Optimizing team science in an academic medical center: A qualitative examination of investigator perspectives

Abstract

Introduction: Optimizing the effectiveness of a team-based approach to unite multiple disciplines in advancing specific translational areas of research is foundational to improving clinical practice. The current study was undertaken to examine investigators’ experiences of participation in transdisciplinary team science initiatives, with a focus on challenges and recommendations for improving effectiveness. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with investigators from twelve multidisciplinary teams awarded pilot research funding by the University of Kentucky College of Medicine to better understand the barriers and facilitators to effective team science within an academic medical center. An experienced qualitative researcher facilitated one-on-one interviews, which lasted about one hour. Structured consensus coding and thematic analysis were conducted. Results: The sample was balanced by gender, career stage (five were assistant professor at the time of the award, seven were senior faculty), and training (six were PhDs; six were MD physicians). Key themes at the team-level centered on the tension between clinical commitments and research pursuits and the limitations for effective team functioning. Access to tangible support from home departments and key university centers was identified as a critical organizational facilitator of successful project completion. Organizational barriers centered on operationalizing protected time for physicians, gaps in effective mentoring, and limitations in operational support. Conclusions: Prioritizing tailored mentoring and career development support for early career faculty, and particularly physician faculty, emerged as a key recommendation for improving team science in academic medical centers. The findings contribute to establishing best practices and policies for team science in academic medical centers.

Collaborative team dynamics and scholarly outcomes of multidisciplinary research teams: A mixed-methods approach

“…Awards were provided for up to $110,000 in total direct costs over an 18-month period. For more information about these pilot award programs, see Surratt et al [20].…”

Towards a Vision for Team Science at Tilburg University

“…Lastly, high task interdependence means that the success of the entire project depends on each member's contributions, amplifying the effects of any discordance or inefficiency within the team. Overcoming these challenges requires institutional support, strategic management, and effective communication (Conn et al 2019;Surratt et al 2023;Read et al 2016;Jeong and Choi 2015;Forscher et al 2023;Campbell-Voytal et al 2015;O'Rourke et al 2023;Ghamgosar, Nemati-Anaraki, and Panahi 2023).…”

“…If our University's goals shift towards a greater emphasis on larger societal challenges that can only be resolved through team science, then existing policies and support structures should be re-examined with those goals in mind. Successful team science in academia requires dedicated policies (Vogel et al 2021), commitment across departments, funding for team work, mentoring plans, assessment of operational needs, and sustained evaluation of team science success (Surratt et al 2023). The Strategy Evaluation Protocol is a useful tool to help TiU evaluate to what extent its strategies with respect to team science are successfully adopted into policy.…”