Show simple item record Zammar, GR Shah, J Ferreira, AP Cofiel, L Lyles, KW Pietrobon, R
dc.coverage.spatial United States 2011-06-21T17:31:29Z 2010-02-24
dc.identifier.citation PLoS One, 2010, 5 (2), pp. e9400 - ?
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND: 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.
dc.format.extent e9400 - ?
dc.language eng
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.relation.ispartof PLoS One
dc.relation.isversionof 10.1371/journal.pone.0009400
dc.subject Biomedical Research
dc.subject Humans
dc.subject Interdisciplinary Communication
dc.subject Interprofessional Relations
dc.subject Models, Theoretical
dc.subject Peer Review, Research
dc.subject Qualitative Research
dc.subject Research Design
dc.subject Research Personnel
dc.subject Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.title Qualitative analysis of the interdisciplinary interaction between data analysis specialists and novice clinical researchers.
dc.title.alternative en_US
dc.type Journal Article
dc.description.version Version of Record en_US 2010-2-24 en_US
duke.description.endpage e9400 en_US
duke.description.issue 2 en_US
duke.description.startpage e9400 en_US
duke.description.volume 5 en_US
dc.relation.journal Plos One en_US
pubs.issue 2
pubs.organisational-group /Duke
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/Faculty
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/School of Medicine
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/School of Medicine/Clinical Science Departments
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/School of Medicine/Clinical Science Departments/Medicine
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/School of Medicine/Clinical Science Departments/Medicine/Medicine, Geriatrics
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/School of Medicine/Institutes and Centers
pubs.organisational-group /Duke/School of Medicine/Institutes and Centers/Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development
pubs.publication-status Published online
pubs.volume 5
dc.identifier.eissn 1932-6203

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record