Abstract
Background: Collaborative research networks are often touted as a solution for enhancing the translation of knowledge, but questions remain about how to evaluate their impact on health service delivery. This pragmatic scoping study explored the enabling factors for developing and supporting a collaborative imaging network in a metropolitan university in Australia. Methods: An advisory group was established to provide governance and to identify key informants and participants. Focus group discussions (n = 2) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22) were facilitated with representatives from a broad range of disciplines. In addition, a survey, a review of relevant websites (n = 15) and a broad review of the literature were undertaken to elicit information on collaborative research networks and perceived needs and factors that would support their involvement in a multi-disciplinary collaborative research network. Findings were de-identified and broad themes were identified. Results: Participants identified human factors as having priority for developing and sustaining a collaborative research network. In particular, leadership, a shared vision and a communication plan that includes social media were identified as crucial for sustaining an imaging network in health research. It is important to develop metrics that map relationships between network members and the role that communication tools can contribute to this process. Conclusions: This study confirms that human factors remain significant across a range of collaborative endeavours. The use of focus group discussions, interviews, and literature and website reviews means we can now strongly recommend the primacy of human factors. More work is needed to identify how the network operates and what specific indicators or metrics help build the capacity of clinicians and scientists to participate in translational research.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 76 |
| Pages (from-to) | 1-7 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Health Research Policy and Systems |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2015 |
Fingerprint
Cite this
}
Collaborative research networks in health:A pragmatic scoping study for the development of an imaging network. / Robinson, Tracy; Rankin, Nicole; Janssen, Anna; McGregor, Deborah; Grieve, Stuart; Shaw, Timothy.
In: Health Research Policy and Systems, Vol. 13, No. 1, 76, 2015, p. 1-7.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Collaborative research networks in health:A pragmatic scoping study for the development of an imaging network
AU - Robinson, Tracy
AU - Rankin, Nicole
AU - Janssen, Anna
AU - McGregor, Deborah
AU - Grieve, Stuart
AU - Shaw, Timothy
PY - 2015
Y1 - 2015
N2 - Background: Collaborative research networks are often touted as a solution for enhancing the translation of knowledge, but questions remain about how to evaluate their impact on health service delivery. This pragmatic scoping study explored the enabling factors for developing and supporting a collaborative imaging network in a metropolitan university in Australia. Methods: An advisory group was established to provide governance and to identify key informants and participants. Focus group discussions (n = 2) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22) were facilitated with representatives from a broad range of disciplines. In addition, a survey, a review of relevant websites (n = 15) and a broad review of the literature were undertaken to elicit information on collaborative research networks and perceived needs and factors that would support their involvement in a multi-disciplinary collaborative research network. Findings were de-identified and broad themes were identified. Results: Participants identified human factors as having priority for developing and sustaining a collaborative research network. In particular, leadership, a shared vision and a communication plan that includes social media were identified as crucial for sustaining an imaging network in health research. It is important to develop metrics that map relationships between network members and the role that communication tools can contribute to this process. Conclusions: This study confirms that human factors remain significant across a range of collaborative endeavours. The use of focus group discussions, interviews, and literature and website reviews means we can now strongly recommend the primacy of human factors. More work is needed to identify how the network operates and what specific indicators or metrics help build the capacity of clinicians and scientists to participate in translational research.
AB - Background: Collaborative research networks are often touted as a solution for enhancing the translation of knowledge, but questions remain about how to evaluate their impact on health service delivery. This pragmatic scoping study explored the enabling factors for developing and supporting a collaborative imaging network in a metropolitan university in Australia. Methods: An advisory group was established to provide governance and to identify key informants and participants. Focus group discussions (n = 2) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22) were facilitated with representatives from a broad range of disciplines. In addition, a survey, a review of relevant websites (n = 15) and a broad review of the literature were undertaken to elicit information on collaborative research networks and perceived needs and factors that would support their involvement in a multi-disciplinary collaborative research network. Findings were de-identified and broad themes were identified. Results: Participants identified human factors as having priority for developing and sustaining a collaborative research network. In particular, leadership, a shared vision and a communication plan that includes social media were identified as crucial for sustaining an imaging network in health research. It is important to develop metrics that map relationships between network members and the role that communication tools can contribute to this process. Conclusions: This study confirms that human factors remain significant across a range of collaborative endeavours. The use of focus group discussions, interviews, and literature and website reviews means we can now strongly recommend the primacy of human factors. More work is needed to identify how the network operates and what specific indicators or metrics help build the capacity of clinicians and scientists to participate in translational research.
KW - Collaborative research networks
KW - Enabling factors
KW - Translational research
KW - New South Wales
KW - Humans
KW - Focus Groups
KW - Medical Informatics/methods
KW - Community Networks/organization & administration
KW - Cooperative Behavior
KW - Health Care Sector/organization & administration
KW - Technology Assessment, Biomedical/methods
KW - Universities
KW - Information Dissemination/methods
KW - Health Services Research/methods
KW - Translational Medical Research/methods
KW - Interviews as Topic
KW - Surveys and Questionnaires
KW - Advisory Committees/organization & administration
KW - Diagnostic Imaging/instrumentation
KW - Internet
KW - Qualitative Research
KW - Social Media/organization & administration
KW - Organizational Case Studies
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84984844847&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/collaborative-research-networks-health-pragmatic-scoping-study-development-imaging-network
U2 - 10.1186/s12961-015-0067-y
DO - 10.1186/s12961-015-0067-y
M3 - Article
VL - 13
SP - 1
EP - 7
JO - Health Research Policy and Systems
JF - Health Research Policy and Systems
SN - 1478-4505
IS - 1
M1 - 76
ER -