Dataset Information

Assessing the value of team science: a study comparing center- and investigator-initiated grants.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Large cross-disciplinary scientific teams are becoming increasingly prominent in the conduct of research.

Purpose

This paper reports on a quasi-experimental longitudinal study conducted to compare bibliometric indicators of scientific collaboration, productivity, and impact of center-based transdisciplinary team science initiatives and traditional investigator-initiated grants in the same field.

Methods

All grants began between 1994 and 2004 and up to 10 years of publication data were collected for each grant. Publication information was compiled and analyzed during the spring and summer of 2010.

Results

Following an initial lag period, the transdisciplinary research center grants had higher overall publication rates than the investigator-initiated R01 (NIH Research Project Grant Program) grants. There were relatively uniform publication rates across the research center grants compared to dramatically dispersed publication rates among the R01 grants. On average, publications produced by the research center grants had greater numbers of coauthors but similar journal impact factors compared with publications produced by the R01 grants.

Conclusions

The lag in productivity among the transdisciplinary center grants was offset by their overall higher publication rates and average number of coauthors per publication, relative to investigator-initiated grants, over the 10-year comparison period. The findings suggest that transdisciplinary center grants create benefits for both scientific productivity and collaboration.

SUBMITTER: Hall KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3586819 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing the value of team science: a study comparing center- and investigator-initiated grants.

Hall Kara L KL Stokols Daniel D Stipelman Brooke A BA Vogel Amanda L AL Feng Annie A Masimore Beth B Morgan Glen G Moser Richard P RP Marcus Stephen E SE Berrigan David D

American journal of preventive medicine 20120201 2

<h4>Background</h4>Large cross-disciplinary scientific teams are becoming increasingly prominent in the conduct of research.<h4>Purpose</h4>This paper reports on a quasi-experimental longitudinal study conducted to compare bibliometric indicators of scientific collaboration, productivity, and impact of center-based transdisciplinary team science initiatives and traditional investigator-initiated grants in the same field.<h4>Methods</h4>All grants began between 1994 and 2004 and up to 10 years of ...[more]

PMID: 22261212

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA drive to improve functional outcomes for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has led to alternative alignment being used. Functional alignment (FA) uses intraoperative soft tissue tension to determine the optimal position of the prosthesis within the patient's soft tissue envelope. Angular limits for bone resections are followed to prevent long-term prosthesis failure. This study will use the aid of robotic assistance to plan and implement the final prosthesis position. This method has yet to be compared to the traditional mechanically aligned (MA) knee in a randomised trial.MethodsA blinded randomised control trial with 100 patients will be undertaken via Perth Hip and Knee Clinic. Fifty patients will undergo a MA TKA and fifty will undergo a FA TKA. Both alignment techniques will be balanced via computer-assisted navigation to assess prosthetic gaps, being achieved via the initial bony resection and further soft tissue releases as required to achieve satisfactory balance. The primary outcome will be the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) 2 years after surgery, with secondary outcomes being other patient-reported outcome measures, clinical functional assessment, radiographic position and complications. Other data that will be collected will be patient demography (sex, age, level of activity) and medical information (grade of knee injury, any other relevant medical information). The linear statistical model will be fitted to the response (FJS), including all the other variables as covariates.DiscussionMany surgeons are utilising alternative alignment techniques with a goal of achieving better functional outcomes for their patients. Currently, MA TKA remains the gold standard with good outcomes and excellent longevity. There is no published RCTs comparing FA to MA yet and only two registered studies are planned or currently in progress. This study utilises a FA technique which differs from the two studies. This study will help determine if FA TKA has superior functional results for patients.Trial registrationThis trial has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) http://www.anzctr.org.au : U1111-1257-2291, registered 25th Jan 2021. It is also listed on www.clinicaltrials.gov : NCT04748510.

Project description:BackgroundThe existing grant review criteria do not consider unique methods and priorities of Dissemination and Implementation Science (DIS). The ImplemeNtation and Improvement Science Proposals Evaluation CriTeria (INSPECT) scoring system includes 10 criteria based on Proctor et al.'s "ten key ingredients" and was developed to support the assessment of DIS research proposals. We describe how we adapted INSPECT and used it in combination with the NIH scoring system to evaluate pilot DIS study proposals through our DIS Center.MethodsWe adapted INSPECT to broaden considerations for diverse DIS settings and concepts (e.g., explicitly including dissemination and implementation methods). Five PhD-level researchers with intermediate to advanced DIS knowledge were trained to conduct reviews of seven grant applications using both the INSPECT and NIH criteria. The INSPECT overall scores range from 0 to 30 (higher scores are better), and the NIH overall scores range from 1 to 9 (lower scores are better). Each grant was independently reviewed by two reviewers, then discussed in a group meeting to compare the experiences using both criteria to evaluate the proposal and to finalize scoring decisions. A follow-up survey was sent to grant reviewers to solicit further reflections on each scoring criterion.ResultsAveraged across reviewers, the INSPECT overall scores ranged from 13 to 24, while the NIH overall scores ranged from 2 to 5. Reviewer reflections highlighted the unique value and utility for each scoring criterion. The NIH criteria had a broad scientific purview and were better suited to evaluate more effectiveness-focused and pre-implementation proposals not testing implementation strategies. The INSPECT criteria were easier to rate in terms of the quality of integrating DIS considerations into the proposal and to assess the potential for generalizability, real-world feasibility, and impact. Overall, reviewers noted that INSPECT was a helpful tool to guide DIS research proposal writing.ConclusionsWe confirmed complementarity in using both scoring criteria in our pilot study grant proposal review and highlighted the utility of INSPECT as a potential DIS resource for training and capacity building. Possible refinements to INSPECT include more explicit reviewer guidance on assessing pre-implementation proposals, providing reviewers with the opportunity to submit written commentary with each numerical rating, and greater clarity on rating criteria with overlapping descriptions.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Difficult airway management during tracheal intubation can lead to severe hypoxic sequelae. Routine intubation practice is to use a strict supine position, whereas a 25° head-up or reverse Trendelenburg position increases efficacy of preoxygenation, seems more comfortable for the anaesthetist and may also provide better intubation conditions in direct laryngoscopy. The 25° head-up position could be used for the whole population rather than only for obese patients, but there is no prospective randomised controlled trial with a robust design and large number of patients comparing strict supine against 25° intubation in operating room. The objective of the InSize25 study is to test the effect of these two patient positions on intubation conditions during laryngoscopy in scheduled surgery on non-obese patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:InSize25 is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, open-label, two-arm, randomised controlled trial. The InSize25 study will randomise 1000 adult patients scheduled for surgery under general anaesthesia requiring intubation with neuromuscular-blocking drugs, candidates for direct laryngoscopy. The primary outcome variable is the view obtained during the first laryngoscopy without any external manipulation assessed using percentage of glottic opening. Important secondary outcomes are: Cormack-Lehane classification, number of attempts at laryngoscopy and at tracheal intubation, use of ancillary equipment (eg, bougies, alternative laryngoscope blades, videolaryngoscope) and manoeuvres (eg, laryngeal manipulation), comfort score for the anaesthetist, episodes of postinduction hypotension or desaturation and mechanical complications of intubation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The trial received appropriate approval from the 'CPP Sud-Est II' ethical review board. Informed consent is required. If the 25° head-up position proves superior for tracheal intubation without more complications, it may become the routine-standard intubation position rather than only for use with obese patients. The final results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Clinicaltrials.gov identifier (NCT03339141).

Dataset Information

Assessing the value of team science: a study comparing center- and investigator-initiated grants.

Background

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Assessing the value of team science: a study comparing center- and investigator-initiated grants.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets