ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
What Team Science leaders really want: leveraging the knowledge of CTSA-based Team Science leaders to advance the Science of Team Science.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs invest substantial resources in facilitating a Team Science approach to research. Despite over 15 years of Science of Team Science research, the field lacks evidence-based interventions that can be implemented by CTSA hubs and others in support of collaborative research. Federal funding agencies increasingly call for team-based research but devote few resources to the development, dissemination, and evaluation of Team Science interventions. This lack of feasible interventions leaves CTSA Team Science leaders and Clinical and Translational Research Teams (CTRTs) themselves with few evidence-based options for improving the impact of team-based research. In this project, a group of CTSA Team Science leaders conducted a pilot study to understand this gap better. First, we engaged in a semi-structured needs assessment to answer two questions: (1) What do CTRTs need to thrive in conducting team-based Clinical and Translational Research, and (2) What do CTSA-based Team Science leaders need to build robust Team Science programs that serve CTRTs? Second, we conducted a landscape assessment to identify existing evidence-informed team-based interventions. Third, we designed and launched a hybrid effectiveness-feasibility project. Here, we report on these three activities. Finally, we call for additional funding to support the development, dissemination, and evaluation of these critical interventions.
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.