ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
The power of social talk: A longitudinal network analysis of conversations in fostering interdisciplinary collaboration.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Interdisciplinary collaboration is essential for addressing scientific challenges, particularly in integrated fields like mobile health (mHealth), which combines computer communication and medicine to deliver healthcare services. The formation of collaborative relationships in such field is an emerging topic, with conversations among interdisciplinary scholars serving as a critical indicator of relationship development. This study aims to examine the specific effects of different conversation types (research or social oriented) on interdisciplinary collaboration and explore the impact of communication mode. Methods: We tracked conversations among interdisciplinary scholars participating in a 15-day hybrid mHealth training program, which uniquely captures both scholars' conversation networks and the conversation quality. Three types of conversation networks were recorded (topics about current research, future research, or small talk). Using longitudinal network models, we compared the effect of different types of conversation quality on network formation and evaluated the interaction between conversation quality and communication mode (in-person or online). Results: We found that the quality of social conversations on non-research-related topics had robust effects in promoting the formation of interdisciplinary communications. In-person communication is more conducive for current and future research conversations, while online communication is valued for small talk. Conclusion: This study highlights the power of perception of personal conversation in interdisciplinary collaboration formation. The diverse effects of communication mode on different conversation networks are revealed. Our findings offer valuable insights for the event designs of interdisciplinary training program.
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.