Role and Discipline Relationships in a Transdisciplinary Biomedical Team: Structuration, Values Override and Context Scaffolding

Though accepted that "team science" is needed to tackle and conquer the health problems that are plaguing our society significant empirical evidence of team mechanisms and functional dynamics is still lacking in abundance. Through grounded methods the relationship between scientific disciplines and team roles was observed in a United States National Institutes of Health-funded (NIH) research consortium. Interviews and the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) were employed.. Findings show strong role and discipline idiosyncrasies that when viewed separately provide different insights into team functioning and change receptivity. When considered simultaneously, value-latent characteristics emerged showing self-perceived contributions to the team. This micro/meso analysis suggests that individual participation in team level interactions can inform the structuration of roles and disciplines in an attempt to tackle macro level problems.Comment: Presented at COINs13 Conference, Chile, 2013 (arxiv:1308.1028

The science-of-team-science, transdisciplinary capacity, and shifting paradigms for translational professionals

The Science-of-Team-Science (SciTS) has become an important area of study as collaborative research becomes more normative throughout science inquiry and especially in medical and healthcare sectors. Team science aims for higher and collaborative levels of inquiry that operate within economies of knowledge similar to transdisciplinarity that strive to synthesize knowledge and innovate as a result of newly developed and hybridized methods of approach. This newly becoming and normalizing mode of science will require professionals to be aware of and embrace the shifting realities which have been the consequence of this new economy of knowledge. The next century of inquiry will require new generations of translational professionals that are keenly aware of their role as part of the translational process no matter what role they presently play in the continuum of bench to bedside to storefront healthcare. This paper reviews the SciTS landscape and theories of transdisciplinarity. It also provides insights about the shifting paradigms currently occurring in the discourse and identifies challenges for translational professionals

Evaluating integration in collaborative cross-disciplinary FDA new drug reviews using an input-process-output model.

Background/Objectives: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for assessing safety (risks) and effectiveness (benefits) of new drug products using the data provided in a Sponsor\u27s new drug product marketing application before they can be marketed. The FDA forms cross-disciplinary review teams to conduct these assessments. Recently, the FDA began implementing more interdisciplinary approaches to its assessments, reducing redundancy in review processes and documentation by increasing team integration around review issues. Methods: Through a phenomenological descriptive comparative case study, the impact of FDA\u27s new interdisciplinary approach on review team integration was compared with its traditional multidisciplinary review approach. Results: We identified collaborative integration occurring in one FDA review team using the new interdisciplinary review and another team using the traditional review and then modeled and analyzed the collaborative, cross-disciplinary integration in each case using an input-process-output (IPO) model drawn from the Science-of-Team-Science (SciTS). Conclusion: This study provides a systematic method for understanding and visualizing integration in each type of review previously and presently used at FDA and illustrates how the new interdisciplinary approach can ensure more integration than more traditional approaches previously used. In addition, our study suggests that an IPO model of integration can characterize how effectively FDA review teams are integrating around issues and assist in the evaluation of differences in integration between FDA\u27s new interdisciplinary review and the existing multidisciplinary approach. The approach used here is a new application of SciTS scholarship in a unique sector, and it also serves as an example for measuring review team effectiveness

International telemedicine consultations for neurodevelopmental disabilities

Background: A telemedicine program was developed between the Children\u27s National Medical Center (CNMC) in Washington, DC, and the Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Foundation in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). A needs assessment and a curriculum of on-site training conferences were devised preparatory to an ongoing telemedicine consultation program for children with neurodevelopmental disabilities in the underserved eastern region of the UAE. Materials and Methods: Weekly telemedicine consultations are provided by a multidisciplinary faculty. Patients are presented in the UAE with their therapists and families. Real-time (video over Internet protocol; average connection, 768 kilobits/s) telemedicine conferences are held weekly following previews of medical records. A full consultation report follows each telemedicine session. Results: Between February 29, 2012 and June 26, 2013, 48 weekly 1-h live interactive telemedicine consultations were conducted on 48 patients (28 males, 20 females; age range, 8 months–22 years; median age, 5.4 years). The primary diagnoses were cerebral palsy, neurogenetic disorders, autism, neuromuscular disorders, congenital anomalies, global developmental delay, systemic disease, and epilepsy. Common comorbidities were cognitive impairment, communication disorders, and behavioral disorders. Specific recommendations included imaging and DNA studies, antiseizure management, spasticity management including botulinum toxin protocols, and specific therapy modalities including taping techniques, customized body vests, and speech/language and behavioral therapy. Improved outcomes reported were in clinician satisfaction, achievement of therapy goals for patients, and requests for ongoing sessions. Conclusions: Weekly telemedicine sessions coupled with triannual training conferences were successfully implemented in a clinical program dedicated to patients with neurodevelopmental disabilities by the Center for Neuroscience at CNMC and the UAE government. International consultations in neurodevelopmental disabilities utilizing telemedicine services offer a reliable and productive method for joint clinical programs

A dynamical approach toward understanding mechanisms of team science: Change, kinship, tension, and heritage in a transdisciplinary team

Since the concept of team science gained recognition among biomedical researchers, social scientists have been challenged with investigating evidence of team mechanisms and functional dynamics within transdisciplinary teams. Identification of these mechanisms has lacked substantial research using grounded theory models to adequately describe their dynamical qualities. Research trends continue to favor the measurement of teams by isolating occurrences of production over relational mechanistic team tendencies. This study uses a social constructionist‐grounded multilevel mixed methods approach to identify social dynamics and mechanisms within a transdisciplinary team. A National Institutes of Health—funded research team served as a sample. Data from observations, interviews, and focus groups were qualitatively coded to generate micro/meso level analyses. Social mechanisms operative within this biomedical scientific team were identified. Dynamics that support such mechanisms were documented and explored. Through theoretical and emergent coding, four social mechanisms dominated in the analysis—change, kinship, tension, and heritage. Each contains relational social dynamics. This micro/meso level study suggests such mechanisms and dynamics are key features of team science and as such can inform problems of integration, praxis, and engagement in teams

Translating the learning sciences into practice: A primer for clinical and translational educators.

The learning sciences have yielded a wealth of insights about the mechanisms and conditions that promote learning, yet the findings from this body of research often do not make their way into educational practice. This fundamentally translational problem is one we believe that educators from translational fields, with their evidence-based orientation and familiarity with the challenges and importance of translation, are well-positioned to address. Here, we provide a primer on the learning sciences to guide educators in the Clinical and Translational Science Institutes and other organizations that train translational researchers. We (a) describe the unique teaching and learning environment in which this training occurs, and why it necessitates attention to learning research and its appropriate application, (b) explain what the learning sciences are, (c) distill the complex science of learning into core principles, (d) situate recent developments in the field within these principles, and (e) explain, in practical terms, how these principles can inform our teaching