Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22831463›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2012

Drawbacks and benefits associated with inter-organizational collaboration along the discovery-development-delivery continuum: a cancer research network case study.

Jenine K Harris, Keith G Provan, Kimberly J Johnson, Scott J Leischow

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. A Survey Study of Roadblocks in Translational Science.Clinical and translational science · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Converging research needs across framework convention on tobacco control articles: making research relevant to global tobacco control practice and policy.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2013
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jenine K HarrisGeorge Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St, Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St, Louis, MO 63130, USA. harrisj@wustl.edu
Keith G Provan
Kimberly J Johnson
Scott J Leischow
Washington University in St. Louis · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USUniversity of Arizona · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe scientific process around cancer research begins with scientific discovery, followed by development of interventions, and finally delivery of needed interventions to people with cancer. Numerous studies have identified substantial gaps between discovery and delivery in health research. Team science has been identified as a possible solution for closing the discovery to delivery gap; however, little is known about effective ways of collaborating within teams and across organizations. The purpose of this study was to determine benefits and drawbacks associated with organizational collaboration across the discovery-development-delivery research continuum.

methodsRepresentatives of organizations working on cancer research across a state answered a survey about how they collaborated with other cancer research organizations in the state and what benefits and drawbacks they experienced while collaborating. We used exponential random graph modeling to determine the association between these benefits and drawbacks and the presence of a collaboration tie between any two network members.

resultsDifferent drawbacks and benefits were associated with discovery, development, and delivery collaborations. The only consistent association across all three was with the drawback of difficulty due to geographic differences, which was negatively associated with collaboration, indicating that those organizations that had collaborated were less likely to perceive a barrier related to geography. The benefit, enhanced access to other knowledge, was positive and significant in the development and delivery networks, indicating that collaborating organizations viewed improved knowledge exchange as a benefit of collaboration. 'Acquisition of additional funding or other resources' and 'development of new tools and methods' were negatively significantly related to collaboration in these networks. So, although improved knowledge access was an outcome of collaboration, more tangible outcomes were not being realized. In the development network, those who collaborated were less likely to see 'enhanced influence on treatment and policy' and 'greater quality or frequency of publications' as benefits of collaboration.

conclusionWith the exception of the positive association between knowledge transfer and collaboration and the negative association between geography and collaboration, the significant relationships identified in this study all reflected challenges associated with inter-organizational collaboration. Understanding network structures and the perceived drawbacks and benefits associated with collaboration will allow researchers to build and funders to support successful collaborative teams and perhaps aid in closing the discovery to delivery gap.

Indexed as

Interinstitutional RelationsArizonaHealth Care SurveysHumansInformation DisseminationModels, TheoreticalNeoplasmsResearch Support as TopicTranslational Research, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID22831463
PMCPMC3443066
OpenAlexW2022175614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.