ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2019
Online, cross-disciplinary team science training for health and medical professionals: Evaluation of COALESCE (teamscience.net).
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging the divide in digital therapeutics (DTx): Partnership strategies for broader representation across DTx development and deployment.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Building capacity for translational team science: digital badging as a pathway to professionalization.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Implementing TeamMAPPS: Formative qualitative findings from the dissemination and implementation study of a new evidence-based team science intervention.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Team science competencies for clinical research professionals: A multileveled Delphi approach.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- A randomized controlled trial of a team science intervention to enhance collaboration readiness and behavior among early career scholars in the Clinical and Translational Science Award network.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Ten simple rules for organizations to support research data sharing.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Fostering interdisciplinary collaboration: A longitudinal social network analysis of the NIH mHealth Training Institutes.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- Developing and evaluating a team development intervention to support interdisciplinary teams.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- Creating effective academic research teams: Two tools borrowed from business practice.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe National Academies of Sciences (NAS) emphasize the need for interdisciplinary team science (TS) training, but few training resources are available. COALESCE, an open-access tool developed with National Institutes of Health support and located at teamscience.net, is considered a gold standard resource but has not previously been evaluated. COALESCE launched four learning modules in 2011. The Science of TS (SciTS) module, an interactive encyclopedia, introduces foundational concepts. Three scenario-based modules simulate TS challenges in behavioral, clinical, and basic biomedical sciences. This study examined user characteristics, usage patterns, and effects of completing the four modules on TS knowledge, attitudes, and skills.
methodsRepeated measures ANOVA tested for pre-post changes in performance and compared learning by users with biomedical versus other disciplinary backgrounds.
resultsFrom 2011 through 2017, the site attracted 16,280 new users who engaged in 6461 sessions that lasted more than 1 min. The modal registrant identified as working in a biomedical field (47%), in an academic institution (72%), and expressed greater interest in the practice than the SciTS (67%). Those completing pre- and post-tests (
conclusionEvaluation of the TS training tool at teamscience.net indicates broad dissemination and positive TS-related outcomes. Site upgrades implemented between 2018 and 2020, including adding five new modules, are expected to increase the robustness and accessibility of the COALESCE training resource.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.