Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

26 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Measuring team science: Associations between a clinical-translational science institute and investigator ego networks.

ABSTRACT: The National Institutes of Health's Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) institutes have been created, in part, to have a positive impact on collaboration and team science. This study is the first to examine the associations between a CTSA hub, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR), and investigators' ego networks. We ran cross-sectional and panel models of the associations between consulting with MICHR and the ego network measure of two-step reach (TSR) - that is, colleagues of colleagues reachable in two steps - from a network of 2161 investigators who had co-submitted a grant proposal to an external sponsor in 2006. Our analyses covered the period 2004-2012, although some model specifications covered the shorter time period 2006-2010. Consulting with MICHR had positive associations with the size of and changes in an investigator's TSR across and over time, even controlling for research productivity and organizational affiliation. For example, over the period 2006-2010 an investigator who consulted with MICHR reached 44 more individuals than a non-consulting investigator. This study expands our understanding of the indirect impacts that clinical and translational science institutes have on investigators' scientific networks. This network-based approach might be useful in quantifying the impact of team science initiatives at the university level.

SUBMITTER: Kabo FW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6676646 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

CTS teams: a new model for translational team training and team science intervention.

Project description:IntroductionClinical/translational science (CTS) is team-based, requiring effective collaboration and communication across many disciplines involving a variety of stakeholders. We implemented a pre-doctoral team-based training model with didactic and experiential curricular interventions to support the development of CTS research skills in a cross-disciplinary team environment. We assessed the potential impact of this new training model as a team science intervention that can catalyze new cross-disciplinary collaborations across the institution.MethodsBetween 2016 and 2020, 32 pre-doctoral students and 26 co-mentors participated in the assessment of the CTS Team program over a two-year period of TL1 training grant support. Data collection and analyses followed a program logic model and used a variety of metrics for clinical and translational scientist career success.ResultsCTS training in the context of CTS Teams supported improved self-efficacy for clinical research skills and resulted in a significant increase in the frequency of participation in cross-disciplinary collaborative activities by both trainees and mentors. Most CTS Team co-mentor pairs had not previously collaborated. Two-thirds of the co-mentors plan to continue collaborating, and most (85%) currently use or plan to use collaboration tools, for example, written collaboration plans, authorship agreements.ConclusionsThe CTS Team training model provides a unique clinical and translational science team training experience that embeds authentic cross-disciplinary research collaboration into PhD research projects. It establishes trainee cohorts that are diverse in terms of scientific disciplines and translational research phases, and creates a new cross-disciplinary community of practice across faculty members and research groups in multiple colleges.

| S-EPMC8596063 | biostudies-literature

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

Project description:BackgroundLarge cross-disciplinary scientific teams are becoming increasingly prominent in the conduct of research.PurposeThis 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.MethodsAll 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.ResultsFollowing 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

| S-EPMC3586819 | biostudies-literature

Developing a Translational Team Training Program using the Wisconsin Interventions in Team Science Framework.

Project description:The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program supports a national network of medical research institutions working to improve the translational process. High-performing translational teams (TTs) are critical for advancing evidence-based approaches that improve human health. When focused on content-appropriate knowledge, skills, and attitudes, targeted training results in the substantial internalization of training content, producing new skills that can be applied to improve team outputs, outcomes, and benefits. More rigorous approaches to develop, test, and evaluate interventions are needed, and we used the Wisconsin Interventions in Team Science framework as a model to systematize our efforts. We designed, built, and tested a five-session TT Training Program for translational researchers. The 90-minute sessions were pilot-tested with 47 postdoctoral fellows and evaluated through a structured evaluation plan. Ninety-five percent of post-session survey respondents indicated that the content and skills provided would make them more effective collaborators, and one hundred percent would recommend the sessions to colleagues. Respondents' scores increased from pretest to posttest for most learning outcomes. Refinements from participant feedback are described. This work provides a foundation for the continued evolution of evidence-based training programs in the CTSA environment.

| S-EPMC10643908 | biostudies-literature

A public-private partnership: the New York University-Health and Hospitals Corporation Clinical and Translational Science Institute.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC3536827 | biostudies-literature

Effect of a Clinical and Translational Science Award institute on grant funding in a major research university.

Project description:IntroductionPrevious studies have examined the impact of Clinical and Translational Science Awards programs on other outcomes, but not on grant seeking. The authors examined the effects on grant seeking of the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research (MICHR), a Clinical and Translational Science Awards institute at the University of Michigan.MethodsWe assessed over 63,000 grant proposals submitted at the University of Michigan in the years 2002-2012 using data from the university and MICHR's Tracking Metrics and Reporting System. We used a retrospective, observational study of the dynamics of grant-seeking success and award funding. Heckman selection models were run to assess MICHR's relationship with a proposal's success (selection), and subsequently the award's size (outcome). Models were run for all proposals and for clinical and translational research (CTR) proposals alone. Other covariates included proposal classification, type of grant award, academic unit, and year.ResultsMICHR had a positive and statistically significant relationship with success for both proposal types. For all grants, MICHR was associated with a 29.6% increase in award size. For CTR grants, MICHR had a statistically nonsignificant relationship with award size.ConclusionsMICHR's infrastructure, created to enable and enhance CTR, has also created positive spillovers for a broader spectrum of research and grant seeking.

| S-EPMC5444804 | biostudies-literature

Defining and Measuring Community Engagement and Community-Engaged Research: Clinical and Translational Science Institutional Practices.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The institutions that comprise the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences continue to explore and develop community-engaged research strategies and to study the role of community academic partnerships in advancing the science of community engagement. OBJECTIVES:To explore CTSA institutions in relation to an Institute of Medicine recommendation that community engagement occur in all stages of translational research and be defined and evaluated consistently. METHODS:A sequential multimethods study starting with an online pilot survey followed by survey respondents and site informant interviews. A revised survey was sent to the community engagement and evaluation leads at each CTSA institution, requesting a single institutional response about the definitions, indicators, and metrics of community engagement and community-engaged research. RESULTS:A plurality of CTSA institutions selected the definition of community engagement from the Principles of Community Engagement. Although claiming unique institutional priorities create barriers to developing shared metrics, responses indicate an overall lack of attention to the development and deployment of metrics to assess community engagement in and contributions to research. CONCLUSIONS:Although definitions of community engagement differ among CTSAs, there seem to be more similarities than differences in the indicators and measures tracked and reported on across all definitions, perhaps owing to commonalities among program infrastructures and goals. Metrics will likely need to be specific to translational research stages. The assessment of community engagement within translational science will require increased institutional commitment.

| S-EPMC6237095 | biostudies-literature

Utilizing the Un-Meeting model to advance innovative translational and team science.

Project description:Advances in translational science require innovative solutions, and engagement of productive transdisciplinary teams play a critical role. While various forms of scientific meetings have long provided venues for sharing scientific findings and generating new collaborations, many conferences lack opportunities for active discussions. We describe the use of an Un-Meeting to foster innovative translational science teams through engaged discussions across multidisciplinary groups addressing a shared theme. The Un-Meeting was delivered by the University of Rochester Center for Leading Innovation and Collaboration, the national coordinating center for the National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program. This pilot CTSA program Un-Meeting focused on engaging translational scientists, policy-makers, community members, advocates, and public health professionals to address the opioid crisis. The participant-driven format leveraged lightning talks, attendee-led idea generation, and extensive breakout discussions to foster multidisciplinary networking. Results indicated participation by a broad set of attendees and a high level of networking during the meeting. These results, coupled with the growth of the Un-Meeting across the CTSA Consortium, provide practices and models to potentially advance team and translational science. While future work will further assess the impact of Un-Meetings, this format presents a promising approach to enhance translational science.

| S-EPMC10514683 | biostudies-literature

Team science for science communication.

Project description:Natural scientists from Climate Central and social scientists from Carnegie Mellon University collaborated to develop science communications aimed at presenting personalized coastal flood risk information to the public. We encountered four main challenges: agreeing on goals; balancing complexity and simplicity; relying on data, not intuition; and negotiating external pressures. Each challenge demanded its own approach. We navigated agreement on goals through intensive internal communication early on in the project. We balanced complexity and simplicity through evaluation of communication materials for user understanding and scientific content. Early user test results that overturned some of our intuitions strengthened our commitment to testing communication elements whenever possible. Finally, we did our best to negotiate external pressures through regular internal communication and willingness to compromise.

| S-EPMC4183174 | biostudies-other

The Scripps Translational Science Institute

Project description:Organisation EGAO00000000995

| EGAO00000000995 | EGA

Adding the Team into T1 Translational Research: A Case Study of Multidisciplinary Team Science in the Evaluation of Biomarkers of Prostate Cancer Risk and Prognosis.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Given translational research challenges, multidisciplinary team science is promoted to increase the likelihood of moving from discovery to health effect. We present a case study documenting the utility of multidisciplinary team science in prostate cancer tissue biomarker validation. METHODS:We used primary data generated by a team consisting of a pathologist, cancer biologists, a biostatistician, and epidemiologists. We examined their contributions by phase of biomarker evaluation to identify when, through the practice of team science, threats to internal validity were recognized and solved. Next, we quantified the extent of bias avoided in evaluating the association of Ki67 (immunohistochemistry), stromal cell telomere length (fluorescence in situ hybridization), and microRNA (miRNA) (miR-21, miR-141, miR-221; quantitative RT-PCR) with prostate cancer risk or recurrence in nested case-control studies. RESULTS:Threats to validity were tissue storage time (Ki67, miRNA) and laboratory equipment maintenance (telomeres). Solutions were all in the data analysis phase and involved using tissue storage-time specific cutpoints and/or batch-specific cutpoints. Bias in the regression coefficient for quantiles of each biomarker ranged from 24% to 423%, and the coefficient for the test for trend ranged from 15% to 910%. The interpretation of the associations changed as follows: Ki67, null to positive; stromal cell telomere length, null to positive; miR-21 and miR-141 remained null; miR-221, weak to moderate inverse. CONCLUSIONS:In this case study, we documented the inferential benefits of multidisciplinary team science when the team's collaboration and coordination led to the identification of threats to validity and the implementation of appropriate solutions.

| S-EPMC7375195 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data