Identifying emerging research collaborations and networks: method development

Bibliometric and social network analysis of a Clinical and Translational Resource awardee: An Oklahoma experience 2014-2021

Background

Social Network Analysis is a method of analyzing coauthorship networks or relationships through graph theory. Institutional Development Award (IDeA) Networks for Clinical and Translational Research (IDeA-CTR) was designed to expand the capability for clinical and translational research to enhance National Institutes of Health funding.

Methods

All publications from a cohort of clinical and translational scientists in Oklahoma were collected through a PubMed search for 2014 through 2021 in October 2022. For this study's bibliometric portion, we pulled the citations from iCite in November of 2022.

Results

There were 2,391 articles published in 1,019 journals. The number of papers published by year increased from 56 in 2014 to 448 in 2021. The network had an average of 6.4 authors per paper, with this increasing by year from 5.3 in 2014 to 6.9 in 2021. The average journal impact factor for the overall network was 7.19, with a range from 0.08 to 202.73. The Oklahoma Shared Clinical and Translational Resources (OSCTR) network is a small world network with relatively weak ties.

Conclusions

This study provides an overview of coauthorship in an IDeA-CTR collaboration. We show the growth and structure of coauthorship in OSCTR, highlighting the importance of understanding and fostering collaboration within research networks.

Evaluating the impact of a CTSA program from 2008 to 2021 through bibliometrics, social network analysis, and altmetrics

Introduction

We evaluate a CTSA program hub by applying bibliometrics, social network analysis (SNA), and altmetrics and examine the changes in research productivity, citation impact, research collaboration, and CTSA-supported research topics since our pilot study in 2017.

Methods

The sampled data included North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS)-supported publications produced between September 2008 and March 2021. We applied measures and metrics from bibliometrics, SNA, and altmetrics to the dataset. In addition, we analyzed research topics and correlations between different metrics.

Results

1154 NC TraCS-supported publications generated over 53,560 citation counts by April 2021. The average cites per year and the relative citation ratio (RCR) mean of these publications improved from 33 and 2.26 in 2017 to 48 and 2.58 in 2021. The number of involved UNC units in the most published authors' collaboration network increased from 7 (2017) to 10 (2021). NC TraCS-supported co-authorship involved 61 NC organizations. PlumX metrics identified articles with the highest altmetrics scores. About 96% NC TraCS-supported publications have above the average SciVal Topic Prominence Percentile; the average approximate potential to translate of the included publication was 54.2%; and 177 publications addressed health disparity issues. Bibliometric measures (e.g., citation counts, RCR) and PlumX metrics (i.e., Citations, Captures, and Social-Media) are positively correlated (p < .05).

Conclusion

Bibliometrics, SNA, and altmetrics offer distinctive but related perspectives to examine CTSA research performance and longitudinal growth, especially at the individual program hub level. These perspectives can help CTSAs build program foci.

Multisectoral nutrition planning in Nepal: Evidence from an organizational network analysis

Multisectoral approaches are central to the global Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nepal joined SUN in 2011 and approved the first 5‐year Multisectoral Nutrition Plan (MSNP) in 2012, covering 2013–2017. This mixed methods study draws on organizational network analysis (ONA) and qualitative interviews with a sample of 22 organizations to examine (1) levels of engagement and network dynamics among government sectors and development organizations and (2) milestones and processes in the development and implementation of Nepal's MSNP. Findings suggest that the development of the MSNP was related to the high density of organizational connections; the leadership role of the Nepal's National Planning Commission and the National Nutrition and Food Security Secretariat; and the bridging roles played by a few government ministries and UN agencies that linked organizations that did not have direct relationships with each other. Specialized roles were observed for the three types of working relationships: policy dialogue, strategic planning and implementation. Partners were less connected on MSNP implementation than for policy dialogue and strategic planning, which may have constrained collaborative scale‐up efforts. The Ministry of Agricultural Development, in particular, was the conduit for connecting non‐health sectors into the broader network. Our study offers insights into the structure and dynamics of multisectoral planning in Nepal. It also contributes to a small but growing literature that illustrates how ONA can be applied to measure and use network results to elucidate the processes for strengthening multisectoral planning and implementation of nutrition‐specific and nutrition‐sensitive interventions.

Using attendance data for social network analysis of a community-engaged research partnership

BACKGROUND

The Rockefeller University Center for Clinical and Translational Science (RU-CCTS) and Clinical Directors Network (CDN), a Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN), fostered a community-academic research partnership involving Community Health Center (CHCs) clinicians, laboratory scientists, clinical researchers, community, and patient partners. From 2011 to 2018, the partnership designed and completed Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Project (CAMP1), an observational study funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), and CAMP2, a Comparative Effectiveness Research Study funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). We conducted a social network analysis (SNA) to characterize this Community-Engaged Research (CEnR) partnership.

METHODS

Projects incorporated principles of Community-Based Participatory Research (CAMP1/2) and PCORI engagement rubrics (CAMP2). Meetings were designed to be highly interactive, facilitate co-learning, share governance, and incentivize ongoing engagement. Meeting attendance formed the raw dataset enriched by stakeholder roles and affiliations. We used SNA software (Gephi) to form networks for four project periods, characterize network attributes (density, degree, centrality, vulnerability), and create sociograms. Polynomial regression models were used to study stakeholder interactions.

RESULTS

Forty-seven progress meetings engaged 141 stakeholders, fulfilling 7 roles, and affiliated with 28 organizations (6 types). Network size, density, and interactions across organizations increased over time. Interactions between Community Members or Recruiters/Community Health Workers and almost every other role increased significantly across CAMP2 (P < 0.005); Community Members' centrality to the network increased over time.

CONCLUSIONS

In a partnership with a highly interactive meeting model, SNA using operational attendance data afforded a view of stakeholder interactions that realized the engagement goals of the partnership.

Scope, Influence, and Interdisciplinary Collaboration: The Publication Portfolio of the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program From 2006 Through 2017

The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program sponsors an array of innovative, collaborative research. This study uses complementary bibliometric approaches to assess the scope, influence, and interdisciplinary collaboration of publications supported by single CTSA hubs and those supported by multiple hubs. Authors identified articles acknowledging CTSA support and assessed the disciplinary scope of research areas represented in that publication portfolio, their citation influence, interdisciplinary overlap among research categories, and characteristics of publications supported by multihub collaborations. Since 2006, CTSA hubs supported 69,436 articles published in 4,927 journals and 189 research areas. The portfolio is well distributed across diverse research areas with above-average citation influence. Most supported publications involved clinical/health sciences, for example, neurology and pediatrics; life sciences, for example, neuroscience and immunology; or a combination of the two. Publications supported by multihub collaborations had distinct content emphasis, stronger citation influence, and greater interdisciplinary overlap. This study characterizes the CTSA consortium's contributions to clinical and translational science, identifies content areas of strength, and provides evidence for the success of multihub collaborations. These methods lay the foundation for future investigation of the best policies and priorities for fostering translational science and allow hubs to understand their progress benchmarked against the larger consortium.

Trust in Community-Engaged Research Partnerships: A Methodological Overview of Designing a Multisite Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Initiative

Community-engaged research (CEnR) builds on the strengths of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) framework to address health in underserved and minority communities. There is a paucity of studies that identify the process from which trust develops in CEnR partnerships. This study responds to the need for empirical investigation of building and maintaining trust from a multistakeholder perspective. We conducted a multi-institutional pilot study using concept mapping with to better understand how trust, a critical outcome of CEnR partnerships, can act as "social capital." Concept mapping was used to collect data from the three stakeholder groups: community, health-care, and academic research partners across three CTSAs. Concept mapping is a mixed-methods approach that allows participants to brainstorm and identify factors that contribute to a concept and describe ways in which those factors relate to each other. This study offers important insights on developing an initial set of trust measures that can be used across CTSAs to understand differences and similarities in conceptualization of trust among key stakeholder groups, track changes in public trust in research, identify both positive and negative aspects of trust, identify characteristics that maintain trust, and inform the direction for future research.

Network-based assessment of collaborative research in neuroscience

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to describe collaborative research in neuroscience within the context of the Center for Neurodegeneration and Translational Neuroscience (CNTN), a Center of Biomedical Research Excellence supported by the National Institute of General Medical Science. Drawing upon research on the science of team science, this study investigated the way that interactions around research emerged over the course of establishing a new research center. The objectives were to document changes in research activity and describe how human research support infrastructure functioned to support the production of science.

METHODS

Social network analyses were used to model coauthorship relationships based on publication histories from baseline (2014) through the current grant year (2017) for key personnel (n = 12), as well as survey data on collaborative engagement among CNTN members (n = 59).

RESULTS

Exponential random graph models indicated that over time, CNTN members were increasingly likely to form coauthorship relationships. Community detection algorithms and brokerage analyses suggested that the CNTN was functioning as intended to support scientific development.

DISCUSSION

Assessment of team science efforts is critical to evaluating and developing appropriate support structures that facilitate successful team science efforts in translational neuroscience.

Engaging in Collaborative Research: Focus on the Pharmacy Practitioner

Research offers an opportunity for investigators to explore unanswered questions, highlight best practices, and engage in collaboration. Clinical research can engage health care professionals to identify treatments or procedures to enhance patient care, quality of life, and outcomes. Research may also include experiences in a unique practice site or teaching methodology of trainees, staff, or patients. The goal of research is to improve individual patient care via dissemination of knowledge through publications. This article aims to highlight the importance of pharmacist-led research in the academic or community medical center and the need for resident-based research and mentorship for the integration of collaborative research and achievement of organizational goals.

Regional Multiteam Systems in Cancer Care Delivery

Teamwork is essential for addressing many of the challenges that arise in the coordination and delivery of cancer care, especially for the problems that are presented by patients who cross geographic boundaries and enter and exit multiple health care systems at various times during their cancer care journeys. The problem of coordinating the care of patients with cancer is further complicated by the growing number of treatment options and modalities, incompatibilities among the vast variety of technology platforms that have recently been adopted by the health care industry, and competing and misaligned incentives for providers and systems. Here we examine the issue of regional care coordination in cancer through the prism of a real patient journey. This article will synthesize and elaborate on existing knowledge about coordination approaches for complex systems, in particular, in general and cancer care multidisciplinary teams; define elements of coordination derived from organizational psychology and human factors research that are applicable to team-based cancer care delivery; and suggest approaches for improving multidisciplinary team coordination in regional cancer care delivery and avenues for future research. The phenomenon of the mobile, multisystem patient represents a growing challenge in cancer care. Paradoxically, development of high-quality, high-volume centers of excellence and the ease of virtual communication and data sharing by using electronic medical records have introduced significant barriers to effective team-based cancer care. These challenges urgently require solutions.

Evolution of Multidisciplinary Translational Teams (MTTs): Insights for Accelerating Translational Innovations

There is growing consensus about the factors critical for development and productivity of multidisciplinary teams, but few studies have evaluated their longitudinal changes. We present a longitudinal study of 10 multidisciplinary translational teams (MTTs), based on team process and outcome measures, evaluated before and after 3 years of CTSA collaboration. Using a mixed methods approach, an expert panel of five judges (familiar with the progress of the teams) independently rated team performance based on four process and four outcome measures, and achieved a rating consensus. Although all teams made progress in translational domains, other process and outcome measures were highly variable. The trajectory profiles identified four categories of team performance. Objective bibliometric analysis of CTSA-supported MTTs with positive growth in process scores showed that these teams tended to have enhanced scientific outcomes and published in new scientific domains, indicating the conduct of innovative science. Case exemplars revealed that MTTs that experienced growth in both process and outcome evaluative criteria also experienced greater innovation, defined as publications in different areas of science. Of the eight evaluative criteria, leadership-related behaviors were the most resistant to the interventions introduced. Well-managed MTTs demonstrate objective productivity and facilitate innovation.

Are researcher development interventions, alone or in any combination, effective in improving researcher behavior? A systematic review

Academic institutions funded by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program of the National Institutes of Health were challenged recently by the Institute of Medicine to expand traditional mentoring of graduate and postdoctoral scholars to include training and continuing education for faculty, professional staff, and community partners. A systematic review was conducted to determine whether researcher development interventions, alone or in any combination, are effective in improving researcher behavior. PubMed, CINAHL, and Education Research Complete databases and select journals were searched for relevant articles published from January 2000 through October 2012. A total of 3,459 papers were identified, and 114 papers were retrieved for in-depth analysis. None included randomization. Twenty-two papers reported subjects with professional degrees, interventions, and outcomes. Interventions were meetings, outreach visits, colleague mediation, audit and feedback, and multifaceted interventions. Most studies reported multifaceted interventions (68.2%), often involving mentored learning experiences, and meetings. All studies reported a change in performance, including numbers of publications or grant applications. Nine studies reported changes in competence, including writing, presentation, or analytic skills, and performance in research practice (40.9%). Even as, the quality of evidence was weak to establish causal linkages between researcher development and improved researcher behavior, nearly all the projects (81.8%) received funding from governmental agencies, professional societies, or other organizations. Those who design researcher development activities and those who evaluate the programs are challenged to develop tools and conduct studies that measure the effectiveness, costs, and sustainability of researcher development in the CTSA Program.