Dataset Information

Creating effective academic research teams: Two tools borrowed from business practice.

ABSTRACT: Academic Medical Centers strive to create multidisciplinary research teams to produce impactful science. However, few faculty researchers receive training in "team science," a well-established concept in business research and practice. Responding to demand for assistance developing effective research teams, the Collaboration and Team Science Program of the Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) at Wake Forest School of Medicine (WFSM) partnered with faculty from the Wake Forest University (WFU) School of Business with expertise in leadership, management, and team building. We initiated a needs assessment, including a written survey from a diverse set of 42 research scientists as well as semi-structured interviews with 8 researchers. In response to identified needs, we developed training sessions and consultations to teach teams to implement two tools known to enhance team dynamics: (1) Team charter, a document that defines the team's purpose, goals, roles, and strategies; and (2) Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed (RACI) matrix, a table or spreadsheet that clarifies tasks and accountability. Since 2018, 10 teams and over 100 individuals have attended training sessions and 6 teams received personalized team consults. We describe these tools, present a formal analysis of quantitative results, and highlight the next steps being taken in response to these findings.

SUBMITTER: Brower HH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8057410 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care research networks have been established internationally since the 1960s to enable diverse practitioners to engage in and develop research and education and implement research evidence.The newly established Western Research and Education Network (WestREN) is one such network consisting of a collaboration between the Discipline of General Practice at NUI Galway and 71 West of Ireland general practices. In September 2009 all member practices were issued with a questionnaire with two objectives: to describe the structure and characteristics of the member practices and to compare the results to the national profile of Irish general practice.MethodsA postal survey was used followed by one written and one email reminder.ResultsA response rate of 73% (52/71) was achieved after two reminders.Half of practices were in a rural location, one quarter located in an urban setting and another quarter in a mixed location.Ninety-four per cent of general practitioners practice from purpose-built or adapted premises with under 6% of practices being attached to the general practitioner's residence. Over 96% of general practitioners use appointment systems with 58% using appointment only.All practices surveyed were computerised, with 80% describing their practices as 'fully computerised'. Almost 60% of general practitioners are coding chronic diagnoses with 20% coding individual consultations. Twenty-five per cent of general practitioners were single-handed with the majority of practices having at least two general practitioners, and a mean number of general practitioners of 2.4. Ninety-two per cent of practices employed a practice nurse with 30% employing more than one nurse.Compared to the national profile, WestREN practices appear somewhat larger, and more likely to be purpose-built and in rural areas. National trends apparent between 1982 and 1992, such as increasing computerisation and practice nurse availability, appear to be continuing.ConclusionsWestREN is a new university-affiliated general practice research network in Ireland. Survey of its initial membership confirms WestREN practices to be broadly representative of the national profile and has provided us with valuable information on the current and changing structure of Irish general practice.

Project description:Community involvement in HIV research has increased over recent years, enhancing community-academic partnerships. Several terms have been used to describe community participation in research. Clarification is needed to determine whether these terms are synonymous or actually describe different research processes. In addition, it remains unclear if the role that communities play in the actual research process follows the recommendations given in theoretical frameworks of community-academia research.The objective of this study is to review the existing terms and definitions regarding community-academic partnerships and assess how studies are implementing these in relation to conceptual definitions.A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed. Two reviewers independently assessed each article, applying the following inclusion criteria: the article must be published in English before 2013; it must provide an explicit definition and/or defining methodology for a term describing research with a community component; and it has to refer to HIV or AIDS, reproductive health and/or STDs. When disagreements about the relevance of an article emerged, a third reviewer was involved until concordance was reached. Data were extracted by one reviewer and independently verified by a second. Qualitative data were analyzed using MaxQDA for content and thematic analyses while quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Community feedback on data analysis and presentation of results was also incorporated.In total, 246 articles were retrieved, 159 of which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The number of studies that included community participation in the field of HIV research increased between 1991 and 2012, and the terms used to describe these activities have changed, moving away from action research (AR) to participatory action research (PAR), community-based research (CBR) and community-based participatory research (CBPR), with the latter being the most commonly used term. While definitions of all terms had common characteristics (e.g. participation of community in research process), they varied with regard to the emphasis placed on these characteristics. The nature of community participation in reviewed studies differed considerably from that described in theoretical models.This study indicates the increase of participatory approaches in HIV research and underlines the need for clarification of terms and a framework providing orientation to community-academia partnerships.

Dataset Information

Creating effective academic research teams: Two tools borrowed from business practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets