Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31632684›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Academia-industry digital health collaborations: A cross-cultural analysis of barriers and facilitators.

Chelsea Liu, Shuai Shao, Chang Liu, Gary G Bennett, Janet Prvu Bettger, Lijing L Yan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors.

Chelsea LiuJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9942-9955
Shuai ShaoNossal Institute for Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Chang LiuACCESS Health International, Shanghai, China.
Gary G BennettDuke Global Digital Health Science Center, Duke University, Durham, USA.
Janet Prvu BettgerDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, USA.
Lijing L YanDuke Kunshan University, Kunshan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDevelopment and uptake of digital health technologies benefit from cross-sectoral efforts from academia and industry. Our study aims to identify the barriers and facilitators associated with academia-industry collaborations in digital health in middle- and high-income countries.

methodsTrained personnel conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 stakeholders who were active in industry, academia or both. Stakeholders were based in middle-income countries (including China) and high-income countries (including the United States) as defined by the World Bank. Interviews were conducted in the stakeholder's language of choice (Chinese,

resultsStakeholders in both academia and industry identified complementary roles, authentic communication between partners, and clearly outlined goals or expectations prior to the collaboration as primary facilitators for success. Misaligned goals or expectations, differences in timelines for productivity and difficulties balancing expectations for business outcomes versus generation of scientific evidence were identified as primary barriers. Stakeholders in high-income countries reported inauthentic communication as a significant barrier to collaboration, whereas those in middle-income countries did not.

conclusionOutlining and communicating openly about goals and expectations for timeline and priorities as well as establishing complementary roles will facilitate fruitful academia-industry collaborations in the future. Best practices for communication styles may be dependent on the cultural setting, and thus should be adopted accordingly.

Indexed as

global healthIntersectoral collaborationknowledge translationqualitativetelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID31632684
PMCPMC6767742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.