Operationalization, implementation, and evaluation of Collaboration Planning: A pilot interventional study of nascent translational teams

Developing a Translational Team Training Program using the Wisconsin Interventions in Team Science Framework

The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program supports a national network of medical research institutions working to improve the translational process. High-performing translational teams (TTs) are critical for advancing evidence-based approaches that improve human health. When focused on content-appropriate knowledge, skills, and attitudes, targeted training results in the substantial internalization of training content, producing new skills that can be applied to improve team outputs, outcomes, and benefits. More rigorous approaches to develop, test, and evaluate interventions are needed, and we used the Wisconsin Interventions in Team Science framework as a model to systematize our efforts. We designed, built, and tested a five-session TT Training Program for translational researchers. The 90-minute sessions were pilot-tested with 47 postdoctoral fellows and evaluated through a structured evaluation plan. Ninety-five percent of post-session survey respondents indicated that the content and skills provided would make them more effective collaborators, and one hundred percent would recommend the sessions to colleagues. Respondents' scores increased from pretest to posttest for most learning outcomes. Refinements from participant feedback are described. This work provides a foundation for the continued evolution of evidence-based training programs in the CTSA environment.

Freelance information management agents: why information management is so hard on translational teams

Introduction

To conduct high-quality, rigorous research, and advance scientific knowledge, Translational Teams (TTs) engage in information behaviors, including seeking, using, creating, sharing, storing, and retrieving information, in ways specific to the translational context. Currently, little is known about TTs' approach to information management. This qualitative pilot study explored how TTs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison interact with information, as well as the scientific and organizational impact of their interactions.

Methods

We conducted interviews with ten members of UW TTs. Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted.

Results

Four themes emerged: (1) TT members did not recognize the centrality of information or information behaviors to their scientific work; (2) TT members engaged in similar information behaviors and used similar tools across disciplines and topics; (3) TT members did not receive support or guidance from their institution in managing information; and (4) Individualized choices of TT members conflicted at the team level, causing confusion and increasing the potential for data and information loss. Acting as freelance information management agents, TT members made individualized decisions about what tools to use and how to use them, often in a piecemeal manner and without communicating these decisions to other team members.

Conclusion

Research institutions should both encourage teams to discuss their information management approaches at the beginning of a project and provide leaders with training on how to have these conversations and what topics should be included. Additionally, institutions can provide researchers with guidelines for using software platforms to help mitigate information management challenges.

Toward a translational team science hierarchy of needs: Exploring the information management challenges of team science

Background

Clinical and Translational Research (CTR) requires a team-based approach, with successful teams engaging in skilled management and use of information. Yet we know little about the ways that Translational Teams (TTs) engage with information across the lifecycle of CTR projects. This qualitative study explored the challenges that information management imposes on the conduct of team-based CTR.

Methods

We conducted interviews with ten members of TTs at University of Wisconsin. Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted.

Results

TTs' piecemeal and reactive approaches to information management created conflict within the team and slowed scientific progress. The lack of cohesive information management strategies made it more difficult for teams to develop strong team processes like communication, scientific coordination, and project management. While TTs' research was hindered by the institutional challenges of interdisciplinary team information sharing, TTs who had developed shared approaches to information management that foregrounded transparency, accountability, and trust, described substantial benefits to their teamwork.

Conclusion

We propose a new model for the Science of Team Science field - a Translational Team Science Hierarchy of Needs - that suggests interventions should be targeted at the appropriate stage of team development in order to maximize a team's scientific potential.

A leadership model supporting maturation of high-performance translational teams

Despite understanding its impact on organizational effectiveness, practical guidance on how to train translational team (TT) leaders is lacking. Previously, we developed an evolutionary learning model of TT maturation consisting of three goal-directed phases: (1). team assembly (Formation); (2). conducting research (Knowledge Generation); and (3). dissemination and implementation (Translation). At each phase, the team acquires group-level knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) that enhance its performance. Noting that the majority of team-emergent KSAs are promoted by leadership behaviors, we examine the SciTS literature to identify the relevant behaviors for each phase. We propose that effective team leadership evolves from a hierarchical, transformational model early in team Formation to a shared, functional leadership model during Translation. We synthesized an integrated model of TT leadership, mapping a generic "functional leadership" taxonomy to relevant leadership behaviors linked to TT performance, creating an evidence-informed Leadership and Skills Enhancement for Research (LASER) training program. Empirical studies indicate that leadership behaviors are stable across time; to enhance leadership skills, ongoing reflection, evaluation, and practice are needed. We provide a comprehensive multi-level evaluation framework for tracking the growth of TT leadership skills. This work provides a framework for assessing and training relevant leadership behaviors for high-performance TTs.

Competencies supporting high-performance translational teams: A review of the SciTS evidence base

A translational team (TT) is a specific type of interdisciplinary team that seeks to improve human health. Because high-performing TTs are critical to accomplishing CTSA goals, a greater understanding of how to promote TT performance is needed. Previous work by a CTSA Workgroup formulated a taxonomy of 5 interrelated team-emergent competency "domains" for successful translation: 1). affect, 2). communication, 3). management, 4). collaborative problem-solving, and 5). leadership. These Knowledge Skills and Attitudes (KSAs) develop within teams from the team's interactions. However, understanding how practice in these domains enhance team performance was unaddressed. To fill this gap, we conducted a scoping literature review of empirical team studies from the broader Science of Team Science literature domains. We identified specific team-emergent KSAs that enhance TT performance, mapped these to the earlier "domain" taxonomy, and developed a rubric for their assessment. This work identifies important areas of intersection of practices in specific competencies across other competency domains. We find that inclusive environment, openness to transdisciplinary knowledge sharing, and situational leadership are a core triad of team-emergent competencies that reinforce each other and are highly linked to team performance. Finally, we identify strategies for enhancing these competencies. This work provides a grounded approach for training interventions in the CTSA context.

Win-win interactions: Results and implications of a user needs assessment of clinical and translational scientists

Introduction

This study describes a needs assessment of clinical and translational research (CTR) scientists at a large, distributed, School of Medicine within a public university and affiliated clinics.

Method

We performed an Exploratory Conversion Mixed-Methods analysis using a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews with CTR scientists across the training continuum, from early-career scholars, mid-career mentors, and senior administrators at the University of Wisconsin and Marshfield Clinics. Qualitative findings were confirmed using epistemic network analysis (ENA). A survey was distributed to CTR scientists in training.

Results

Analyses supported that early-career and senior-career scientists have unique needs. Scientists who identified as non-White or female reported needs that differed from White male scientists. Scientists expressed the needs for educational training in CTR, for institutional support of career development, and trainings for building stronger relationships with community stakeholders. The tension between meeting tenure clocks and building deep community connections was particularly meaningful for scholars who identified as under-represented, including based on race, gender, and discipline.

Conclusions

This study yielded clear differences in support needs between scientists based upon their years in research and diversity of identities. The validation of qualitative findings, through quantification with ENA, enables robust identification of unique needs of CTR investigators. It is critically important to the future of CTR that scientists are provided with supports throughout the career. Delivery of that support in efficient and timely ways improves scientific outcomes. Advocacy at the level of the institution for under-represented scientists is of utmost importance.

Identifying actions to foster cross-disciplinary global health research: a mixed-methods qualitative case study of the IMPALA programme on lung health and tuberculosis in Africa

OBJECTIVES

To identify actions for fostering cross-disciplinary research (CDR) skills and collaborations in global health, and to produce recommendations for improving the design, implementation and management of cross-disciplinary global health research programmes.

DESIGN

Using a North-South global health research programme as a case study-and following an adapted framework-we conducted qualitative research using document reviews, semi-structured interviews (purposive sampling) and participatory observation. We used baseline survey findings to identify potential interviewees and tailor interview guides.

SETTING

Our case study was a 4.5-year (2017-2021) programme, namely, the International Multidisciplinary Programme to Address Lung Health and Tuberculosis in Africa (IMPALA). Led by a UK research institute, IMPALA spanned 22 partner organisations from 13 countries (10 in sub-Saharan Africa), and involved five research discipline groups: clinical science, social science, health systems, health economics and policy/research capacity.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-one IMPALA members were interviewed (July 2018-November 2019), with interviewees evenly split by gender (16 female and 15 male) and by Global North/South institution (15 non-African and 16 African). Twenty-five (81%) were researchers, comprising 18 senior researchers (professors, readers, associate professors and senior lecturers) and seven early career researchers (assistant professors, lecturers, research fellows, postdocs, research assistants and PhD students). Twenty-four programme events were observed (September 2018-April 2020) and 49 documents were reviewed (December 2017-April 2020). All 66 IMPALA staff were sent the baseline survey, receiving 51 responses (43/56 researchers and 8/10 non-researchers).

RESULTS

Fourteen themes emerged, which suggested that CDR-while valued by many-is not universally understood, and the time it requires is often underestimated. We found that fostering CDR and managing tensions needs planning and continuous discussions and interactions. A shared vision with explicitly agreed goals and roles and active management of cross-disciplinary activities is essential.

CONCLUSIONS

Active planning, implementation and management of cross-disciplinary activities are essential for the success of cross-disciplinary global health research and should be separate from the primary research activities.

Coordinating Centers as a Strategy for Accelerating Cancer Epidemiology Consortia: Best Practices

Purposeof Review

This review highlights six “best practices” for cancer epidemiology coordinating centers to facilitate the success of a research consortium.

Recent Findings

Evidence from emerging literature regarding the Science of Team Science suggests that coordinating centers can more effectively foster collaborative cancer epidemiology research in consortia by (1) establishing collaboration as a shared goal at the start, (2) providing scientific expertise complementary to the research sites that adapts over the course of the project, (3) enacting anti-racist and inclusive approaches in all consortium decisions and activities, (4) fostering early-stage investigator career development, (5) engaging stakeholders including cancer survivors as peers, and (6) delivering reliable logistical support and technology tools with planned process evaluation so that researchers can collaboratively focus on the science.

Summary

By drawing on the Science of Team Science, coordinating centers can accelerate research progress and increase the impact of cancer epidemiology consortia.

Applying the lessons of implementation science to maximize feasibility and usability in team science intervention development

The Science of Team Science (SciTS) has generated a substantial body of work detailing characteristics of effective teams. However, that knowledge has not been widely translated into accessible, active, actionable, evidence-based interventions to help translational teams enhance their team functioning and outcomes. Over the past decade, the field of Implementation Science has rapidly developed methods and approaches to increase the translation of biomedical research findings into clinical care, providing a roadmap for mitigating the challenges of developing interventions while maximizing feasibility and utility. Here, we propose an approach to intervention development using constructs from two Implementation Science frameworks, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance, to extend the Wisconsin Interventions for Team Science framework described in Rolland et al. 2021. These Implementation Science constructs can help SciTS researchers design, build, test, and disseminate interventions that meet the needs of both adopters, the institutional leadership that decides whether to adopt an intervention, and implementers, those actually using the intervention. Systematically considering the impact of design decisions on feasibility and usability may lead to the design of interventions that can quickly move from prototype to pilot test to pragmatic trials to assess their impact.

Enhancing translational team effectiveness: The Wisconsin Interventions in Team Science framework for translating empirically informed strategies into evidence-based interventions

Achieving the clinical, public health, economic, and policy benefits of translational science requires the integration and application of findings across biomedical, clinical, and behavioral science and health policy, and thus, collaboration across experts in these areas. To do so, translational teams need the skills, knowledge, and attitudes to mitigate challenges and build on strengths of cross-disciplinary collaboration. Though these competencies are not innate to teams, they can be built through the implementation of effective strategies and interventions. The Science of Team Science (SciTS) has contributed robust theories and evidence of empirically-informed strategies and best practices to enhance collaboration. Yet the field lacks methodological approaches to rigorously translate those strategies into evidence-based interventions to improve collaborative translational research. Here, we apply lessons from Implementation Science and Human-Centered Design & Engineering to describe the Wisconsin Interventions in Team Science (WITS) framework, a process for translating established team science strategies into evidence-based interventions to bolster translational team effectiveness. To illustrate our use of WITS, we describe how University of Wisconsin's Institute for Clinical and Translational Research translated the existing Collaboration Planning framework into a robust, scalable, replicable intervention. We conclude with recommendations for future SciTS research to refine and test the framework.

Enhancing reproducibility using interprofessional team best practices

The pervasive problem of irreproducibility of preclinical research represents a substantial threat to the translation of CTSA-generated health interventions. Key stakeholders in the research process have proposed solutions to this challenge to encourage research practices that improve reproducibility. However, these proposals have had minimal impact, because they either 1. take place too late in the research process, 2. focus exclusively on the products of research instead of the processes of research, and/or 3. fail to take into account the driving incentives in the research enterprise. Because so much clinical and translational science is team-based, CTSA hubs have a unique opportunity to leverage Science of Team Science research to implement and support innovative, evidence-based, team-focused, reproducibility-enhancing activities at a project's start, and across its evolution. Here, we describe the impact of irreproducibility on clinical and translational science, review its origins, and then describe stakeholders' efforts to impact reproducibility, and why those efforts may not have the desired effect. Based on team-science best practices and principles of scientific integrity, we then propose ways for Translational Teams to build reproducible behaviors. We end with suggestions for how CTSAs can leverage team-based best practices and identify observable behaviors that indicate a culture of reproducible research.