research. Emerging scholars who are beginning their journey into collaborative research. Graduate students preparing for a career in academia.

Bridging the Gap: U.S. Sport Managers on Barriers to Industry–Academia Research Collaboration

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 248-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noni Zaharia ◽  
Anastasios Kaburakis
Keyword(s):  
Sport Management ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Education Level ◽  
Sport Organizations ◽  
Management Research ◽  
Research Collaborations ◽  
Research Involvement ◽  
Sport Industry ◽  
The U.S

Collaboration between industry and academia is a subject of great interest to sport management academics and sport industry leaders in the United States. However, there is a lack of research regarding barriers to sport industry–academia collaborations and bridging the gap between sport management research and practitioners. The aim of the study was to explore trends in collaboration barriers among various research involvement levels of U.S. sport firms with sport management academia. Data were gathered from 303 sport managers working for U.S. sport companies. Results indicated several barriers for research collaborations between the U.S. sport industry and academia. Such barriers include transactional barriers, sport industry subsectors, sport organizations’ location, and age and education level of respondents.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document