Current status and future perspectives of collaboration in surgical research: A scoping review of the evidence

Abstract

Background: Surgery is rapidly changing in terms of techniques, education, and methods of conducting research. To keep up with this pace, surgeons have recently focused on collaborative research projects. The aim of this review was to investigate practices for collaborations in surgical research. Methods: A scoping review was conducted according to the guidelines proposed by Peters et al. Publications on patterns of collaboration in surgical research between January 2000 and December 2020, irrespective of the study design or language of publication, which were indexed in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, were included. A research librarian assisted in choosing the search terms and conducting the search. The very broad nature of the subject necessitated a pragmatic search strategy, with primary focus on reviews about collaboration. A new form of crowd science was used that explored collaborations using social media and online shared documents. Results: The search identified 38 studies that covered different aspects of collaboration in surgical research. Global, specialist, trainee-/student-led, and patient-led collaboratives are growing in number and size. Implementation of information technologies in surgical collaboration is still limited. The review identified attempts to include researchers from low-and middle-income countries in these collaborations, but these were at the early stages. Conclusion: There are many patterns of collaboration in surgical research. Involvement of low-and middle-income countries will lead to capacity building in these countries, fast recruitment for surgical trials, and more generalizability of trial results. Due to the complex nature of surgical research, implementation of information technologies might improve the quality of research.

Characterization of industry relationships in oncology

“…The needs of oncology clinicians/researchers and industry can be complementary, and a deeper understanding of how to satisfy both can facilitate productive work and provide opportunities that deepen career satisfaction. Although other collaborative structures in health care and academia have been studied, 6–9 the distinct nuances of oncology‐industry collaborations in oncology support the need for dedicated research in this area.…”

“…Concurrently, our findings underscore numerous concerns shared by clinicians and researchers regarding these collaborations. The needs of oncology clinicians/researchers and industry can be complementary, and a deeper understanding of how to satisfy both can facilitate productive work and provide opportunities that deepen career satisfaction.Although other collaborative structures in health care and academia have been studied,[6][7][8][9] the distinct nuances of oncology-industry collaborations in oncology support the need for dedicated research in this area.Despite the prevalence of and high value placed on these partnerships, most respondents (74.7%) shared that they did not receive training or mentorship in developing or optimizing these collaborations. Half of our study population recommended dedicated educational initiatives focused on these relationships as a mechanism for improving them.…”

The Impact of Global Collaboration on the Academic Focus of the West African College of Surgeons: Are Worldwide Efforts Aligning with Local Priorities?

“…Increased research capacity can help develop more efficient patient care for diseases specific to these countries [2]. Many strategies for maximizing research capacity have been proposed, such as increasing funding [3], collaborating with high‐income countries (HICs) [4, 5], and fostering a culture of research [6, 7]. However, these strategies can overlook the skills and perspectives of researchers in LICs and LMICs.…”