Barriers and facilitators of conducting research with team science approach: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The present review aimed to systematically identify and classify barriers and facilitators of conducting research with a team science approach. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Emerald, and ProQuest databases were searched for primary research studies conducted using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. Studies examining barriers and facilitators of research with a team science approach were included in search. Two independent reviewers screened the texts, extracted and coded the data. Quality assessment was performed for all 35 included articles. The identified barriers and facilitators were categorized within Human, Organization, and Technology model. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies from 9,381 articles met the inclusion criteria, from which 42 barriers and 148 facilitators were identified. Human barriers were characteristics of the researchers, teaming skills, and time. We consider Human facilitators across nine sub-themes as follows: characteristics of the researchers, roles, goals, communication, trust, conflict, disciplinary distances, academic rank, and collaboration experience. The barriers related to organization were institutional policies, team science integration, and funding. Organizational facilitators were as follows: team science skills training, institutional policies, and evaluation. Facilitators in the field of technology included virtual readiness and data management, and the technology barriers were complexity of techniques and privacy issues. CONCLUSIONS: We identified major barriers and facilitators for conducting research with team science approach. The findings have important connotations for ongoing and future implementation of this intervention strategy in research. The analysis of this review provides evidence to inform policy-makers, funding providers, researchers, and students on the existing barriers and facilitators of team science research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO database (PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021278704).

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.

Bibliometric Analysis on Geriatric Nursing Research in Web of Science (1900-2020).

OBJECTIVE: Aging is a growing public health concern for people, organizations, and governments. The current study was undertaken to provide insights into the global research output on geriatric nursing. METHODS: A bibliometric study was implemented using the WoS database for the period from 1900 to 2020. Various tools and measures were used to analyze and visualized. RESULTS: The search strategy found 4923 papers. The oldest paper was written by Beverly C. Andre in 1953. As team size increases, so does the number of citations. The USA was the active country and the highest number of coauthors. New York University was an active institution. Stig Karlsson was the most active author in Geriatric Nursing with 28 articles from Sweden, followed by Koen Milisen and Sandman, with 26 articles each from Sweden and Belgium. The most frequent words in this field were depression, malnutrition, education, Alzheimer's disease, and dementia. The latest research themes in this field were COVID-19, interprofessional locomotive syndrome, emergency nursing, and public health. The most influential papers were specified. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society was the most active journal. CONCLUSIONS: Geriatric nursing is a rooted field and has received special attention in the last decade. Policymakers, especially in developing countries, should pay attention to geriatric nursing as a specialty of nursing to solve aging issues they would face considering the increasing elderly population.

Skills and key education needed for clinical librarians: an exploratory study from the librarians' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: A clinical librarian is a member of the medical team in many countries. To strengthen this new job, librarians need to acquire professional skills in order to provide information services to medical staff. In this study, we aimed to explor the skills required for the presence of a clinical librarian in the treatment team. METHODS: In this study, we sonducted a qualitative study in which 15 experienced librarians were interviewed in connection with information services. Also, a treatment team was involved in this study using purposive-convenience and snowball sampling methods. The data collection tool was a semi-structured interview that continued until the data was saturated; finally the data analysis was performed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Out of the total interviews, 158 primary codes and, 107 main codes were extracted in 25 subclasses. After careful evaluation and integration of subclasses and classes, they were finally classified into 13 categories and four main themes, namely clinical librarian's role, professional and specialized skills, communication skills, and training programs. CONCLUSION: The results showed that specialized skills and training programs for the clinical librarian are defined based on his/her duties in the treatment team. We also defined the most important key skills for the clinical librarian in two categories of professional and communication skills such as specialized information search, content production, resource management, familiarity with various sources related to evidence-based medicine, teamwork, and effective communication. To acquire these skills, officials and policy-makers should develop and implement related educational programs at medical universities and colleges.