ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Optimizing an evidence-based team-building intervention for dissemination: Collaboration Planning 2.0.
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. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strategy Jams: using design thinking to charter teams with compelling purpose and sound structure.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The Super Spreadsheet: collaborative information infrastructure in translational teams.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- What Team Science leaders really want: leveraging the knowledge of CTSA-based Team Science leaders to advance the Science of Team Science.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
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
Introduction: The conduct of Clinical and Translational Research (CTR) requires the engagement of highly effective collaborative teams. Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs have employed team-building strategies to improve team processes and interpersonal relationships in CTR teams. As previously reported, the University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (UW-ICTR) team science core operationalized and implemented one such strategy: Collaboration Planning. Here, we report on optimization of that intervention and assessment of three outcomes: (1) Changes in clarity and confidence around team processes; (2) Value and usefulness; and (3) Plans for future behavior change. Materials and Methods: Collaboration Planning 2.0 improves upon our initial implementation by (1) optimizing the worksheet for flow, accessibility, and deeper discussion; (2) expanding the evaluation process; and (3) creating a facilitator training to support broad dissemination. We tested this iteration in 11 UW-ICTR pilot teams using pre- and post-session self-assessment surveys. Results: Data indicated an increase in participants' clarity and confidence around all measured team processes except authorship. Ninety-one percent of participants found the intervention both valuable and useful. Participants indicated plans for future behavior change, including increased attention to team processes. To date, more than 400 individuals have completed the Collaboration Planning Facilitator Training, indicating a deep need in the community for tools for effective team-focused interventions. Conclusion: These results provide evidence that Collaboration Planning is an effective, accessible, low-barrier intervention for improving team processes and interpersonal relationships in CTR teams. Future work includes expanded evaluation, greater personalization of the intervention, and self-administered facilitation.
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.