RESUMEN

Research teams are an important means by which knowledge is generated in Health Professions Education (HPE). Although funding agencies encourage the formation of interdisciplinary and interprofessional research teams, we know little about how our interdisciplinary and interprofessional research teams are functioning, nor how best to ensure their success. Indeed, while HPE Scholarship Units and research environments have been the object of study, little work has been focused on research teams themselves. In this article, the authors propose that research teams should be studied as unique instantiations of teams where several individuals work together towards a common goal. Considering research teams as a team can encourage attention to how effective teams are built, supported, and celebrated, it can acknowledge that competent individuals may form incompetent teams, and it opens important avenues for future research. Turning our attention to better understanding how and when research teams thrive should support the development of more effective teams; resulting in reduced waste and redundancy, better mobilization of team members' time and skills, and enhanced knowledge generation. Considering research teams as teams, encourages an understanding that these teams require care, commitment, and effort to sustain them, and it acknowledges that pursuing research in a team context is both a collaborative and a social endeavour.

RESUMEN

This article explores the processes involved in developing international, cross-cultural research teams. Scholarship on Indigenous and Pacific Methodologies demonstrate the importance of employing methodologies that center Indigenous approaches to research and relationships. This article explores using these methodologies within research teams as a preliminary step in developing sustainable and impactful international, cross-cultural research teams. Although this is not a formal study, the article reports that the importance of building trust within research teams as an essential step in addition to building trust with communities.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In recent years, collaboration has become the norm in scientific knowledge production. Like other forms of collaboration, research collaborations (RCs) face specific problems that can jeopardize success. Against this background, the present study sought to gain a deeper understanding of the relevance of different collaboration problems and the interconnections among these problems. Building on previous insights into the most current problems, we addressed four major issues: (1) researchers' perceived relative relevance of collaboration problems in their projects (in terms of their occurrence), (2) differences in these perceptions based on the type of RC (e.g., number of subprojects and collaboration mode) and (3) on the characteristics of researchers, and (4) the co-occurrence of collaboration problems. Based on a representative survey of leading participants of RCs funded by the German Research Foundation (n = 5,326), we found that researchers experienced collaboration problems (e.g., fairness and communication problem) only to a small degree, and there were almost no differences regarding their perceived relevance. Furthermore, there were almost no significant differences concerning the perceived relevance of these problems depending on the type of RC or the individual researchers. However, the findings did reveal specific patterns of co-occurrence (e.g., relationship and difference problem). The results suggest that previous research may have overstated the relevance of collaboration problems in RCs. Instead, it seems that at least in Germany, collaborative research works better than one might assume.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: An increasing clinical workload and growing financial, administrative and legal burdens as well as changing demands regarding work-life balance have resulted in an increased emphasis on clinical practice at the expense of research activities by orthopaedic trauma surgeons. This has led to an overall decrease in the number of scientifically active clinicians in orthopaedic trauma surgery, which represents a serious burden on research in this field. In order to guarantee that the clinical relevance of this discipline is also mirrored in the scientific field, new concepts are needed to keep clinicians involved in research. METHODS: Literature review and discussion of the results of a survey. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: An interdisciplinary and -professional team approach involving clinicians and basic scientists with different fields of expertise appears to be a promising method. Although differences regarding motivation, research focuses, funding rates and sources as well as inhibitory factors for research activities between basic scientists and clinicians exist, successful and long-lasting collaborations have already proven fruitful. For further implementation of the team approach, diverse prerequisites are necessary. Among those measures, institutions (e.g. societies, universities etc.) must shift the focus of their support mechanisms from independent scientist models to research team performances.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The academic research enterprise currently suffers from a culture of "academic bullying" and an unprecedented worldwide mental health crisis among trainees and faculty. These struggles, in part, result from a lack of leadership skills. Mental health, well-being, intrinsic motivation, and engagement at work are linked to three fundamental needs of self-determination: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. A great leader will first ensure they are meeting their own needs and, secondly, will support their team members in increasing their needs without decreasing autonomy. This article is a practical "how-to" guide for researchers at every stage of the academic career path. It distinguishes management from leadership and addresses three key leadership competencies related to the self-determination needs: 1. Increasing one's personal power as a foundation for autonomy, 2. building a culture of belonging and psychological safety to nurture relatedness, and 3. supporting and encouraging the need for competence by enabling people to self-evaluate performance and direct professional growth. © 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Working collaboratively and openly together with stakeholders has become a common phenomenon in research. While previous studies have gathered a clear picture on researchers' attitudes, motivations, and barriers for actively involving stakeholders in transdisciplinary research, the stakeholder perspective is yet unknown. Therefore, this paper sets out to identify how stakeholders perceive transdisciplinary collaborations with researchers. This paper in particular reveals the enablers and barriers for such collaborations from the viewpoint of stakeholders. To do so, we look at how stakeholders, who were actively involved in the governance structure of two "children with mentally ill parents" research groups in Austria, perceived their collaboration with researchers. We used a mixed-method, quantitative-qualitative design. We conducted an online survey and interviews with the members of the advisory board and competence group. These stakeholders reported great satisfaction with the transdisciplinary collaboration and emphasized the value of different expertise. As the most important enablers for successful, transdisciplinary collaboration stakeholders emphasized researchers' open-mindedness toward new perspectives and approaches, flexibility to adapt to the research process along the way, and creativity dealing with diverse backgrounds and skills. Stakeholders further underlined the importance of a person facilitating the collaboration process between researchers and stakeholders to resolve any tensions and insecurities. Concluding, researchers' attitudes, and in particular their understanding of the value of stakeholder involvement in research are key enablers for successful transdisciplinary research collaborations.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary research teams can increase productivity among academic researchers, yet many junior investigators do not have the training or financial resources to build productive teams. We developed and tested the acceptability and feasibility of three low-cost services to help junior faculty build and maintain their own research teams. METHODS: At an urban academic medical centre, we implemented three types of consultation services: 1) giving talks on evidence-based best practices for building teams; 2) providing easy-to-use team building resources via email; and 3) offering a year-long consultation service-co-led by students-that taught faculty to build and maintain research teams. Our primary outcome was the number of faculty who used each service. For the yearlong consultation service, we asked faculty participants to complete three online self-assessments to rate their leadership confidence, the team's performance, and which of the consultation components were most helpful. We used descriptive statistics to evaluate faculty assessment scores at three timepoints by comparing median scores and interquartile ranges. RESULTS: We gave 31 talks on team building to 328 faculty and postdoctoral fellows from 2014 to 2020. Separately, 26 faculty heard about our research team building expertise and requested materials via email. For the consultation service, we helped build or enhance 45 research teams from 2014 to 2020. By the end of the consultation, 100% of the faculty reported they were still maintaining their team. In the initial survey, the majority of participants (95.7%, n = 22) reported having no or few experiences in building teams. Further, when asked to rate their team's performance at 12-months, faculty highly rated many elements of both teamwork and taskwork, specifically their team's productivity (6/7 points), morale (6/7 points), and motivation (6/7 points). By the end of the program, faculty participants also highly rated two components of the consultation program: recruitment assistance (7/10 points) and provision of team management tools (7/10 points). CONCLUSIONS: For participating faculty, our program provided valued guidance on recruitment assistance and team management tools. The high demand for team-building resources suggests that junior faculty urgently need better training on how to develop and manage their own team.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Few studies have utilized qualitative methods to assess the perceived effectiveness of collaboration among research center interdisciplinary team scientists. Stages of team development served as the theoretical framework to characterize minority serving institution (MSI) and predominantly White institutions (PWI) participants' challenges and successes during a National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsored cancer health disparities training and research program. We present the finding of an inductive analysis of four open-ended survey questions across two years. Fostering an awareness of the inherently taxing, yet centrality of group (team) development may advance an understanding of team dynamics and lead to increased team cohesion and productivity. In conclusion, we provide recommendations to assist multiple principal investigators who embark on team development.

RESUMEN

Efficient knowledge sharing is an important support for the continuous innovation and sustainable development of scientific research teams. However, in realistic management situations, the knowledge sharing of scientific research teams always appears to be unsustainable, and the reasons for this are the subject of considerable debate. In this study, an attempt was made to explore the interactive mechanism of knowledge hiding behaviors in scientific research teams between individual and collective knowledge hiding behaviors and its impact on knowledge sharing by adopting grounded theory to comprehensively understand this situation. The results show that knowledge hiding behavior in the scientific research team is a two-phase interactive process and is capable of affecting sustainable knowledge sharing by reducing the supply of knowledge, creating a poor knowledge sharing atmosphere, and forming an interpersonal distrust relationship. This research may provide a strong basis for a deeper understanding of the interaction mechanism of knowledge hiding behavior and its impact on knowledge sharing.

RESUMEN

This editorial argues that it is time for the traumatic stress field to join the growing international movement towards Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Re-usable (FAIR) research data, and that we are well-positioned to do so. The field has a huge, largely untapped resource in the enormous number of rich potentially re-usable datasets that are not currently shared or preserved. We have several promising shared data resources created via international collaborative efforts by traumatic stress researchers, but we do not yet have common standards for data description, sharing, or preservation. And, despite the promise of novel findings from data sharing and re-use, there are a number of barriers to researchers' adoption of FAIR data practices. We present a vision for the future of FAIR traumatic stress data, and a call to action for the traumatic stress research community and individual researchers and research teams to help achieve this vision.

Esta editorial argumenta que es hora de que el campo del estrés traumático se una al creciente movimiento internacional hacia datos de investigación Hallables, Accesibles, Interoperables y Reutilizables (FAIR en su sigla es inglés), y que estamos en una buena posición para hacerlo. El campo tiene un recurso enorme, en gran parte sin explotar, en la enorme y rica cantidad de conjuntos de datos potencialmente reutilizables que actualmente no son conservados o compartidos. Tenemos varios recursos de datos compartidos prometedores creados a través de esfuerzos de colaboración internacional por investigadores de estrés traumático, pero aún no tenemos estándares comunes para la descripción, el intercambio o la preservación de datos. Y, a pesar de la promesa de nuevos hallazgos del uso compartido y la reutilización de datos, existen numerosas barreras para la adopción de prácticas de datos FAIR por parte de los investigadores. Presentamos una visión para el futuro de los datos de estrés traumático FAIR, y un llamado a la acción para la comunidad de investigación de estrés traumático y los investigadores individuales y equipos de investigación para ayudar a lograr esta visión.

RESUMEN

Background: Studies that identify children after acute trauma and prospectively track risk/protective factors and trauma responses over time are resource-intensive; small sample sizes often limit power and generalizability. The Prospective studies of Acute Child Trauma and Recovery (PACT/R) Data Archive was created to facilitate more robust integrative cross-study data analyses. Objectives: To (a) describe creation of this research resource, including harmonization of key variables; (b) describe key study- and participant-level variables; and (c) examine retention to follow-up across studies. Methods: For the first 30 studies in the Archive, we described study-level (design factors, retention rates) and participant-level (demographic, event, traumatic stress) variables. We used Chi square or ANOVA to examine study- and participant-level variables potentially associated with retention. Results: These 30 prospective studies (N per study = 50 to 568; overall N = 5499) conducted by 15 research teams in 5 countries enrolled children exposed to injury (46%), disaster (24%), violence (13%), traffic accidents (10%), or other acute events. Participants were school-age or adolescent (97%), 60% were male, and approximately half were of minority ethnicity. Using harmonized data from 22 measures, 24% reported significant traumatic stress ≥1 month post-event. Other commonly assessed outcomes included depression (19 studies), internalizing/externalizing symptoms (19), and parent mental health (19). Studies involved 2 to 5 research assessments; 80% of participants were retained for ≥2 assessments. At the study level, greater retention was associated with more planned assessments. At the participant level, adolescents, minority youth, and those of lower socioeconomic status had lower retention rates. Conclusion: This project demonstrates the feasibility and value of bringing together traumatic stress research data and making it available for re-use. As an ongoing research resource, the Archive can promote 'FAIR' data practices and facilitate integrated analyses to advance understanding of child traumatic stress.

Antecedentes: Los estudios que identifican niños luego de la exposición a trauma agudo y realizan un seguimiento prospectivo para identificar factores protectores o de riesgo, y respuestas al trauma en el tiempo requieren una gran cantidad de recursos; el tamaño pequeño de las muestras frecuentemente limita su poder y generalización. El Banco de Información de los Estudios Prospectivos sobre Trauma Agudo y Recuperación en el Niño (PACT/R por sus siglas en inglés) se creó para facilitar un análisis de datos más robusto e integrativo entre los estudios.Objetivos: a) Describir la creación de este recurso de investigación, incluyendo la armonización de variables clave; b) describir las variables clave a nivel de estudios y de participantes; y c) evaluar la permanencia del seguimiento en los estudios.Métodos: Describimos las variables 'nivel de estudio' (diseño, factores, tasas de permanencia) y 'nivel de participantes' (demografía, evento, estrés traumático) en los 30 primeros estudios del Banco. Empleamos Chi cuadrado o ANOVA para evaluar los niveles de estudio y de participante potencialmente asociados con la permanencia.Resultados: Estos 30 estudios prospectivos (N por estudio = 50 a 568; total N = 5499) realizados por 15 grupos de investigación en 5 países reclutaron niños expuestos a lesión (46%), desastre (24), violencia (13%), accidentes de tránsito (10%) u otros eventos agudos. Los participantes estaban en edad escolar o en la adolescencia (97%), 60% eran varones y, aproximadamente la mitad pertenecían a una minoría étnica. Empleando la armonización de datos para 22 mediciones, el 24% reportó estrés traumático significativo mayor o igual a un mes luego del evento. Otros desenlaces comúnmente evaluados incluyeron a la depresión (19 estudios), síntomas internalizantes y externalizantes (19), y salud mental de los padres (19). Los estudios incluyeron entre 2 y 5 evaluaciones de investigación; 80% de los participantes fueron mantenidos para dos o más evaluaciones. En el nivel de estudio, una mayor permanencia se asoció a un mayor número de evaluaciones planificadas. En el nivel de participantes, los adolescentes, los jóvenes pertenecientes a minorías, y aquellos en niveles socioeconómicos más bajos presentaron menores tasas de permanencia.Conclusión: Este proyecto demuestra la viabilidad y el valour de integrar la información sobre la investigación en estrés traumático y hacerla disponible para ser reutilizada. Como recurso de investigación en curso, el Banco puede promover el uso de prácticas de información 'FAIR' y facilitar el análisis integrado para generar progreso en la comprensión del estrés traumático infantil.

RESUMEN

Within the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design (BERD) component of the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, we created a mentoring program to complement training provided by the associated Multidisciplinary Career Development Program (KL2). Called Research design Analysis Methods Program (RAMP) Mentors, the program provides each KL2 scholar with individualized, hands-on mentoring in biostatistics, epidemiology, informatics, and related fields, with the goal of building multidisciplinary research teams. From 2015 to 2019, RAMP Mentors paired 8 KL2 scholars with 16 individually selected mentors. Mentors had funded/protected time to meet at least monthly with their scholar to provide advice and instruction on methods for ongoing research, including incorporating novel techniques. RAMP Mentors has been evaluated through focus groups and surveys. KL2 scholars reported high satisfaction with RAMP Mentors and confidence in their ability to establish and maintain methodologic collaborations. Compared with other Northwestern University K awardees, KL2 scholars reported higher confidence in obtaining research funding, including subsequent K or R awards, and selecting appropriate, up-to-date research methods. RAMP Mentors is a promising partnership between a BERD group and KL2 program, promoting methodologic education and building multidisciplinary research teams for junior investigators pursuing clinical and translational research.

RESUMEN

Focused ethnography is an applied and pragmatic form of ethnography that explores a specific social phenomenon as it occurs in everyday life. Based on the literature a problem-focused research question is formulated before the data collection. The data generation process targets key informants and situations so that relevant results on the pre-defined topic can be obtained within a relatively short time-span. As part of a theory based evaluation of alternative forms of consultation (such as video, phone and email) in primary care we used the focused ethnographic method in a multisite study in general practice across the UK. To date there is a gap in the literature on using focused ethnography in healthcare research.The aim of the paper is to build on the various methodological approaches in health services research by presenting the challenges and benefits we encountered whilst conducing a focused ethnography in British primary care. Our considerations are clustered under three headings: constructing a shared understanding, dividing the tasks within the team, and the functioning of the focused ethnographers within the broader multi-disciplinary team.As a result of using this approach we experienced several advantages, like the ability to collect focused data in several settings simultaneously within in a short time-span. Also, the sharing of experiences and interpretations between the researchers contributed to a more holistic understanding of the research topic. However, mechanisms need to be in place to facilitate and synthesise the observations, guide the analysis, and to ensure that all researchers feel engaged. Reflection, trust and flexibility among the team members were crucial to successfully adopt a team focused ethnographic approach. When used for policy focussed applied healthcare research a team-based multi-sited focused ethnography can uncover practices and understandings that would not be apparent through surveys or interviews alone. If conducted with care, it can provide timely findings within the fast moving context of healthcare policy and research.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Misunderstanding and disputes about authorship are commonplace among members of multi/interdisciplinary health research teams. If left unmanaged and unresolved, these conflicts can undermine knowledge sharing and collaboration, obscure accountability for research, and contribute to the incorrect attribution of credit. To mitigate these issues, certain researchers suggest quantitative authorship distributions schemes (e.g., point systems), while others wish to replace or minimize the importance of authorship by using "contributorship"-a system based on authors' self-reporting contributions. While both methods have advantages, we argue that authorship and contributorship will most likely continue to coexist for multiple ethical and practical reasons. In this article, we develop a five-step "best practice" that incorporates the distribution of both contributorship and authorship for multi/interdisciplinary research. This procedure involves continuous dialogue and the use of a detailed contributorship taxonomy ending with a declaration explaining contributorship, which is used to justify authorship order. Institutions can introduce this approach in responsible conduct of research training as it promotes greater fairness, trust, and collegiality among team members and ultimately reduces confusion and facilitates resolution of time-consuming disagreements.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The field of solid organ transplantation has historically concentrated research efforts on basic science and translational studies. However, there has been increasing interest in health services and outcomes research. The aim was to build an effective and sustainable, inter- and transdisciplinary health services and outcomes research team (NUTORC), that leveraged institutional strengths in social science, engineering, and management disciplines, coupled with an international recognized transplant program. In 2008, leading methodological experts across the university were identified and intramural funding was obtained for the NUTORC initiative. Inter- and transdisciplinary collaborative teams were created across departments and schools within the university. Within 3 years, NUTORC became fiscally sustainable, yielding more than tenfold return of the initial investment. Academic productivity included funding for 39 grants, publication of 60 manuscripts, and 166 national presentations. Sustainable educational opportunities for students were created. Inter- and transdisciplinary health services and outcomes research in transplant can be innovative and sustainable.