Browsing by Subject "Research Personnel"
Now showing 1 - 13 of 13
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Open Access Conceptualizing trust in community-academic research partnerships using concept mapping approach: A multi-CTSA study.(Evaluation and program planning, 2018-02) Dave, Gaurav; Frerichs, Leah; Jones, Jennifer; Kim, Mimi; Schaal, Jennifer; Vassar, Stefanie; Varma, Deepthi; Striley, Catherine; Ruktanonchai, Corrine; Black, Adina; Hankins, Jennifer; Lovelady, Nakita; Cene, Crystal; Green, Melissa; Young, Tiffany; Tiwari, Shristi; Cheney, Ann; Cottler, Linda; Sullivan, Greer; Brown, Arleen; Burke, Jessica; Corbie-Smith, GiselleObjectives
Collaborations between communities, healthcare practices and academic institutions are a strategy to address health disparities. Trust is critical in the development and maintaining of effective collaborations. The aim of this pilot study was to engage stakeholders in defining determinants of trust in community academic research partnerships and to develop a framework for measuring trust.Methods
The study was conducted by five collaborating National Institute of Health' Clinical and Translational Sciences Awardees. We used concept mapping to engage three stakeholders: community members, healthcare providers and academicians. We conducted hierarchical cluster analysis to assess the determinants of trust in community-academic research partnerships.Results
A total of 186 participants provided input generating 2,172 items that were consolidated into 125 unique items. A five cluster solution was defined: authentic, effective and transparent communication; mutually respectful and reciprocal relationships; sustainability; committed partnerships; and, communication, credibility and methodology to anticipate and resolve problems.Conclusion
Results from this study contribute to an increasing empirical body of work to better understand and improve the underlying factors that contribute to building and sustaining trust in community academic research partnerships.Item Open Access Design and Implementation of a Career Development Program for Physician-Scientists: Lessons Learned.(Urogynecology (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2022-08) Kameny, Rebecca R; Amundsen, Cindy LImportance
Although skills in health services research and data science have great potential to advance the field of urogynecology, few clinical researchers obtain such training.Objectives
The aim of the R25 UrogynCREST Program is to prepare the next generation of physician-scientists for a successful career in urogynecologic health services research through skilled mentoring and advanced training. The purpose of this report is to describe program implementation and lessons learned.Study design
Administered through the program institution and in partnership with the American Urogynecologic Society, this program provided junior faculty with advanced online training and, through a core facility, access to health care databases for research projects. Participants received individualized mentoring and biostatistical support. Anonymous surveys captured actionable, real-time feedback from participants as they moved through the program.Results
Despite a limited budget, UrogynCREST maintained a core of excellent faculty, high-quality biostatistical support, and engaged, knowledgeable advisors and mentors. This allowed for similar experiences across cohorts while permitting program improvements between cohorts in faculty-participant interactions, team dynamics, and data and regulatory support. Administrative management by a single institution facilitated responses to fiscal and regulatory changes. Asynchronized learning and partnering with a society attracted a diverse group of physician-scientists.Conclusions
Career development programs that incorporate online education, mentoring, database access, and biostatistical support must be prepared for midprogram changes. Regular communication among stakeholders was vital. Working with a core facility provided efficient database access, but evolving regulatory and administrative processes and costs presented challenges. Our experiences implementing this program can benefit similar programs that train early-career physician-scientists.Item Open Access Fostering Radiation Oncology Physician Scientist Trainees Within a Diverse Workforce: The Radiation Oncology Research Scholar Track.(International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2021-06) Salama, Joseph K; Floyd, Scott R; Willett, Christopher G; Kirsch, David GThere is a need to foster future generations of radiation oncology physician scientists, but the number of radiation oncologists with sufficient education, training, and funding to make transformative discoveries is relatively small. A large number of MD/PhD graduates have entered he field of radiation oncology over the past 2 decades, but this has not led to a significant cohort of externally funded physician scientists. Because radiation oncologists leading independent research labs have the potential to make transformative discoveries that advance our field and positively affect patients with cancer, we created the Duke Radiation Oncology Research Scholar (RORS) Program. In crafting this program, we sought to eliminate barriers preventing radiation oncology trainees from becoming independent physician scientists. The RORS program integrates the existing American Board of Radiology Holman Pathway with a 2-year post-graduate medical education instructor position with 80% research effort at the same institution. We use a separate match for RORS and traditional residency pathways, which we hope will increase the diversity of our residency program. Since the inception of the RORS program, we have matched 2 trainees into our program. We encourage other radiation oncology residency programs at peer institutions to consider this training pathway as a means to foster the development of independent physician scientists and a diverse workforce in radiation oncology.Item Open Access Institutional review boards' use and understanding of certificates of confidentiality.(PloS one, 2012-01) Beskow, Laura M; Check, Devon K; Namey, Emily E; Dame, Lauren A; Lin, Li; Cooper, Alexandra; Weinfurt, Kevin P; Wolf, Leslie ECertificates of Confidentiality, issued by agencies of the U.S. government, are regarded as an important tool for meeting ethical and legal obligations to safeguard research participants' privacy and confidentiality. By shielding against forced disclosure of identifying data, Certificates are intended to facilitate research on sensitive topics critical to the public's health. Although Certificates are potentially applicable to an extensive array of research, their full legal effect is unclear, and little is known about stakeholders' views of the protections they provide. To begin addressing this challenge, we conducted a national survey of institutional review board (IRB) chairs, followed by telephone interviews with selected chairs, to learn more about their familiarity with and opinions about Certificates; their institutions' use of Certificates; policies and practices concerning when Certificates are required or recommended; and the role Certificates play in assessments of research risk. Overall, our results suggest uncertainty about Certificates among IRB chairs. On most objective knowledge questions, most respondents chose the incorrect answer or 'unsure'. Among chairs who reported more familiarity with Certificates, composite opinion scores calculated based on five survey questions were evenly distributed among positive, neutral/middle, and negative views. Further, respondents expressed a variety of ideas about the appropriate use of Certificates, what they are intended to protect, and their effect on research risk. Nevertheless, chairs who participated in our study commonly viewed Certificates as a potentially valuable tool, frequently describing them as an 'extra layer' of protection. These findings lead to several practical observations concerning the need for more stakeholder education about Certificates, consideration of Certificates for a broader range of studies, the importance of remaining vigilant and using all tools available to protect participants' confidentiality, and the need for further empirical investigation of Certificates' effect on researchers and research participants.Item Open Access Introductions to the Community: Early-Career Researchers in the Time of COVID-19.(Cell stem cell, 2020-08) Shahbazi, Marta; Musah, Samira; Sharma, Ankur; Bajaj, Jeevisha; Donati, Giacomo; Zhang, WeiqiCOVID-19 has unfortunately halted lab work, conferences, and in-person networking, which is especially detrimental to researchers just starting their labs. Through social media and our reviewer networks, we met some early-career stem cell investigators impacted by the closures. Here, they introduce themselves and their research to our readers.Item Open Access Qualitative analysis of the interdisciplinary interaction between data analysis specialists and novice clinical researchers.(PLoS One, 2010-02-24) Zammar, Guilherme Roberto; Shah, Jatin; Ferreira, Ana Paula Bonilauri; Cofiel, Luciana; Lyles, Kenneth W; Pietrobon, RicardoBACKGROUND: The inherent complexity of statistical methods and clinical phenomena compel researchers with diverse domains of expertise to work in interdisciplinary teams, where none of them have a complete knowledge in their counterpart's field. As a result, knowledge exchange may often be characterized by miscommunication leading to misinterpretation, ultimately resulting in errors in research and even clinical practice. Though communication has a central role in interdisciplinary collaboration and since miscommunication can have a negative impact on research processes, to the best of our knowledge, no study has yet explored how data analysis specialists and clinical researchers communicate over time. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted qualitative analysis of encounters between clinical researchers and data analysis specialists (epidemiologist, clinical epidemiologist, and data mining specialist). These encounters were recorded and systematically analyzed using a grounded theory methodology for extraction of emerging themes, followed by data triangulation and analysis of negative cases for validation. A policy analysis was then performed using a system dynamics methodology looking for potential interventions to improve this process. Four major emerging themes were found. Definitions using lay language were frequently employed as a way to bridge the language gap between the specialties. Thought experiments presented a series of "what if" situations that helped clarify how the method or information from the other field would behave, if exposed to alternative situations, ultimately aiding in explaining their main objective. Metaphors and analogies were used to translate concepts across fields, from the unfamiliar to the familiar. Prolepsis was used to anticipate study outcomes, thus helping specialists understand the current context based on an understanding of their final goal. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The communication between clinical researchers and data analysis specialists presents multiple challenges that can lead to errors.Item Open Access Race disparity in grants: check the citations.(Science (New York, N.Y.), 2011-11) Erickson, Harold PItem Open Access Researcher practices on returning genetic research results.(Genet Test Mol Biomarkers, 2010-12) Heaney, Christopher; Tindall, Genevieve; Lucas, Joe; Haga, Susanne BBACKGROUND/AIMS: as genetic and genomic research proliferates, debate has ensued about returning results to participants. In addition to consideration of the benefits and harms to participants, researchers must also consider the logistical and financial feasibility of returning research results. However, little data exist of actual researcher practices. METHODS: we conducted an online survey of 446 corresponding authors of genetic/genomic studies conducted in the United States and published in 2006-2007 to assess the frequency with which they considered, offered to, or actually returned research results, what factors influenced these decisions, and the method of communicating results. RESULTS: the response rate was 24% (105/446). Fifty-four percent of respondents considered the issue of returning research results to participants, 28% offered to return individual research results, and 24% actually returned individual research results. Of those who considered the issue of returning research results during the study planning phase, the most common factors considered were whether research results were deemed clinically useful (18%) and respect for participants (13%). Researchers who had a medical degree and conducted studies on children were significantly more likely to offer to return or actually return individual results compared to those with a Ph.D. only. CONCLUSIONS: we speculate that issues associated with clinical validity and respect for participants dominated concerns of time and expense given the prominent and continuing ethical debates surrounding genetics and genomics research. The substantial number of researchers who did not consider returning research results suggests that researchers and institutional review boards need to devote more attention to a topic about which research participants are interested.Item Open Access Science incubators: synthesis centers and their role in the research ecosystem.(PLoS Biol, 2013) Rodrigo, Allen; Alberts, Susan; Cranston, Karen; Kingsolver, Joel; Lapp, Hilmar; McClain, Craig; Smith, Robin; Vision, Todd; Weintraub, Jory; Wiegmann, BrianHow should funding agencies enable researchers to explore high-risk but potentially high-reward science? One model that appears to work is the NSF-funded synthesis center, an incubator for community-led, innovative science.Item Open Access Stakeholder Perspectives on Creating and Maintaining Trust in Community-Academic Research Partnerships.(Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education, 2017-02) Frerichs, Leah; Kim, Mimi; Dave, Gaurav; Cheney, Ann; Hassmiller Lich, Kristen; Jones, Jennifer; Young, Tiffany L; Cene, Crystal W; Varma, Deepthi S; Schaal, Jennifer; Black, Adina; Striley, Catherine W; Vassar, Stefanie; Sullivan, Greer; Cottler, Linda B; Brown, Arleen; Burke, Jessica G; Corbie-Smith, GiselleCommunity-academic research partnerships aim to build stakeholder trust in order to improve the reach and translation of health research, but there is limited empirical research regarding effective ways to build trust. This multisite study was launched to identify similarities and differences among stakeholders' perspectives of antecedents to trust in research partnerships. In 2013-2014, we conducted a mixed-methods concept mapping study with participants from three major stakeholder groups who identified and rated the importance of different antecedents of trust on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Study participants were community members ( n = 66), health care providers ( n = 38), and academic researchers ( n = 44). All stakeholder groups rated "authentic communication" and "reciprocal relationships" the highest in importance. Community members rated "communication/methodology to resolve problems" ( M = 4.23, SD = 0.58) significantly higher than academic researchers ( M = 3.87, SD = 0.67) and health care providers ( M = 3.89, SD = 0.62; p < .01) and had different perspectives regarding the importance of issues related to "sustainability." The importance of communication and relationships across stakeholders indicates the importance of colearning processes that involve the exchange of knowledge and skills. The differences uncovered suggest specific areas where attention and skill building may be needed to improve trust within partnerships. More research on how partnerships can improve communication specific to problem solving and sustainability is merited.Item Open Access The Research RVU (rRVU): In Search of a Methodology to Incentivize and Compensate Clinicians for Participation in Clinical Research Activities.(Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016-01) Severance, Harry WItem Open Access The spirit of science. Presidential address to the American Society for Clinical Investigation, Washington, DC, 30 April 1988.(J Clin Invest, 1988-08) Lefkowitz, RJItem Open Access WriteSim TCExam--an open source text simulation environment for training novice researchers in scientific writing.(BMC Med Educ, 2010-05-28) Shah, Jatin; Rajgor, Dimple; Vaghasia, Meenakshi; Phadtare, Amruta; Pradhan, Shreyasee; Carvalho, Elias; Pietrobon, RicardoBACKGROUND: The ability to write clearly and effectively is of central importance to the scientific enterprise. Encouraged by the success of simulation environments in other biomedical sciences, we developed WriteSim TCExam, an open-source, Web-based, textual simulation environment for teaching effective writing techniques to novice researchers. We shortlisted and modified an existing open source application - TCExam to serve as a textual simulation environment. After testing usability internally in our team, we conducted formal field usability studies with novice researchers. These were followed by formal surveys with researchers fitting the role of administrators and users (novice researchers) RESULTS: The development process was guided by feedback from usability tests within our research team. Online surveys and formal studies, involving members of the Research on Research group and selected novice researchers, show that the application is user-friendly. Additionally it has been used to train 25 novice researchers in scientific writing to date and has generated encouraging results. CONCLUSION: WriteSim TCExam is the first Web-based, open-source textual simulation environment designed to complement traditional scientific writing instruction. While initial reviews by students and educators have been positive, a formal study is needed to measure its benefits in comparison to standard instructional methods.