Team Science in Clinical Research

Team Science in Clinical Research

Introduction

Improvements in clinical and translational science coupled with a statewide policy and availability of funds have led to the advancement of translational science. The concept of team science involves a variety of conceptual and methodological schemes aimed at increasing understanding and improving the results of several large-scale collaborative research.

Most health and life sciences communities now shift towards using translational and team science-based methods to clinical research. This shift has been fueled by the critical need to apply these methods in the collection, management, exchange, analysis and spread of data sets. Many team science projects vary along different dimensions depending on their size, goals, duration, and organization structure. Team-based projects often include scientists who work together on research projects. They may be from different departments and institutions. It is therefore vital to conduct cross-institutional research without being hampered. Therefore several collaborative adjustments need to be made to ensure the collaboration with members from other disciplines.

This aim of this survey is to obtain the perceptions of fellow clinical research participants regarding their experiences during research protocols and to obtain their views on the functionality and effectiveness of team science in clinical research.  The purpose of the study was to understand the various tangible and operative aspects of the team. Analysis of the findings will help in the understanding of the functionality of the

Methods

This survey is based on aspects of team science and was designed to collect the views of classmates on their team members. The survey was conducted on campus to a diverse group of 50 students. In addition to the students on the main campus. The participants were each issued with a letter of consent to seek their permission in participating in the survey. A questionnaire was developed and released to the respondents who upon filling and submitting their responses. The questions in the questionnaire were framed to obtain the perspective of the team members about the functioning of other team members. The questionnaire consisted of 10 questions, some requiring metric and explanatory answers.

Survey questions

1. How effective was your collaboration in your group?

Poorly [  ]        adequately [  ]             Well [  ]           extremely well [  ]

2. What proportion of your team members actively participated and properly prepared for discussions?
3. How many members actively participated in most discussions?
4. What are the goals the team trying to achieve? List the target (s) of your team in their order of priority.
5. Does the team agree on the list of goals?
6. Do you find teamwork exhilarating and worthwhile?
7. What did you learn from the group that you probably would not have learned working alone?
8. In your opinion, what are some of the factors that may have impeded the work in your team?
9. What changes can you suggest (if any) that would encourage teamwork and collaboration among the members?
10. Please share any suggestions that can help fellow group members better meet your needs.

Evaluation criteria

The participant’s responses were imported as data files and separated into Excel spreadsheets. The word count feature was used to identify the most frequently occurring words of five or more letters (Zerhouni, 2019). Words of five or more letters were chosen to help ensure the inclusion of more meaningful words and avoid the identification of articles, pronouns, and prepositions. The selection of these words provided an audit trail thus increasing the legitimacy of the results (Behar & Feng, 2019).

Some of the words commonly used phrases in response to questions asking about the participation of team members were; attending planned meetings, participation in discussions, attempting to communicate clearly, active listening, criticism, completing tasks on time. The identification of following keywords in response to questions asking about the work-related performance; understanding, problem identification, and organization, acceptance of responsibility, initiative or motivation of the group members, creativity, task completion and attendance was made (Stokols et al., 2008). The participants used the following keywords to respond to questions asking on work-related interactions with others; collaboration, participation, attitude, independence, communication, responsiveness.

Results

To the survey question 6, which asked, do you find the work of your team exhilarating and worthwhile?  There were 47 responses. There most frequent words representing a more significant proportion (63%) of the dataset included. To the survey question 9, which asked, what changes can you suggest (if any) that would encourage teamwork and collaboration among the members? There were 50 responses with 70% of the answers appearing in the dataset included.

The responses were then classified into themes, and each theme was analyzed to understand the efficiency of team science in clinical research. The themes for the responses obtained from the participants included:

• Enhancing teamwork
• Advantages of team science
• Disadvantages of teamwork
• Barriers to teamwork
• Recommended changes to ensure effective collaboration among team members

Interview analysis

From the participant’s responses, it was clear that they truly valued the team and the contribution it had on their clinical research. Some participants described the benefits accruing from teamwork as having provided them with avenues to learn new thing which they would have otherwise not learned were they on their own. From the survey, participants noted that fellow team members worked cooperatively with others (Luke et al. 2019). The members also made valuable contributions in working towards the given goal. The team members’ commended the other team members responsiveness. The participants described fellow members to have reacted appropriately to verbal and non-verbal cues of other teammates. It shows that team science in translational science enables the sharing of knowledge among several people. Team science has the advantage of saving time and cost in cross-disciplinary research and training programs (Behar & Feng, 2019).

The participants commented that the members shared and readily accept responsibility. Some members admitted that collectively working as a team helped improve an individual’s creativity since they were able to look at different ideas from different viewpoints than the usual ways. The respondents noted that teamwork enabled proper organization hence saving the time taken to complete the task. These aspects show the efficiency and functionality of the team science approach to clinical research and translational science.

Most participants also described problems and challenges that occurred during the course. They also suggested ways that could be used by the faculty in promoting team science in students conducting clinical research and translational science (Disis & Slattery, 2010). The participants proposed the development of a database which would list the faculty depending on their research interest. This database would provide better ways to locate experts and programs which would promote collaboration between different researchers. Most of them noted that the inability to find collaborators often hindered the implementation of research and often resulted in the loss of time and productivity (Behar & Feng, 2019).

The participants also noted some of the barriers to collaboration on the campus. The restrictions mentioned included insufficient resources. The participants pointed out that the lack of a centralized database for locating potential collaborators often proved to be disadvantageous. This database would promote inter-disciplinary research since it would be easier to find collaborators to work with on a project (Behar & Feng, 2019).

Conclusion

Translational science and clinical research are fields which encompass a wide variety of research projects and schemes aimed at biomedical research which will are converted to significant health gains for the country. Translational and clinical research, form the key components of full-spectrum biomedical research (Zerhouni, 2019). Like all research projects, biomedical and healthcare research, are guided by the belief that team collaborations often result in outcomes that were otherwise unrealizable.

Emerging trends in translational medicine have led to the crossing of traditional boundaries and the use of team science (Stokols et al., 2008). This has allowed for the creation of networks of contributors who come together to carry out research and meet goals which would impact a larger population. Team science initiatives have thus promoted collaborative and cross-disciplinary approaches to analyzing research questions about particular subjects in healthcare (Disis & Slattery, 2010). It is therefore essential to ensure that key aspects of team science are applied in collaborative research.

References

A.Luke, D., C.Sarli, C., & M.Suiter, A. (2019). Retrieved from             https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cts.12495

Behar, L., & FENG, X. (2019). Retrieved from        https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3424&context=tqr

Disis, M. L., & Slattery, J. T. (2010). The road we must take: multidisciplinary team          science. Science translational medicine, 2(22), 22cm9-22cm9.

Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., Taylor, B. K., & Moser, R. P. (2008). The science of team science:           overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American journal of preventive    medicine, 35(2), S77-S89.

Zerhouni, E. (2019). Translational and Clinical Science — Time for a New Vision | NEJM.            Retrieved from https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb053723