Cancer and COVID-19 research studies with team science: a bibliometric study.

Team science refers to research initiatives considered in collaboration with scientists from different disciplines or fields. This paper presents a bibliometric analysis for visualization of global research activity concerning the combination of cancer and the COVID-19 pandemic using a team science approach. A bibliometric study was implemented using Web of Science from 2019 to 2021. We analyzed citations to identify description and citations analysis of results, most prolific countries, international research collaboration, most prolific institutions, research areas, most cited papers, and most productive journals. The preliminary data of 2,313 studies that adopted a team science approach were recorded and analyzed. Team science is becoming progressively popular in cancer research. The United States was the most active country, followed by Italy and China. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy had the highest level of cooperation with other countries. The most prolific institution was Harvard University, followed by University of London and the University of Texas System. Head and Neck Journal for the Sciences and Specialties of the Head and Neck, Frontiers in Oncology, and eCancerMedicalScience were the most productive journals. Governments, organizations, policymakers, and researchers should pay attention to team science approach at times of disasters such as cancer and COVID-19 to achieve the best strategies for controlling cancer that is currently a world problem.

Development of a clinical and translational research curriculum for undergraduate students.

Introduction: Research participation during undergraduate years has a powerful influence on career selection and attitudes toward scientific research. Most undergraduate research programs in academic health centers are oriented toward basic research or address a particular disease focus or research discipline. Undergraduate research programs that expose students to clinical and translational research may alter student perceptions about research and influence career selection. Methods: We developed an undergraduate summer research curriculum, anchored upon a clinical and translational research study developed to address a common unmet needs in neonatal nurseries (e.g., assessment of neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome). Program topics reflected the cross-disciplinary expertise that contributed to the development of this "bedside to bench" study, including opioid addiction, vulnerable populations, research ethics, statistics, data collection and management, assay development, analytical laboratory analysis, and pharmacokinetics. The curriculum was delivered through three offerings over 12 months, using Zoom video-conferencing due to restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Nine students participated in the program. Two-thirds reported the course enhanced their understanding of clinical and translational research. Over three-quarters reported the curriculum topics were very good or excellent. In open-ended questions, students reported that the cross-disciplinary nature of the curriculum was the strongest aspect of the program. Conclusion: The curriculum could be readily adapted by other Clinical and Translational Science Award programs seeking to provide clinical and translational research-oriented programs to undergraduate students. Application of cross-disciplinary research approaches to a specific clinical and translational research question provides students with relevant examples of translational research and translational science.

Building a collaborative cloud platform to accelerate heart, lung, blood, and sleep research.

Research increasingly relies on interrogating large-scale data resources. The NIH National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute developed the NHLBI BioData CatalystⓇ (BDC), a community-driven ecosystem where researchers, including bench and clinical scientists, statisticians, and algorithm developers, find, access, share, store, and compute on large-scale datasets. This ecosystem provides secure, cloud-based workspaces, user authentication and authorization, search, tools and workflows, applications, and new innovative features to address community needs, including exploratory data analysis, genomic and imaging tools, tools for reproducibility, and improved interoperability with other NIH data science platforms. BDC offers straightforward access to large-scale datasets and computational resources that support precision medicine for heart, lung, blood, and sleep conditions, leveraging separately developed and managed platforms to maximize flexibility based on researcher needs, expertise, and backgrounds. Through the NHLBI BioData Catalyst Fellows Program, BDC facilitates scientific discoveries and technological advances. BDC also facilitated accelerated research on the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Team Science: Advancing Women and Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color on the Pathway of Conducting Clinical Research.

Introduction: Innovative discovery begins with diverse perspectives; research teams should harness this model. Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) and women are underrepresented as researchers. Team science leverages collaborative and cross-disciplinary approaches to diversify the research workforce, and introduces academic (and non-academic) faculty with limited research exposure/experience to clinical research. Methods: In 2020, two Black women academic physicians implemented an academic collaborative - COVID-19 Characteristics, Readmissions, Outcomes, and Social Determinants of Health (CROSS) - to investigate COVID-19 health inequities, with intentional recruitment of BIPOC and women. The 37 CROSS team members were of diverse races, ethnicities, sex, specialties, and disciplines, and represented eight hospitals. Team members were electronically surveyed to determine their interest, desired activities, and level of participation in research activities; concurrently, self-identified demographics (including race, ethnicity, sex, and language(s) spoken) were obtained. Results: All team members completed the survey: 78.4% (n = 29) were BIPOC and 78.4% (n = 29) were women. Team members spoke 18 languages (including English). Academic medical ranks included Assistant Professor (32.4%; n = 12), Associate Professor (16.2%; n = 6), and Full Professor (2.7%; n = 1). Each member identified desired activities (data collection, data analytics, manuscript development, abstract development/poster presentation, serving as a consultant) and the percentage of time they intended to allocate to each. Between June 2020 and February 2023, the team produced five original peer-reviewed manuscripts (including this article); five members served as first or senior authors. Twenty-one abstracts were presented at local conferences, and 10 at national and regional conferences. Five members achieved academic promotion, and team members were awarded three intramural grants resulting directly from team collaborations. Conclusion: Intentional recruitment and assessment of team members' desired levels of participation in an integrated clinical research team is an effective strategy to engage BIPOC and women. The CROSS Collaborative is a model for diversity and inclusion in team science and clinical research.

Win-win interactions: Results and implications of a user needs assessment of clinical and translational scientists.

Introduction: This study describes a needs assessment of clinical and translational research (CTR) scientists at a large, distributed, School of Medicine within a public university and affiliated clinics. Method: We performed an Exploratory Conversion Mixed-Methods analysis using a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews with CTR scientists across the training continuum, from early-career scholars, mid-career mentors, and senior administrators at the University of Wisconsin and Marshfield Clinics. Qualitative findings were confirmed using epistemic network analysis (ENA). A survey was distributed to CTR scientists in training. Results: Analyses supported that early-career and senior-career scientists have unique needs. Scientists who identified as non-White or female reported needs that differed from White male scientists. Scientists expressed the needs for educational training in CTR, for institutional support of career development, and trainings for building stronger relationships with community stakeholders. The tension between meeting tenure clocks and building deep community connections was particularly meaningful for scholars who identified as under-represented, including based on race, gender, and discipline. Conclusions: This study yielded clear differences in support needs between scientists based upon their years in research and diversity of identities. The validation of qualitative findings, through quantification with ENA, enables robust identification of unique needs of CTR investigators. It is critically important to the future of CTR that scientists are provided with supports throughout the career. Delivery of that support in efficient and timely ways improves scientific outcomes. Advocacy at the level of the institution for under-represented scientists is of utmost importance.

Leveraging CTSA hubs for rapid, large-scale, high-impact research: A case study during a global public health emergency.

As the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in the USA in early 2020, it became clear that knowledge of the prevalence of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among asymptomatic individuals could inform public health policy decisions and provide insight into the impact of the infection on vulnerable populations. Two Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Hubs and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) set forth to conduct a national seroprevalence survey to assess the infection's rate of spread. This partnership was able to quickly design and launch the project by leveraging established research capacities, prior experiences in large-scale, multisite studies and a highly skilled workforce of CTSA hubs and unique experimental capabilities at the NIH to conduct a diverse prospective, longitudinal observational cohort of 11,382 participants who provided biospecimens and participant-reported health and behavior data. The study was completed in 16 months and benefitted from transdisciplinary teamwork, information technology innovations, multimodal communication strategies, and scientific partnership for rigor in design and analytic methods. The lessons learned by the rapid implementation and dissemination of this national study is valuable in guiding future multisite projects as well as preparation for other public health emergencies and pandemics.

Scientific priorities and relational dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study.

To rapidly respond to the COVID-19 public health crisis, researchers have been called upon to prioritize pandemic research, while simultaneously modifying their existing research to maintain the safety of all stakeholders. This study aims to explore the experiences of health science researchers in their scientific practices, research priorities, and professional relational dynamics due to COVID-19. Specifically, we interviewed 31 researchers from diverse fields at the University of Texas Medical Branch. Participants worked on COVID-19, non-COVID-19 related research, or both. We integrated inductive and deductive coding using a thematic coding method. The following four themes were explored: 1) impact of research, 2) research priorities, 3) professional relationships and 4) contextual influences on science. Participants were drawn to COVID-19 work for a diversity of reasons including social need, scientific interest, professional duty, and increased access to funding opportunities. While collaborations have increased for COVID-19 researchers, interpersonal relationships have been challenging for participants. Additionally, political, familial, and personal stresses due to the pandemic have taken a toll on researchers in very different and often inequitable ways. To ensure team cohesion, there is a need to develop research practices, policies and systems that value empathy, flexibility, and interdependence.

Catalyzing Remote Collaboration During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond: Early Career Oceanographers Adopt Hybrid Open Science Framework

The COVID-19 pandemic introduced many challenges for research scientists: reduction of lab and field observation collection and in-person meetings. These new constraints forced researchers to remote work and virtual networking, dramatically influencing scientific inquiry. Such challenges are compounded for those in early stages of their career, where data collection and networking are vital to be seen as productive. However, during this trying time of remote work, we, as a collective of early-career oceanographers, were actively developing and improving on an already-existent hybrid community of practice. Through our experiences, we believe this type of framework can enhance virtual collaboration to the point that it outlasts the pandemic and helps create new synergies that will diversify and enhance scientific inquiry within the ocean science community. We describe a hybrid community of practice and an example workflow that models effective collaboration. We have found that three components to this model are necessary for effective collaboration, inspiration, and communication: 1) openly accessible data, 2) software, computational, and professional-development resources, and 3) a team science approach. In our experience, both the in-person and remote aspects of the model are important. In person collaboration is key to expanding the community of practice and invigorating those already within the community. Remote collaboration has been critical for effective collaborations between in-person activities and has proven to maximize outputs during in-person collaborations. While the three components of this model are not new to the scientific community, we believe that utilizing them strategically post-pandemic will diversify and expand scientific collaboration in oceanography.

Establishing an interdisciplinary research team for cardio-oncology artificial intelligence informatics precision and health equity.

Study objective: A multi-institutional interdisciplinary team was created to develop a research group focused on leveraging artificial intelligence and informatics for cardio-oncology patients. Cardio-oncology is an emerging medical field dedicated to prevention, screening, and management of adverse cardiovascular effects of cancer/ cancer therapies. Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death in cancer survivors. Cardiovascular risk in these patients is higher than in the general population. However, prediction and prevention of adverse cardiovascular events in individuals with a history of cancer/cancer treatment is challenging. Thus, establishing an interdisciplinary team to create cardiovascular risk stratification clinical decision aids for integration into electronic health records for oncology patients was considered crucial. Design/setting/participants: Core team members from the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW), University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM), and Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE), and additional members from Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, and other institutions have joined forces to apply high-performance computing in cardio-oncology. Results: The team is comprised of clinicians and researchers from relevant complementary and synergistic fields relevant to this work. The team has built an epidemiological cohort of ~5000 cancer survivors that will serve as a database for interdisciplinary multi-institutional artificial intelligence projects. Conclusion: Lessons learned from establishing this team, as well as initial findings from the epidemiology cohort, are presented. Barriers have been broken down to form a multi-institutional interdisciplinary team for health informatics research in cardio-oncology. A database of cancer survivors has been created collaboratively by the team and provides initial insight into cardiovascular outcomes and comorbidities in this population.

Flexible Environments for Hybrid Collaboration: Redesigning Virtual Work Through the Four Orders of Design

The COVID-19 pandemic made visceral for many the fact that virtual forms of collaboration- simultaneously liberating and frustrating-are here to stay. Workers' frustrations demonstrate that challenges remain for work and its design in increasingly "hybrid" collaboration- work in which some people, interacting face-to-face, are co-located while others with whom they work are remote. Using Buchanan's four orders of design, in conjunction with management and information systems scholarship, we present a framework for improving these virtual forms of collaboration. In this article, we review the latest knowledge from these disciplines on virtual collaboration through the lens of the four orders of design. In doing so, we demonstrate that conceiving of work in terms of flexible collaborative environments could increase the unity of purpose between work and workers by leveraging the capabilities of varying degrees of virtuality to engender experiences that benefit all those who interact with work systems.

Implementing an evidence-based competency model for science team training and evaluation: TeamMAPPS.

INTRODUCTION: In response to a call issued by the National Research Council to investigate the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of effective science teams, we designed a team training program for conducting science in collaborative contexts. METHODS: We reviewed the literature to develop an evidence-based competency model for effective science teams along with exemplary behaviors that can be used for founding team training and evaluation. We discuss the progress of teamwork and team development research that serves as a foundation for this work, as well as previous research involving team-based competencies. RESULTS: Three overarching competencies emerged from the literature as key for science team effectiveness: psychological safety, awareness and exchange, and self-correction and adaptation. These competencies are fully described, including their evidence base. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a competency model and implementation plan for a team training program specific to science teams - TeamMAPPS (Team Methods to Advance Processes and Performance in Science). This paper details steps in the implementation process, including plans for consortia dissemination, evaluation, and future development.

Assessing the application of human-centered design to translational research.

INTRODUCTION: Human-centered design (HCD) training offers the potential to improve both team processes and products. However, the use of HCD to improve the quality of team science is a relatively recent application, and its benefits and challenges have not been rigorously evaluated. We conducted a qualitative study with health sciences researchers trained in HCD methods. We aimed to determine how researchers applied HCD methods and perceived the benefits and barriers to using HCD on research teams. METHODS: We conducted 1-hour, semi-structured interviews with trainees from three training cohorts. Interviews focused on perceptions of the training, subsequent uses of HCD, barriers and facilitators, and perceptions of the utility of HCD to science teams. Data analysis was conducted using Braun and Clarke's process for thematic analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed nine faculty and nine staff trained in HCD methods and identified four themes encompassing HCD use, benefits, challenges, and tensions between HCD approaches and academic culture. CONCLUSIONS: Trainees found HCD relevant to research teams for stakeholder engagement, research design, project planning, meeting facilitation, and team management. They also described benefits of HCD in five distinct areas: creativity, egalitarianism, structure, efficiency, and visibility. Our data suggest that HCD has the potential to help researchers work more inclusively and collaboratively on interdisciplinary teams and generate more innovative and impactful science. The application of HCD methods is not without challenges; however, we believe these challenges can be overcome with institutional investment.

The Yin and the Yang of Transformative Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic-A Perspective.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the necessity for scientists from diverse disciplines to collaboratively mitigate the singular calamity facing humanity this century. The ability of researchers to combine exponential advances in technology and scientific acumen has resulted in landmark discoveries in pediatric research and is surmounting the COVID-19 challenge. Several of these discoveries exist in a realm of research that is not classically "basic" or "clinical." Translational research characterizes this domain partially, but does not fully capture the integrated research approaches that have spurred these discoveries. Herein, we share our perspective on the common themes underpinning the basic and clinical research. We also highlight major differences in the scope, emphasis, approach, and limitations of basic and clinical research that impede multi-disciplinary approaches that facilitate truly transformative research. These differences in research thinking and methodology are ingrained during training wherein the limitations of the chosen discipline, and strengths of alternate disciplines are not adequately explored. Insular approaches are particularly limited in impacting complex diseases pathophysiology in the era of precision medicine. We propose that integration of -omics technologies, systems biology, adaptive clinical trial designs, humanized animal models, and precision pre-clinical model systems must be incorporated into research training of future scientists. Several initiatives from the NIH and other institutions are facilitating such broad-based "research without frontiers" training that paves the way for seamless, multi-disciplinary, research. Such efforts become "transformative" when scientific challenges are tackled in partnership with a willingness to share ideas, tackle challenges, and develop tools/models from the very beginning.

Virtual Teaming: Leveraging Team Science Sense-Making During COVID-19.

Individuals with cancer anorexia cachexia syndrome (CACS) experience multifaceted distress. To address CACS patient concerns regarding their experience of care, our cancer center established a specialized CACS clinic in 2016. We applied the team science principle of the team mental model (TMM) to support development of an effective interprofessional collaborative CACS care team. In 2020, cessation of CACS clinic in-person visits during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) threatened the viability of the entrenched TMM and once again jeopardized the patient experience of care. We present a case-based vignette as a representative composite of patient experiences to illustrate the challenges. A 48-year-old female was referred to our CACS clinic for pancreatic cancer-associated appetite and weight loss during COVID-19. To reduce risk of infection, in-person clinic visits were curtailed. When informed about the resulting need to defer the CACS assessment, the patient and her spouse expressed concern that postponement would adversely affect her ability to undergo anticancer treatments or achieve beneficial outcomes. To minimize delays in CACS treatment and optimize the patient experience of care, we applied the team science principle of sense-making to help the team rapidly reformulate the TMM to provide interprofessional collaborative CACS care via telemedicine. The sense-making initiative highlights opportunities to examine sense-making within health care teams more broadly during and after the pandemic. The application of sense-making within interprofessional cancer care teams has not been described previously.