Patient participation in multidisciplinary tumor conferences: How is it implemented? What is the patients' role? What are patients' experiences?

BACKGROUND: Prior research has shown that around 5%-7% of patients in breast cancer centers in Germany participate in the discussion of their own case within a multidisciplinary tumor conference (MTC). The PINTU study is one of the first to research this practice. The objective is to describe (a) how patient participation in MTCs is implemented, (b) what is the role of patients, and (c) how patients experience MTCs. METHODS: MTCs in six breast and gynecological cancer centers in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, with and without patient participation, are studied prospectively by (non)participatory, structured observation. Breast and gynecological cancer patients completed surveys before, directly after, and 4 weeks after MTC participation. Data are analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Case discussions of a sample of n = 317 patients (n = 95 with MTC participation and n = 222 without) were observed. Survey data were obtained from n = 242 patients (n = 87 and n = 155). Observational data showed heterogeneity in the ways MTC participation was practiced. Among participating patients, 89% had the opportunity to express their opinion and 61% were involved in decision-making. Whereas most patients reported positive experiences and would recommend participation, some had negative experiences and regretted participating. CONCLUSIONS: Due to a lack of recommendations, hospitals implement patient participation in MTCs in many different ways. So far, it is unknown which setting and procedures of MTC participation are beneficial for patients. However, existing evidence on communication in cancer care together with this exploratory study's findings can build the basis for developing recommendations for hospitals that invite their patients to MTCs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Clinical Trials Register Nr. DRKS00012552.

Methodology of Interdisciplinary Studies in Nursing Based on Islamic Documents.

To meet the needs of people from various cultures, nursing research must be performed on the basis of these cultures. This research aims to invent interdisciplinary research method based on Islamic documents. This method is with three stages: first, to describe a desired concept; second, to define the concept from the viewpoint of humans. Finally, a nursing discipline is achieved on the basis of the human knowledge and its findings, and Islamic documents. Results of this research method assist nurses in offering nursing care with regard to Muslim's beliefs in addition to their culture and customs.

Evaluation of a multidisciplinary global health online course in Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Global Health Education (GHE) focuses on training proactive global citizens to tackle health challenges in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world. Studies show that health professionals in training have reported that GHE has improved their teamwork, responsiveness to contextual factors that impact health, and understanding of health systems; however, there is little research on the impact of GHE courses in undergraduate settings, especially in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: Our study analyzes a multidisciplinary online global health course at Tecnologico de Monterrey, México. We conducted a cross-sectional study with pre- and post-design. Students who took the multidisciplinary course of Global Health for Leaders in the Fall of 2019 (n = 153) and Spring of 2020 (n = 348) were selected for this study. Using a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree), the survey assessed seven competencies as well as questions about course expectations, takeaways, and recommendations to improve the course. We performed descriptive statistical analyses comparing the combined pre-tests (from Fall and Spring cohorts) to the combined post-tests. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the samples. RESULTS: Of the 501 pre-course surveys administered, 456 responses were completed in the pre-course and 435 in the post-course (91% overall response rate). Only 8.7% of the respondents in the pre-course survey strongly agreed that they could describe fundamental aspects of global health such as the Millennium Development Goals or Sustainable Development Goals, in contrast to a 56% of the students who strongly agreed in the post-course survey (p < 0.001). Similar differences were captured in understanding the global burden of disease, social determinants of health, the effects of globalization in health, health systems' goals and functions, and human rights. 38% felt that the course helped them develop a more empathetic perception of the suffering of others experiencing global health-related issues. CONCLUSION: In this study, we have presented our experience in teaching an online global health course for multidisciplinary undergraduates in a LMIC. The competencies reported by our students indicate that the course prepared them to confront complex global health issues.

From Theory to Practice: Gathering Evidence for the Validity of Data Collected with the Interdisciplinary Science Rubric (IDSR).

In a world of burgeoning societal issues, future scientists must be equipped to work interdisciplinarily to address real-world problems. To train undergraduate students toward this end, practitioners must also have quality assessment tools to measure students' ability to think within an interdisciplinary system. There is, however, a dearth of instruments that accurately measure this competency. Using a theoretically and empirically based model, we developed an instrument, the Interdisciplinary Science Rubric (IDSR), to measure undergraduate students' interdisciplinary science thinking. An essay assignment was administered to 102 students across five courses at three different institutions. Students' work was scored with the newly developed rubric. Evidence of construct validity was established through novice and expert response processes via semistructured, think-aloud interviews with 29 students and four instructors to ensure the constructs and criteria within the instrument were operating as intended. Interrater reliability of essay scores was collected with the instructors of record (κ = 0.67). An expert panel of discipline-based education researchers (n = 11) were consulted to further refine the scoring metric of the rubric. Results indicate that the IDSR produces valid data to measure undergraduate students' ability to think interdisciplinarily in science.

Exploring the role of interdisciplinarity in physics: Success, talent and luck.

Although interdisciplinarity is often touted as a necessity for modern research, the evidence on the relative impact of sectorial versus to interdisciplinary science is qualitative at best. In this paper we leverage the bibliographic data set of the American Physical Society to quantify the role of interdisciplinarity in physics, and that of talent and luck in achieving success in scientific careers. We analyze a period of 30 years (1980-2009) tagging papers and their authors by means of the Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS), to show that some degree of interdisciplinarity is quite helpful to reach success, measured as a proxy of either the number of articles or the citations score. We also propose an agent-based model of the publication-reputation-citation dynamics which reproduces the trends observed in the APS data set. On the one hand, the results highlight the crucial role of randomness and serendipity in real scientific research; on the other, they shed light on a counterintuitive effect indicating that the most talented authors are not necessarily the most successful ones.

Community health training for Family and Community Health Nursing residents in a Multiprofessional Teaching Unit. Three years of experience. / Desarrollo de la competencia de atención comunitaria para residentes de Enfermería Familiar y Comunitaria en una Unidad Docente Multiprofesional provincial. Tres años de experiencia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the interest of nursing residents in the training areas of Family and Community Nursing (EFyC) at the beginning of their training, to evaluate community activities in health centres and to determine satisfaction with the training received and activities carried out. METHOD: We present the experience of training in the public and community health competencies of EFyC Nursing from 2014 to 2017 in a multiprofessional teaching unit. The training was divided into 3theoretical modules. The training was completed with 2activities: the design and development of a health education programme and an asset mapping in the basic health area. A questionnaire was completed on satisfaction with the course and the activities carried out. RESULT: During this period, 27 residents received training. As part of the training process, 26 health education programmes and 17 asset mappings were conducted in accredited health centres. The areas of intervention addressed were: lifestyles, life transitions and health problems. The overall satisfaction with the course was 4.5 ±.1 out of 5. CONCLUSIONS: The results show a high degree of interest in this area, as well as high evaluation of the activities carried out and the training received. Training in community health and health education during the period of residence is essential to include these competencies in the professional role. The dedication and involvement of the multiprofessional teaching units is essential in the development of these competences, training the residents through the integration of a biopsychosocial approach, community health and teamwork in primary care.

Introducing the Postsecondary Instructional Practices Survey (PIPS): A Concise, Interdisciplinary, and Easy-to-Score Survey.

Researchers, administrators, and policy makers need valid and reliable information about teaching practices. The Postsecondary Instructional Practices Survey (PIPS) is designed to measure the instructional practices of postsecondary instructors from any discipline. The PIPS has 24 instructional practice statements and nine demographic questions. Users calculate PIPS scores by an intuitive proportion-based scoring convention. Factor analyses from 72 departments at four institutions (N = 891) support a 2- or 5-factor solution for the PIPS; both models include all 24 instructional practice items and have good model fit statistics. Factors in the 2-factor model include (a) instructor-centered practices, nine items; and (b) student-centered practices, 13 items. Factors in the 5-factor model include (a) student-student interactions, six items; (b) content delivery, four items; (c) formative assessment, five items; (d) student-content engagement, five items; and (e) summative assessment, four items. In this article, we describe our development and validation processes, provide scoring conventions and outputs for results, and describe wider applications of the instrument.

Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success.

Interdisciplinary research is widely considered a hothouse for innovation, and the only plausible approach to complex problems such as climate change. One barrier to interdisciplinary research is the widespread perception that interdisciplinary projects are less likely to be funded than those with a narrower focus. However, this commonly held belief has been difficult to evaluate objectively, partly because of lack of a comparable, quantitative measure of degree of interdisciplinarity that can be applied to funding application data. Here we compare the degree to which research proposals span disparate fields by using a biodiversity metric that captures the relative representation of different fields (balance) and their degree of difference (disparity). The Australian Research Council's Discovery Programme provides an ideal test case, because a single annual nationwide competitive grants scheme covers fundamental research in all disciplines, including arts, humanities and sciences. Using data on all 18,476 proposals submitted to the scheme over 5 consecutive years, including successful and unsuccessful applications, we show that the greater the degree of interdisciplinarity, the lower the probability of being funded. The negative impact of interdisciplinarity is significant even when number of collaborators, primary research field and type of institution are taken into account. This is the first broad-scale quantitative assessment of success rates of interdisciplinary research proposals. The interdisciplinary distance metric allows efficient evaluation of trends in research funding, and could be used to identify proposals that require assessment strategies appropriate to interdisciplinary research.

Does Interdisciplinary Research Lead to Higher Citation Impact? The Different Effect of Proximal and Distal Interdisciplinarity.

This article analyses the effect of degree of interdisciplinarity on the citation impact of individual publications for four different scientific fields. We operationalise interdisciplinarity as disciplinary diversity in the references of a publication, and rather than treating interdisciplinarity as a monodimensional property, we investigate the separate effect of different aspects of diversity on citation impact: i.e. variety, balance and disparity. We use a Tobit regression model to examine the effect of these properties of interdisciplinarity on citation impact, controlling for a range of variables associated with the characteristics of publications. We find that variety has a positive effect on impact, whereas balance and disparity have a negative effect. Our results further qualify the separate effect of these three aspects of diversity by pointing out that all three dimensions of interdisciplinarity display a curvilinear (inverted U-shape) relationship with citation impact. These findings can be interpreted in two different ways. On the one hand, they are consistent with the view that, while combining multiple fields has a positive effect in knowledge creation, successful research is better achieved through research efforts that draw on a relatively proximal range of fields, as distal interdisciplinary research might be too risky and more likely to fail. On the other hand, these results may be interpreted as suggesting that scientific audiences are reluctant to cite heterodox papers that mix highly disparate bodies of knowledge--thus giving less credit to publications that are too groundbreaking or challenging.

Long-distance interdisciplinarity leads to higher scientific impact.

Scholarly collaborations across disparate scientific disciplines are challenging. Collaborators are likely to have their offices in another building, attend different conferences, and publish in other venues; they might speak a different scientific language and value an alien scientific culture. This paper presents a detailed analysis of success and failure of interdisciplinary papers--as manifested in the citations they receive. For 9.2 million interdisciplinary research papers published between 2000 and 2012 we show that the majority (69.9%) of co-cited interdisciplinary pairs are "win-win" relationships, i.e., papers that cite them have higher citation impact and there are as few as 3.3% "lose-lose" relationships. Papers citing references from subdisciplines positioned far apart (in the conceptual space of the UCSD map of science) attract the highest relative citation counts. The findings support the assumption that interdisciplinary research is more successful and leads to results greater than the sum of its disciplinary parts.

Highly cited German research contributions to the fields of radiation oncology, biology, and physics: focus on collaboration and diversity.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Tight budgets and increasing competition for research funding pose challenges for highly specialized medical disciplines such as radiation oncology. Therefore, a systematic review was performed of successfully completed research that had a high impact on clinical practice. These data might be helpful when preparing new projects. METHODS: Different measures of impact, visibility, and quality of published research are available, each with its own pros and cons. For this study, the article citation rate was chosen (minimum 15 citations per year on average). Highly cited German contributions to the fields of radiation oncology, biology, and physics (published between 1990 and 2010) were identified from the Scopus database. RESULTS: Between 1990 and 2010, 106 articles published in 44 scientific journals met the citation requirement. The median average of yearly citations was 21 (maximum 167, minimum 15). All articles with ≥ 40 citations per year were published between 2003 and 2009, consistent with the assumption that the citation rate gradually increases for up to 2 years after publication. Most citations per year were recorded for meta-analyses and randomized phase III trials, which typically were performed by collaborative groups. CONCLUSION: A large variety of clinical radiotherapy, biology, and physics topics achieved high numbers of citations. However, areas such as quality of life and side effects, palliative radiotherapy, and radiotherapy for nonmalignant disorders were underrepresented. Efforts to increase their visibility might be warranted.

To join or not to join: an investigation of individual facilitators and inhibitors of medical faculty participation in interdisciplinary research teams.

Interdisciplinary research (IDR) teams are an important mechanism for facilitating medical breakthroughs. This study investigates the role of individual-level predictors of the choice to join a new IDR team at a major medical institution. We collected survey data from a sample of 233 faculty members who were given the opportunity to participate in IDR teams that had recently formed around a wide range of medical topic areas. Our results suggest that even under supportive organizational conditions, some medical experts were more likely to participate than others. Specifically, basic and translational researchers, associate professors, and faculty with distinctive topic area expertise and with more experience collaborating across departmental boundaries participated at a greater rate than their peers. Our findings have implications for research, practice, and policy focused on overcoming the challenges of drawing together diverse medical experts into IDR teams with the potential to advance knowledge to prevent, cure, and treat complex medical conditions.