Greater Than the Sum: Systems Thinking in Tobacco control

Tobacco control and public health have evolved into a complex set of interconnected and largely self-organizing systems. Their components include international, national, and local governmental agencies; individual advocacy groups; policy makers; health care professionals; nonprofit foundations; and the general population itself. The issues require the exploration of approaches and methodologies that speak to the evolving, dynamic nature of this systems environment. This monograph focuses on the first two years of the Initiative on the Study and Implementation of Systems (ISIS), which was funded by the National Cancer Institute to examine the potential for systems thinking in tobacco control and public health. ISIS explored the general idea of a systems thinking rubric encompassing a great variety of systems-oriented methodologies and approaches. Four approaches have particular promise for their applicability to tobacco control and public health and thus were chosen as areas for initial investigation: (1) organizing and managing as a system, (2) system dynamics and how to model those dynamics, (3) system networks and their analysis, and (4) systems knowledge and its management and translation. As a transdisciplinary effort that linked both tobacco control stakeholders and systems experts, ISIS combined a number of exploratory projects and case studies within these four approaches with a detailed examination of the potential for systems thinking in tobacco control. Its end product was a set of expert consensus guidelines for the future implementation of systems thinking and systems perspectives for tobacco control and public health.https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/18/index.htm

Developing Common Metrics for the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs): Lessons Learned.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Roadmap for Medical Research initiative, funded by the NIH Common Fund and offered through the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program, developed more than 60 unique models for achieving the NIH goal of accelerating discoveries toward better public health. The variety of these models enabled participating academic centers to experiment with different approaches to fit their research environment.A central challenge related to the diversity of approaches is the ability to determine the success and contribution of each model. This paper describes the effort by the Evaluation Key Function Committee to develop and test a methodology for identifying a set of common metrics to assess the efficiency of clinical research processes and for pilot testing these processes for collecting and analyzing metrics. The project involved more than one-fourth of all CTSAs and resulted in useful information regarding the challenges in developing common metrics, the complexity and costs of acquiring data for the metrics, and limitations on the utility of the metrics in assessing clinical research performance. The results of this process led to the identification of lessons learned and recommendations for development and use of common metrics to evaluate the CTSA effort

Complementary and conventional medicine: a concept map

BACKGROUND: Despite the substantive literature from survey research that has accumulated on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the United States and elsewhere, very little research has been done to assess conceptual domains that CAM and conventional providers would emphasize in CAM survey studies. The objective of this study is to describe and interpret the results of concept mapping with conventional and CAM practitioners from a variety of backgrounds on the topic of CAM. METHODS: Concept mapping, including free sorts, ratings, and multidimensional scaling was used to organize conceptual domains relevant to CAM into a visual "cluster map." The panel consisted of CAM providers, conventional providers, and university faculty, and was convened to help formulate conceptual domains to guide the development of a CAM survey for use with United States military veterans. RESULTS: Eight conceptual clusters were identified: 1) Self-assessment, Self-care, and Quality of Life; 2) Health Status, Health Behaviors; 3) Self-assessment of Health; 4) Practical/Economic/ Environmental Concerns; 5) Needs Assessment; 6) CAM vs. Conventional Medicine; 7) Knowledge of CAM; and 8) Experience with CAM. The clusters suggest panelists saw interactions between CAM and conventional medicine as a critical component of the current medical landscape. CONCLUSIONS: Concept mapping provided insight into how CAM and conventional providers view the domain of health care, and was shown to be a useful tool in the formulation of CAM-related conceptual domains

Benefits of a College STEM Faculty Development Initiative: Instructors Report Increased and Sustained Implementation of Research-Based Instructional Strategies

The Summer Institutes on Scientific Teaching (SI) is a faculty development workshop in which science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instructors, particularly from biology, are trained in the Scientific Teaching (ST) pedagogy. While participants have generally reported positive experiences, we aimed to assess how the SI affected participants’ teaching practices. Building on a previously developed taxonomy of ST practices, we surveyed SI participants from the 2004–2014 SI classes regarding specific ST practices. Participants’ self-reported use and implementation of ST practices increased immediately after SI attendance as well as over a longer time frame, suggesting that implementation persisted and even increased with time. However, instructors reported implementation gains for some practices more than others. The practices with the highest gains were engaging students in their own learning, using learning goals in course design, employing formative assessment, developing overarching course learning goals, representing science as a process, and facilitating group discussion activities. We propose that the ST practices showing the greatest gains may serve as beneficial focal points for professional development programs, while practices with smaller gains may require modified dissemination approaches or support structures

Advancing the Science of Team Science

The First Annual International Science of Team Science (SciTS) Conference was held in Chicago, IL April 22-24, 2010. This article presents a summary of the Conference proceedings. Clin Trans Sci 2010; Volume 3: 263-266

Evaluating Research and Impact: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research by the NIH/NIAID HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials Networks

Evaluative bibliometrics uses advanced techniques to assess the impact of scholarly work in the context of other scientific work and usually compares the relative scientific contributions of research groups or institutions. Using publications from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) HIV/AIDS extramural clinical trials networks, we assessed the presence, performance, and impact of papers published in 2006–2008. Through this approach, we sought to expand traditional bibliometric analyses beyond citation counts to include normative comparisons across journals and fields, visualization of co-authorship across the networks, and assess the inclusion of publications in reviews and syntheses. Specifically, we examined the research output of the networks in terms of the a) presence of papers in the scientific journal hierarchy ranked on the basis of journal influence measures, b) performance of publications on traditional bibliometric measures, and c) impact of publications in comparisons with similar publications worldwide, adjusted for journals and fields. We also examined collaboration and interdisciplinarity across the initiative, through network analysis and modeling of co-authorship patterns. Finally, we explored the uptake of network produced publications in research reviews and syntheses. Overall, the results suggest the networks are producing highly recognized work, engaging in extensive interdisciplinary collaborations, and having an impact across several areas of HIV-related science. The strengths and limitations of the approach for evaluation and monitoring research initiatives are discussed

Developing a conceptual framework for an evaluation system for the NIAID HIV/AIDS clinical trials networks

Globally, health research organizations are called upon to re-examine their policies and practices to more efficiently and effectively address current scientific and social needs, as well as increasing public demands for accountability