ArticleResearch Evaluation2019
A framework for coordination center responsibilities and performance in a multi-site, transdisciplinary public health research initiative.
Article in Research Evaluation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A mixed-methods analysis to understand the implementation of a multistakeholder research consortium: Environmental influences on child health outcomes (ECHO).Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Transdisciplinary research outcomes based on the Transdisciplinary Research on Energetics and Cancer II initiative experience.Research Evaluation · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Funding bodies in the USA and abroad are increasingly investing in transdisciplinary research, i.e. research conducted by investigators from different disciplines who work to create novel theoretical, methodological, and translational innovations to address a common problem. Transdisciplinary research presents additional logistical and administrative burdens, yet few models of successful coordination have been proposed or substantiated, nor have performance outcomes or indicators been established for transdisciplinary coordination. This work uses the NIH-funded Transdisciplinary Research on Energetics and Cancer (TREC) Centers Initiative as a case study to put forward a working framework of transdisciplinary research coordination center (CC) responsibilities and performance indicators. We developed the framework using a sequential mixed methods study design. TREC CC functions and performance indicators were identified through key-informant interviews with CC personnel and then refined through a survey of TREC research center and funding agency investigators and staff. The framework included 23 TREC CC responsibilities that comprised five functional areas: leadership and administration, data and bioinformatics, developmental projects, education and training, and integration and self-evaluation, 10 performance outcomes and 26 corresponding performance indicators for transdisciplinary CCs. Findings revealed high levels of agreement about CC responsibilities and performance metrics across CC members and constituents. The success of multi-site, transdisciplinary research depends on effective research coordination. The functions identified in this study help clarify essential responsibilities of transdisciplinary research CCs and indicators of success of those transdisciplinary CCs. Our framework adds new dimensions to the notion of identifying and assessing CC activities that may foster transdisciplinarity.
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.