A Model for Strengthening Collaborative Research Capacity

Rodgers, Kirsten; Akintobi, Tabia Henry; Thompson, Winifred; Evans, D. Gareth R.; Escoffery, Cam; Kegler, Michelle C.

doi:10.1177/1090198113511815

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Factors or strategies frequently studied during the preparation period were interpersonal and operational process related strategies. These might include sharing goals, establishing an engaged and supportive organizational culture, developing institutional structure to address and support potential system barriers, developing mutual respect, and building partners' capacity for partnering skills ( 22 , 24 , 48 , 49 ). Factors or strategies frequently studied during the PEC execution period were partnership synergy, knowledge exchange, monitoring, and support related strategies (e.g., co-learning strategies, building reciprocal/equal relationships, assessment, and feedback) ( 22 , 24 , 50 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unpacking Partnership, Engagement, and Collaboration Research to Inform Implementation Strategies Development: Theoretical Frameworks and Emerging Methodologies

Huang

Kwon

Cheng

et al. 2018

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Partnership, engagement, and collaboration (PEC) are critical factors in dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. Despite a growing recognition that incorporating PEC strategies in D&I research is likely to increase the relevance, feasibility, impacts, and of evidence-based interventions or practices (EBIs, EBPs), conceptual frameworks and methodologies to guide the development and testing of PEC strategies in D&I research are lacking. To address this methodological gap, a review was conducted to summarize what we know, what we think we know, and what we need to know about PEC to inform D&I research.Methods: A cross-field scoping review, drawing upon a broad range of PEC related literature in health, was conducted. Publications reviewed focused on factors influencing PEC, and processes, mechanisms and strategies for promoting effective PEC. The review was conducted separately for three forms of partnerships that are commonly used in D&I research: (1) consumer-provider or patient-implementer partnership; (2) delivery system or implementation team partnership; and (3) sustainment/support or interagency/community partnership. A total of 39 studies, of which 21 were review articles, were selected for an in-depth review.Results: Across three forms of partnerships, four domains (cognitive, interpersonal/affective, behavioral, and contextual domains) were consistently identified as factors and strategies for promoting PEC. Depending on the stage (preparation or execution) and purpose of the partnership (regulating performance or managing maintenance), certain PEC strategies are more or less relevant. Recent developments of PEC frameworks, such as Partnership Stage of Change and multiple dynamic processes, provide more comprehensive conceptual explanations for PEC mechanisms, which can better guide PEC strategies selection and integration in D&I research.Conclusions: This review contributes to D&I knowledge by identifying critical domain factors, processes, or mechanisms, and key strategies for PEC, and offers a multi-level PEC framework for future research to build the evidence base. However, more research is needed to test PEC mechanisms.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unpacking Partnership, Engagement, and Collaboration Research to Inform Implementation Strategies Development: Theoretical Frameworks and Emerging Methodologies

Huang

Kwon

Cheng

et al. 2018

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specific deliverables included conducting a pilot study and submitting a grant proposal. 32 Four partnerships were formed through the initial round of this grants program.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It differs from the first two models in that it provides a more structured process for building collaborative relationships, provides resources for designing and conducting a pilot project to provide data for a grant proposal, and sets the expectation for submission of a research grant proposal. 32 Originally funded through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, funding was at a higher level than for our other small grants program at $30,000 per grantee. During the first few months of the initiative, CBOs attended CERP-sponsored trainings on community assessment, program planning, evaluation and grant writing.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons Learned from Three Models that Use Small Grants for Building Academic-Community Partnerships for Research

Kegler¹,

Blumenthal²,

Akintobi³

et al. 2016

Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the direct contribution of community-engaged research towards effective translation, establishing strong and sustained community academic research partnerships remains a challenge. The Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute's Community Engagement Research Program (CERP) has developed and implemented three models for using small grants to seed new community academic partnerships for research: 1) community-initiated health projects with faculty partners, 2) dissemination of discoveries to community partners, and 3) building collaborative research capacity. In this paper, we describe each model in terms of its purpose, funding level, funding period, proposal requirements, selection criteria and faculty involvement. Resulting partnerships are described, along with benefits and challenges from faculty and community perspectives, and lessons learned in using these mechanisms to promote community-engaged research. These models may aid others attempting to promote community-engaged research for the purpose of narrowing the gap between research, practice and ultimately, impact on community health.

show abstract

“…The study period also coincided with a period of increasing interconnectivity facilitated by technological advances, further decreasing barriers to communication and collaboration. 37 Direct initiatives to facilitate this networking between researchers have had notable effects. The International Collaboration on Complex Interventions, aimed at connecting investigators in multiple disciplines from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, has increased communication, inter-disciplinary citation, and research productivity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional Collaboration in Plastic Surgery Research: A Solution to Resource Limitations

Chi

Curiel

Bucknor

et al. 2018

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The current climate of health care reform and research funding restrictions presents new challenges for academic plastic surgery. Collaboration with private enterprise has been associated with greater research productivity in the general biomedical literature. This study seeks to analyze publication trends in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) to evaluate any changes in institutional collaboration over time.Methods:Bibliographic data were retrospectively analyzed for all original research and discussion articles published in PRS from 2012 to 2016. The institutional affiliation for each publication was characterized from its author list as solely academic, private, government, or combinations of these (defined here as “institutional collaborations”). Annual National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding data were also collected over the same period, and associations were analyzed by linear regression.Results:In total, 2,595 publications were retrieved from PRS between 2012 and 2016, of which 2,027 (78.1%) originated solely from academic institutions and 411 (15.8%) from institutional collaborations. Although the proportion of academic-only publications decreased from 82% to 74%, the proportion of institutional collaborations increased from 10% to 20% (P = 0.038). Concurrently, NIH funding declined from $33.4 billion to a low of $30.7 billion, which was associated with the decreasing proportion of academic-only publications (P = 0.025) and increasing proportion of institutional collaborations (P = 0.0053).Conclusions:Traditional sources of academic research funding have been restricted during the politically and financially tumultuous recent years. With no signs of improving access to financial resources from the NIH, academic plastic surgeons may consider diversifying their institutional partnerships to continue pioneering advances in the field.

show abstract

A Model for Strengthening Collaborative Research Capacity

Cited by 16 publications

References 23 publications

Unpacking Partnership, Engagement, and Collaboration Research to Inform Implementation Strategies Development: Theoretical Frameworks and Emerging Methodologies

Unpacking Partnership, Engagement, and Collaboration Research to Inform Implementation Strategies Development: Theoretical Frameworks and Emerging Methodologies

Lessons Learned from Three Models that Use Small Grants for Building Academic-Community Partnerships for Research

Institutional Collaboration in Plastic Surgery Research: A Solution to Resource Limitations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About