PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-9 (9)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  A Four-Phase Model of Transdisciplinary Team-Based Research: Goals, Team Processes, and Strategies 
The complexity of social and public health challenges has led to burgeoning interest and investments in cross-disciplinary team-based research, and particularly in transdisciplinary (TD) team-based research. TD research aims to integrate and ultimately extend beyond discipline-specific concepts, approaches, and methods to accelerate innovations and progress toward solving complex real-world problems. While TD research offers the promise of novel, wide-reaching and important discoveries, it also introduces unique challenges. In particular, today’s investigators are generally trained in unidisciplinary approaches, and may have little training in, or exposure to, the scientific skills and team processes necessary to collaborate successfully in teams of colleagues from widely disparate disciplines and fields. Yet these skills are essential to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of TD team-based research.
In the current article we propose a model of TD team-based research that includes four relatively distinct phases: development, conceptualization, implementation, and translation. Drawing on the science of team science (SciTS) field, as well as the findings from previous research on group dynamics and organizational behavior, we identify key scientific goals and team processes that occur in each phase and across multiple phases. We then provide real-world exemplars for each phase that highlight strategies for successfully meeting the goals and engaging in the team processes that are hallmarks of that phase. We conclude by discussing the relevance of the model for TD team-based research initiatives, funding to support these initiatives, and future empirical research that aims to better understand the processes and outcomes of TD team-based research.
doi:10.1007/s13142-012-0167-y
PMCID: PMC3589144  PMID: 23483588
transdisciplinary; cross-disciplinary; team science; team-based research; research process
2.  Assessing the Value of Team Science A Study Comparing Center- and Investigator-Initiated Grants 
Background
Large cross-disciplinary scientific teams are becoming increasingly prominent in the conduct of research.
Purpose
This paper reports on a quasi-experimental longitudinal study conducted to compare bibliometric indicators of scientific collaboration, productivity, and impact of center-based transdisciplinary team science initiatives and traditional investigator-initiated grants in the same field.
Methods
All grants began between 1994 and 2004 and up to 10 years of publication data were collected for each grant. Publication information was compiled and analyzed during the spring and summer of 2010.
Results
Following an initial lag period, the transdisciplinary research center grants had higher overall publication rates than the investigator-initiated R01 (NIH Research Project Grant Program) grants. There were relatively uniform publication rates across the research center grants compared to dramatically dispersed publication rates among the R01 grants. On average, publications produced by the research center grants had greater numbers of coauthors but similar journal impact factors compared with publications produced by the R01 grants.
Conclusions
The lag in productivity among the transdisciplinary center grants was offset by their overall higher publication rates and average number of coauthors per publication, relative to investigator-initiated grants, over the 10-year comparison period. The findings suggest that transdisciplinary center grants create benefits for both scientific productivity and collaboration. (Am J Prev Med 2012;42(2):157–163) Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Journal of Preventive Medicine
doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.10.011
PMCID: PMC3586819  PMID: 22261212
3.  A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: goals, team processes, and strategies 
ABSTRACT
The complexity of social and public health challenges has led to burgeoning interest and investments in cross-disciplinary team-based research, and particularly in transdisciplinary (TD) team-based research. TD research aims to integrate and ultimately extend beyond discipline-specific concepts, approaches, and methods to accelerate innovations and progress toward solving complex real-world problems. While TD research offers the promise of novel, wide-reaching, and important discoveries, it also introduces unique challenges. In particular, today's investigators are generally trained in unidisciplinary approaches and may have little training in, or exposure to, the scientific skills and team processes necessary to collaborate successfully in teams of colleagues from widely disparate disciplines and fields. Yet these skills are essential to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of TD team-based research. In the current article, we propose a model of TD team-based research that includes four relatively distinct phases: development, conceptualization, implementation, and translation. Drawing on the science of team science field, as well as the findings from previous research on group dynamics and organizational behavior, we identify key scientific goals and team processes that occur in each phase and across multiple phases. We then provide real-world exemplars for each phase that highlight strategies for successfully meeting the goals and engaging in the team processes that are hallmarks of that phase. We conclude by discussing the relevance of the model for TD team-based research initiatives, funding to support these initiatives, and future empirical research that aims to better understand the processes and outcomes of TD team-based research.
doi:10.1007/s13142-012-0167-y
PMCID: PMC3589144  PMID: 23483588
Transdisciplinary; Cross-disciplinary; Team science; Team-based research; Research process
4.  Overview of the consortium of hospitals advancing research on tobacco (chart) 
Trials  2012;13:122.
Background
The Consortium of Hospitals Advancing Research on Tobacco (CHART) is a network of six projects and a research coordinating unit funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research. The CHART projects will assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions initiated during hospitalization and continued post-discharge.
Methods/design
Along with a seventh project funded previously under the NIH Challenge grants, the CHART projects will assess smoking cessation strategies delivered to approximately 10,000 hospitalized smokers across a geographically diverse group of nearly 20 private, public, academic, and community hospitals. The CHART research coordinating unit at Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research provides organizational and data coordination support, facilitating the development of common measures for combining data from multiple CHART projects.
Discussion
The targeted enrollment in CHART, if achieved, will represent the largest, most diverse pooled dataset of hospitalized smokers receiving smoking cessation assistance, and is designed to contribute to the dissemination and implementation of smoking cessation interventions provided by hospital systems.
doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-122
PMCID: PMC3479413  PMID: 22852768
Hospitals; Smoking cessation; Tobacco control
5.  Impact of Differing Definitions of Dual Tobacco Use: Implications for Studying Dual Use and a Call for Operational Definitions 
Nicotine & Tobacco Research  2011;13(7):523-531.
Introduction:
Concomitant use of two forms of tobacco is an increasing public health concern, yet there is little consensus regarding a consistent definition of so-called “dual use.” We defined dual use as cigarette and smokeless tobacco (ST) consumption with either product used daily or nondaily.
Methods:
We analyzed a cohort of 36,013 Air Force recruits. We categorized dual tobacco use across 2 dimensions, type of tobacco products (cigarettes, ST, or others), and the frequency of use (daily vs. nondaily). We determined how varying the definition impacted the prevalence estimates and evaluated the prevalence estimate based on our recommended definition of dual use. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the risk profile of dual users of ST and cigarettes versus mono users of ST and mono users of cigarettes.
Results:
Varying definitions of dual use vary prevalence estimates 50-fold (0.5%–25.3%). Including only ST and cigarettes narrows the prevalence estimate to less than 4-fold (2.0%–9.7%). Dual users are more likely to be young Caucasian males, with lower education, and from families with relatively higher incomes. Compared with mono users, dual users of cigarettes and ST have a distinct pattern of risk profiles.
Conclusions:
Depending on the definition of dual use, markedly different prevalence and risk profiles are observed. Dual users of ST and cigarettes are a unique group of tobacco users. We propose a common definition of dual use to advance our understanding of this unique group.
doi:10.1093/ntr/ntr032
PMCID: PMC3129236  PMID: 21436298
6.  Grid-Enabled Measures 
American journal of preventive medicine  2011;40(5 Suppl 2):S134-S143.
Scientists are taking advantage of the Internet and collaborative web technology to accelerate discovery in a massively connected, participative environment —a phenomenon referred to by some as Science 2.0. As a new way of doing science, this phenomenon has the potential to push science forward in a more efficient manner than was previously possible. The Grid-Enabled Measures (GEM) database has been conceptualized as an instantiation of Science 2.0 principles by the National Cancer Institute with two overarching goals: (1) Promote the use of standardized measures, which are tied to theoretically based constructs; and (2) Facilitate the ability to share harmonized data resulting from the use of standardized measures. This is done by creating an online venue connected to the Cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid (caBIG®) where a virtual community of researchers can collaborate together and come to consensus on measures by rating, commenting and viewing meta-data about the measures and associated constructs. This paper will describe the web 2.0 principles on which the GEM database is based, describe its functionality, and discuss some of the important issues involved with creating the GEM database, such as the role of mutually agreed-on ontologies (i.e., knowledge categories and the relationships among these categories— for data sharing).
doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.01.004
PMCID: PMC3088871  PMID: 21521586
7.  National Cancer Institute Conference on Treating Tobacco Dependence at Cancer Centers 
Journal of Oncology Practice  2011;7(3):178-182.
The National Cancer Institute cancer centers possess the credibility to help smokers quit. With the greater life expectancies forecast for patients with cancer, addressing smoking at cancer centers has taken on greater importance.
doi:10.1200/JOP.2010.000175
PMCID: PMC3092659  PMID: 21886500
8.  Interdisciplinarity and Systems Science to Improve Population Health 
American journal of preventive medicine  2008;35(2 Suppl):S211-S224.
Fueled by the rapid pace of discovery, humankind's ability to understand the ultimate causes of preventable common disease burdens and to identify solutions is now reaching a revolutionary tipping point. Achieving optimal health and well-being for all members of society lies as much in the understanding of the factors identified by the behavioral, social, and public health sciences as by the biological ones. Accumulating advances in mathematical modeling, informatics, imaging, sensor technology, and communication tools have stimulated several converging trends in science: an emerging understanding of epigenomic regulation; dramatic successes in achieving population health-behavior changes; and improved scientific rigor in behavioral, social, and economic sciences. Fostering stronger interdisciplinary partnerships to bring together the behavioral–social–ecologic models of multilevel “causes of the causes” and the molecular, cellular, and, ultimately, physiological bases of health and disease will facilitate breakthroughs to improve the public's health.
The strategic vision of the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is rooted in a collaborative approach to addressing the complex and multidimensional issues that challenge the public's health. This paper describes OBSSR's four key programmatic directions (next-generation basic science, interdisciplinary research, systems science, and a problem-based focus for population impact) to illustrate how interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary perspectives can foster the vertical integration of research among biological, behavioral, social, and population levels of analysis over the lifespan and across generations. Interdisciplinary and multilevel approaches are critical both to the OBSSR's mission of integrating behavioral and social sciences more fully into the NIH scientific enterprise and to the overall NIH mission of utilizing science in the pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.
doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.018
PMCID: PMC2587290  PMID: 18619402
9.  Environment And Genetics in Lung cancer Etiology (EAGLE) study: An integrative population-based case-control study of lung cancer 
BMC Public Health  2008;8:203.
Background
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Tobacco smoking is its primary cause, and yet the precise molecular alterations induced by smoking in lung tissue that lead to lung cancer and impact survival have remained obscure. A new framework of research is needed to address the challenges offered by this complex disease.
Methods/Design
We designed a large population-based case-control study that combines a traditional molecular epidemiology design with a more integrative approach to investigate the dynamic process that begins with smoking initiation, proceeds through dependency/smoking persistence, continues with lung cancer development and ends with progression to disseminated disease or response to therapy and survival. The study allows the integration of data from multiple sources in the same subjects (risk factors, germline variation, genomic alterations in tumors, and clinical endpoints) to tackle the disease etiology from different angles. Before beginning the study, we conducted a phone survey and pilot investigations to identify the best approach to ensure an acceptable participation in the study from cases and controls. Between 2002 and 2005, we enrolled 2101 incident primary lung cancer cases and 2120 population controls, with 86.6% and 72.4% participation rate, respectively, from a catchment area including 216 municipalities in the Lombardy region of Italy. Lung cancer cases were enrolled in 13 hospitals and population controls were randomly sampled from the area to match the cases by age, gender and residence. Detailed epidemiological information and biospecimens were collected from each participant, and clinical data and tissue specimens from the cases. Collection of follow-up data on treatment and survival is ongoing.
Discussion
EAGLE is a new population-based case-control study that explores the full spectrum of lung cancer etiology, from smoking addiction to lung cancer outcome, through examination of epidemiological, molecular, and clinical data. We have provided a detailed description of the study design, field activities, management, and opportunities for research following this integrative approach, which allows a sharper and more comprehensive vision of the complex nature of this disease. The study is poised to accelerate the emergence of new preventive and therapeutic strategies with potentially enormous impact on public health.
doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-203
PMCID: PMC2464602  PMID: 18538025

Results 1-9 (9)