ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2020
Creating effective academic research teams: Two tools borrowed from business practice.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers and facilitators of conducting research with team science approach: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2023Pooled it
- Strategy Jams: using design thinking to charter teams with compelling purpose and sound structure.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Translating algorithmic fairness into health practice: formative evaluation of the fairness-to-action framework.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Overcoming disciplinary divides in scientific collaboration: challenges and pathways.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- AImedReport: A Prototype Tool to Facilitate Research Reporting and Translation of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Health Care.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Academic Medical Centers strive to create multidisciplinary research teams to produce impactful science. However, few faculty researchers receive training in "team science," a well-established concept in business research and practice. Responding to demand for assistance developing effective research teams, the Collaboration and Team Science Program of the Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) at Wake Forest School of Medicine (WFSM) partnered with faculty from the Wake Forest University (WFU) School of Business with expertise in leadership, management, and team building. We initiated a needs assessment, including a written survey from a diverse set of 42 research scientists as well as semi-structured interviews with 8 researchers. In response to identified needs, we developed training sessions and consultations to teach teams to implement two tools known to enhance team dynamics: (1) Team charter, a document that defines the team's purpose, goals, roles, and strategies; and (2) Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed (RACI) matrix, a table or spreadsheet that clarifies tasks and accountability. Since 2018, 10 teams and over 100 individuals have attended training sessions and 6 teams received personalized team consults. We describe these tools, present a formal analysis of quantitative results, and highlight the next steps being taken in response to these findings.
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.