Academic cross-pollination: The role of disciplinary affiliation in research collaboration

Academic collaboration is critical to knowledge production, especially as teams dominate scientific endeavors. Typical predictors of collaboration include individual characteristics such as academic rank or institution, and network characteristics such as a central position in a publication network. The role of disciplinary affiliation in the initiation of an academic collaboration between two investigators deserves more attention. Here, we examine the influence of disciplinary patterns on collaboration formation with control of known predictors using an inferential network model. The study group included all researchers in the Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (ICTS) at Washington University in St. Louis. Longitudinal data were collected on co-authorships in grants and publications before and after ICTS establishment. Exponential-family random graph models were used to build the network models. The results show that disciplinary affiliation independently predicted collaboration in grant and publication networks, particularly in the later years. Overall collaboration increased in the post-ICTS networks, with cross-discipline ties occurring more often than within-discipline ties in grants, but not publications. This research may inform better evaluation models of university-based collaboration, and offer a roadmap to improve cross-disciplinary collaboration with discipline-informed network interventions

Organizational influences on innovation to improve quality in health care

With medical evidence constantly advancing, the health care system faces pressure to generate, apply and integrate innovations to improve the quality of patient care. This dissertation examines how organizational characteristics influence these processes. The first study, a systematic review, investigates how organizational features influence the translation of basic research findings to clinical applications. Results showed a dearth of peer-reviewed literature on this topic, despite a proliferation of efforts to accelerate translational research by manipulating organizational structures and processes. Few studies effectively linked structures, processes and outcomes and no organizational feature was associated conclusively with translation of research into clinical practice. The second study draws on in-depth qualitative interviews (82 participants at 10 hospitals) to understand how hospitals that reduced readmission rates had applied innovations in clinical practice and organizational context. High performing and low performing hospitals had both implemented similar clinical practice changes in their efforts to reduce readmissions; however, high performing hospitals reported greater investment in creating an organizational context to facilitate readmissions. This included more extensive efforts to improve collaboration within the hospital, greater coordination between the hospital and outside providers, deeper engagement in learning and problem solving related to readmissions, and greater senior leadership support. The third study draws on an expanded set of interviews from the same data collection (90 participants at 10 hospitals) to investigate mechanisms through which innovations become integrated into hospital routines. Despite a well-developed literature on the initial implementation of new practices, we have limited knowledge about the mechanisms by which integration occurs. Results showed that when an innovation was integrated successfully, a small number of key staff held the innovation in place for as long as a year while more permanent integrating mechanisms began to work. Innovations that proved intrinsically rewarding to staff integrated through shifts in attitudes and norms over time. Innovations that did not provide direct benefits to staff were integrated through changed incentives or automation. Together, these studies illuminate opportunities for hospitals to improve patient care by managing the organizational context in which innovations are deployed. Understanding how organizational context affects translation requires further research.2017-10-02T00:00:00

The CTSA National Evaluation Final Report

None provided

A survey of practices for the use of electronic health records to support research recruitment

Electronic health records (EHRs) provide great promise for identifying cohorts and enhancing research recruitment. Such approaches are sorely needed, but there are few descriptions in the literature of prevailing practices to guide their use. A multidisciplinary workgroup was formed to examine current practices in the use of EHRs in recruitment and to propose future directions. The group surveyed consortium members regarding current practices. Over 98% of the Clinical and Translational Science Award Consortium responded to the survey. Brokered and self-service data warehouse access are in early or full operation at 94% and 92% of institutions, respectively, whereas, EHR alerts to providers and to research teams are at 45% and 48%, respectively, and use of patient portals for research is at 20%. However, these percentages increase significantly to 88% and above if planning and exploratory work were considered cumulatively. For most approaches, implementation reflected perceived demand. Regulatory and workflow processes were similarly varied, and many respondents described substantive restrictions arising from logistical constraints and limitations on collaboration and data sharing. Survey results reflect wide variation in implementation and approach, and point to strong need for comparative research and development of best practices to protect patients and facilitate interinstitutional collaboration and multisite research

Project development teams: a novel mechanism for accelerating translational research

The trend in conducting successful biomedical research is shifting from individual academic labs to coordinated collaborative research teams. Teams of experienced investigators with a wide variety of expertise are now critical for developing and maintaining a successful, productive research program. However, assembling a team whose members have the right expertise requires a great deal of time and many resources. To assist investigators seeking such resources, the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (Indiana CTSI) created the Project Development Teams (PDTs) program to support translational research on and across the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indiana University, Purdue University, and University of Notre Dame campuses. PDTs are multidisciplinary committees of seasoned researchers who assist investigators, at any stage of research, in transforming ideas/hypotheses into well-designed translational research projects. The teams help investigators capitalize on Indiana CTSI resources by providing investigators with, as needed, mentoring and career development; protocol development; pilot funding; institutional review board, regulatory, and/or nursing support; intellectual property support; access to institutional technology; and assistance with biostatistics, bioethics, recruiting participants, data mining, engaging community health, and collaborating with other investigators.Indiana CTSI leaders have analyzed metrics, collected since the inception of the PDT program in 2008 from both investigators and team members, and found evidence strongly suggesting that the highly responsive teams have become an important one-stop venue for facilitating productive interactions between basic and clinical scientists across four campuses, have aided in advancing the careers of junior faculty, and have helped investigators successfully obtain external funds