A new era for science-industry research collaboration – a view towards the future

Direct engagement of the fishing industry in the provision and co-creation of knowledge and data for research and management is increasingly prevalent. In both the North Atlantic and North Pacific, enhanced and targeted engagement is evident. More is needed. Science-Industry collaborative approaches to developing questions, collecting data, interpreting data, and sharing knowledge create opportunities for information transfer and improved understanding of ecosystem interactions, stock dynamics, economic incentives, and response to management. These collaborations require clear communication and awareness of objectives and outcomes. These initiatives also require careful attention to conditions and interactions that foster respect, trust, and communication. Respect is critical and entails acknowledging the respective skills and expertise of both scientists and fishers. Trust is needed to build confidence in the information developed and its use. Communication is essential to maintain relationships and leverage shared insights. To assess current trends and future opportunities related to this type of engagement, we convened a networking session of research scientists, industry scientists, industry leaders, and fishers at the Annual Science Meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to address the following questions: (1) What are scientific needs that could be addressed with industry-collected data or knowledge? And (2) How can science-industry collaboration be made sustainable? Here we identify opportunities and acknowledge challenges, outline necessary conditions for respectful and sustainable collaborative research, and highlight ways to promote stakeholder involvement in developing science. We address industry concerns and solicit industry advice. We also address challenges to scientists in ensuring standards for scientific data, conflict of interest, and applying information to advise management. The discussions in this session and subsequent correspondence have led to a set of guidelines and best practices that provide a framework to advance further collaboration between industry and research science. We identify opportunities for directed engagement. We also detail potential approaches to clarify expectations and develop avenues for iterative communication and engagement to sustain collaborative efforts over time. The intent is to improve and expand data streams and contextual understanding of ecosystem processes, stock assessment, and socio-economic dynamics to the benefits of science and industry alike

The impact of continuous quality improvement on coverage of antenatal HIV care tests in rural South Africa: results of a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled implementation trial

Background: Evidence for the effectiveness of continuous quality improvement (CQI) in resource-poor settings is very limited. We aimed to establish the effects of CQI on quality of antenatal HIV care in primary care clinics in rural South Africa. Methods and findings: We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing CQI to usual standard of antenatal care (ANC) in 7 nurse-led, public-sector primary care clinics—combined into 6 clusters—over 8 steps and 19 months. Clusters randomly switched from comparator to intervention on pre-specified dates until all had rolled over to the CQI intervention. Investigators and clusters were blinded to randomisation until 2 weeks prior to each step. The intervention was delivered by trained CQI mentors and included standard CQI tools (process maps, fishbone diagrams, run charts, Plan-Do-Study-Act [PDSA] cycles, and action learning sessions). CQI mentors worked with health workers, including nurses and HIV lay counsellors. The mentors used the standard CQI tools flexibly, tailored to local clinic needs. Health workers were the direct recipients of the intervention, whereas the ultimate beneficiaries were pregnant women attending ANC. Our 2 registered primary endpoints were viral load (VL) monitoring (which is critical for elimination of mother-to-child transmission of HIV [eMTCT] and the health of pregnant women living with HIV) and repeat HIV testing (which is necessary to identify and treat women who seroconvert during pregnancy). All pregnant women who attended their first antenatal visit at one of the 7 study clinics and were ≥18 years old at delivery were eligible for endpoint assessment. We performed intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses using modified Poisson generalised linear mixed effects models. We estimated effect sizes with time-step fixed effects and clinic random effects (Model 1). In separate models, we added a nested random clinic–time step interaction term (Model 2) or individual random effects (Model 3). Between 15 July 2015 and 30 January 2017, 2,160 participants with 13,212 ANC visits (intervention n = 6,877, control n = 6,335) were eligible for ITT analysis. No adverse events were reported. Median age at first booking was 25 years (interquartile range [IQR] 21 to 30), and median parity was 1 (IQR 0 to 2). HIV prevalence was 47% (95% CI 42% to 53%). In Model 1, CQI significantly increased VL monitoring (relative risk [RR] 1.38, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.57, p < 0.001) but did not improve repeat HIV testing (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13, p = 0.958). These results remained essentially the same in both Model 2 and Model 3. Limitations of our study include that we did not establish impact beyond the duration of the relatively short study period of 19 months, and that transition steps may have been too short to achieve the full potential impact of the CQI intervention. Conclusions: We found that CQI can be effective at increasing quality of primary care in rural Africa. Policy makers should consider CQI as a routine intervention to boost quality of primary care in rural African communities. Implementation research should accompany future CQI use to elucidate mechanisms of action and to identify factors supporting long-term success. Trial registration: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number NCT02626351

A new era for science-industry research collaboration – a view towards the future

Direct engagement of the fishing industry in the provision and co-creation of knowledge and data for research and management is increasingly prevalent. In both the North Atlantic and North Pacific, enhanced and targeted engagement is evident. More is needed. Science-Industry collaborative approaches to developing questions, collecting data, interpreting data, and sharing knowledge create opportunities for information transfer and improved understanding of ecosystem interactions, stock dynamics, economic incentives, and response to management. These collaborations require clear communication and awareness of objectives and outcomes. These initiatives also require careful attention to conditions and interactions that foster respect, trust, and communication. Respect is critical and entails acknowledging the respective skills and expertise of both scientists and fishers. Trust is needed to build confidence in the information developed and its use. Communication is essential to maintain relationships and leverage shared insights. To assess current trends and future opportunities related to this type of engagement, we convened a networking session of research scientists, industry scientists, industry leaders, and fishers at the Annual Science Meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to address the following questions: (1) What are scientific needs that could be addressed with industry-collected data or knowledge? And (2) How can science-industry collaboration be made sustainable? Here we identify opportunities and acknowledge challenges, outline necessary conditions for respectful and sustainable collaborative research, and highlight ways to promote stakeholder involvement in developing science. We address industry concerns and solicit industry advice. We also address challenges to scientists in ensuring standards for scientific data, conflict of interest, and applying information to advise management. The discussions in this session and subsequent correspondence have led to a set of guidelines and best practices that provide a framework to advance further collaboration between industry and research science. We identify opportunities for directed engagement. We also detail potential approaches to clarify expectations and develop avenues for iterative communication and engagement to sustain collaborative efforts over time. The intent is to improve and expand data streams and contextual understanding of ecosystem processes, stock assessment, and socio-economic dynamics to the benefits of science and industry alike