Posters

Poster Abstracts

1.       Improving Human-Lion Conflict Research Through Interdisciplinarity
Ms. Jacalyn Beck, Michigan State University; Dr. Maria Claudia Lopez, Michigan State University; Mr. Tutilo Mudumba, Michigan State University; Dr. Robert Montgomery, Michigan State University

Wicked socio-ecological problems are inherently complex and require an interdisciplinary approach to mitigate. Here, we investigated the many drivers of human-lion conflict in East Africa and present a novel conceptual model illustrating the intricate interactions within and between the five main dimensions of conflict. We highlight the importance of broadening research efforts to include these multiple dimensions at all stages of the research process as well as to incorporate higher levels of diversity into research teams. We offer examples and recommendations on how to approach human-lion conflict from a more interdisciplinary perspective. However, challenges exist and will continue to arise as diverse interdisciplinary teams form. We address several main barriers to interdisciplinarity and encourage researchers and institutions to support a team science approach to solving wicked ecological problems like human-lion conflict.

2.       Measuring Interdisciplinary Skills Acquisition
Dr. Stefanie Blain-Moraes, School of Physical & Occupational Therapy, McGill University; Dr. Christopher Moraes, School of Physical & Occupational Therapy, McGill University; Dr. Rob Gorbet, Department of Knowledge Integration, University of Waterloo

Across North America, educators are experimenting with different approaches to educating interdisciplinary scholars. This is driven by factors such as increased demand for interdisciplinary research to support policy decisions, and the growing need for individuals with the skills necessary to analyze and address complex societal problems which demand the contribution of several disciplines (i.e., “wicked” problems). However, despite broad recognition of the importance of interdisciplinarity, there is no consensus on the specific skill set required to achieve interdisciplinary thinking, and how to teach and assess these skills.

Considering the fact that different disciplines subscribe to different knowledge paradigms leads us naturally to identify one high-level skill required of an “interdisciplinarian” as that of knowledge integration—the ability to integrate across knowledge paradigms. To do this, especially in a collaborative interdisciplinary team, requires appreciation, understanding, and comfort with differences in language, methods, evidence, and beliefs. Learning the skills of knowledge integration has more to do, then, with exercising empathy, humility, and valuing other viewpoints than it does intellectual growth. We use Bloom’s Affective Taxonomy as a framework to create a concrete and effective tool to identify associated learning objectives and assess students’ progression in this key interdisciplinary skill.

3.       The CyberAmbassador Training Program
Ms. Astri Briliyanti, Michigan State University; Dr. Dirk Colbry, Michigan State University; Dr. Katy Luchini Colbry, Michigan State University; Dr. Julie Rojewski, Michigan State University; Mr. TJ Van Nguyen, Michigan State University

Our project aims to provide training for CI professionals, with the goal of developing “CyberAmbassadors” who are prepared to lead multidisciplinary, computationally-intensive research at their home institutions. It has the following objectives: (1) Develop Curriculum that focuses on professional skills (communications, teamwork, leadership) within the context of large scale, multidisciplinary computational research; (2) Pilot, Evaluate and Revise the curriculum; (3) “Train the Trainers” by collaborating with external partners.

During our first year, we have focused on curriculum development. We launched our first curriculum, and explored different training modalities: face-to-face vs. online; short vs. longer sessions. Using a Kirkpatrick model of evaluation, we focused on participants’ reaction and learning. Our initial result shows that participants were highly satisfied with our curriculum. Their understanding and skills regarding the specific topics that we taught increased. Additionally, we found that the Video Conferencing method had more advantages compared to the face-to-face method to participants. They suggested that such a mode is more convenient for busy people, enables the trainers to reach a wider base of people, and provides a more relaxed environment. Our participants have indicated that online learning can be as effective as in-person meetings.

In this poster, we introduce our curriculum and offer preliminary research data from our ongoing evaluation efforts. We will also discuss how this feedback is shaping changes we are implementing in the curriculum.

4.       Cross-disciplinary Integration in FDA Team Science
Mr. Kevin Bugin, George Washington University

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for assessing the safety and effectiveness of new drug products before they can be legally marketed and used in clinical practice. This is a critical translational activity on the biomedical research continuum. In order to conduct these assessments, the FDA forms teams of varying degrees of cross-disciplinarity, ranging from multi-disciplinary to trans-disciplinary. A knowledge gap exists regarding how these cross-disciplinary teams operate, specifically their integrative capacity and processes, which hampers the FDA’s ability to develop practical guidelines to promote the team effectiveness of its assessments and evaluate the success of interventions to promote cross-disciplinary integration. To address this gap, a mixed-methods, comparative case study design will be used to explain cross-disciplinary integration of FDA teams. This study will leverage the theoretical framework of integration postulated by O’Rourke, Crowley and Gonnerman in 2015, which includes evaluable parameters related to the integration process, both quantitative and qualitative. Characterizing the cross-disciplinary integration process using this framework permits the purposeful selection of FDA teams with high and low integration for a comparison of the skills, abilities and practices at the team level that can be used to inform practical guidelines to promote effective cross-disciplinary integration.

5.       Strategies to Promote Effective Student Research Teams in Undergraduate Science Labs
Dr. Kendra Spence Cheruvelil, Michigan State University; Ms. Angela De Palma-Dow, Michigan State University; Dr. Karl A. Smith, Purdue University and University of Minnesota

Many science labs make use of student teams. However, many students resist working in teams, often for good reasons based on prior experiences. Although instructors struggle with how to help student teams be effective, effective teams in science labs are achievable. We increased student learning and satisfaction when working in research teams by: 1) including a teamwork learning objective in the syllabus “to practice effective teamwork and team management, including modeling behaviors of inclusion and ethics, and using leadership skills to foster problem solving, team communication, conflict management, consensus building, and idea generation” and 2) designing and implementing exercises that teach students why they should work in a team and how to be part of an effective student team (e.g., developing shared expectations, norms of behavior, and team culture; building awareness of why team conflict is important and likely student responses to such conflict). We also used individual and team reflections of team functioning following formal team assessment. We will presents pre-/post-test data demonstrating student attitudes and beliefs regarding teamwork and the details of our curricular innovations. These changes resulted in improved student satisfaction and success and reduced instructor guesswork and stress regarding student teams.

6.       Motivation, Threat, and Engagement Intensity in Cross-Disciplinary Health, Biomedical, Policy, and Education Teams: Pilot Analysis
Ms. Patricia Deyo, George Washington University; Ms. Ellen Cook, George Washington University; Mr. Kevin Bugin, George Washington University; Ms. Melissa Gentry, George Washington University; Ms. Landria Sheffey, George Washington University; Ms. Leocadia Conlon, George Washington University; Dr.
Gaetano R. Lotrecchiano, George Washington University

This is a second phase mixed methods study that follows original research to test a psychometric tool, the Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx) (Lotrecchiano et al., 2016; Mallinson et al., 2016), that assesses motivations and threats collaboration in health and biomedical teams. The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between motivations, threats, degrees of engagement, and satisfaction of human need among team members working in established knowledge producing teams.

A mixed methods comparative analysis study is being conducted. The qualitative method being used is semi-structured in-person interviews with individual members of knowledge producing teams. Following the interview, participants are asked to complete the MATRICx instrument, which utilizes quantitative methods. Data from the qualitative interviews will be triangulated with the quantitative survey data to support further interpretation of the meaning of the constructs of the MATRICx. An initial pilot of one teams qualitative data was completed in spring 2019.

Based on preliminary analysis from coding of the initial four interviews, several findings can be deduced. A total of 85 codes were identified across one team. Three codes were identified across all four participants which included collaboration, role definition, and collegial. Prioritization, meeting schedules, and team identity were also frequently used codes across three of the four interviews. There were an additional 39 codes that were only used one time across the interviews. Additional analysis will be conducted to determine if these individual codes should remain independent or recoded through the iterative coding process.

Since this study has only analyzed a subset of data, data collection and analysis will continue as the research team continues. Coding will continue as an iterative process following the methods outlines for the study to ensure intercoder reliability and continuation of thematic analysis as more data is analyzed. Once qualitative data is analyzed and quantitative data is collected, merging and integration of the data will occur.

References
Lotrecchiano, G., Mallinson, T., Leblanc-Beaudoin, T., Schwartz, L., Lazar, D., & Falk-Krzesinski, H. (2016). Motivation and threat indicators for collaboration readiness in knowledge generating teams (KPTs): A scoping review and domain analysis. Heliyon, 2(5), e00105.
Mallinson, T., Lotrecchiano, G., Furniss, J., Schwartz, L., Lazar, D., & Falk-Krzesinski, H. (2016). Rasch Analysis as a method for designing a readiness model for collaboration. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 64(7), 1186-1193

7.       The Economics of Collaboration at a Regional University
Dr. Stephen Crowley, Boise State University - Department of Philosophy; Ms. Marisa Richter, Boise State University - Department of Philosophy; Mr. Archer Ward, Boise State University

University leadership promotes the value of both collaboration and interdisciplinary research. Despite these efforts interdisciplinary collaborative research remains the exception rather than the rule at many universities. If the claims advanced are correct there is a 'gap' (call it the collaboration gap) between what leadership wants and what researchers do. Here we provide an initial report on our attempts to analyze the collaboration gap at one regional university.

We report the results of interviews with both leadership and faculty regarding interest in and incentives for interdisciplinary and collaborative scholarly activity and attempt to make sense of the feedback we have received. We suggest that an 'economic' model of faculty decision making that tracks 'return on investment' (for resources such as time and pay-offs such as publications) makes better sense of the collaboration gap (at the institution we studied) than accounts based on some form of ignorance (concerning incentives for collaboration) amongst faculty.

8.       NDNQI®: Using Big Data to Advance the Science of Interprofessional Teams
Dr. Nancy Dunton, The University of Kansas Medical Center; Dr. Teri Kennedy, The University of Kansas Medical Center

Interprofessional practice and education is viewed as the holy grail to achieve the Quadruple Aim in healthcare: improved patient, population, price, and practitioner outcomes. A 2014 scoping review found that research had not yet demonstrated the impact of IPE, citing the need for systematic research to strengthen the evidence base for interprofessional team-based care.

The National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators (NDNQI) ® Survey, completed by 240,000 RNs in 2018, includes interprofessional relationship measures between RNs and physicians, APRNs, pharmacists, therapists, and social workers. RNs rated relationships on conflict management skills; respect; assignment of blame for adverse events; shared accountability; and understanding roles, knowledge, and skills of RNs.

RNs rated “respect for the contributions of RNs” most highly and gave the lowest rating to “colleagues understand the roles, knowledge and skill of RNs.” Interprofessional relationships were highest on critical care units, followed by ambulatory care. Ratings were lowest in the operating room and perioperative units. RNs rated their relationships with social workers more highly than with other professions. Ratings were lowest for physicians.

These results highlight areas for improvement in interprofessional healthcare and demonstrate the promise of big data to advance the science of interprofessional teams in healthcare.

9.       Engagement Models of Science Communication: Working Tools for Team Researchers at the Micro Level
Ms. Soraida Garcia, Purdue University, PPRI; Dr. Laurel Weldon, Purdue University, PPRI; Dr. Rosalee Clawson, Purdue University, PPRI; Ms. Allison Roberts, Purdue University, PPRI

It is widely agreed that early involvement with stakeholders, and building thick relationships between researchers and communities of interest, dramatically improves public impact and relevance of scientific research. Much of science communication follows a marketing model for dissemination of results rather than an engagement model, offering techniques to attract audiences to a completed research project, rather than outlining strategies for early engagement at the individual researcher level. Even the most innovative models of science communication- focusing on social media, the arts, or game playing- often treat scientific results as a product to be sold rather than a process in which to participate. Also, in those bodies of scholarship that are focused on engagement, actionable models at the micro-level for individual researchers are hard to find. Instead, it tends to focus at the macro-level of administrative policy or university-wide supports and enabling structures. We offer a template for an engagement model of science communication that emphasizes relationship-building and early connections with communities of interest, at the stage of problem formation and question development. We provide several concrete examples of interdisciplinary research on grand challenges to illustrate how models for science on different places in the continuum work.

10.   The Role of Transdisciplinary Healthcare Teams and Tollgates in Quality Improvement Processes
Dr. Courtney Goetz, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Department of Family Medicine; Sukhesh Sudan, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Department of Family Medicine; Judy Arnetz, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Department of Family Medicine; John vanSchagen, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Department of Family Medicine and Mercy Health St. Mary’s; Dr. William Baer, Mercy Health St. Mary’s; Susan Hoppough, Mercy Health St. Mary’s; Dr. Bengt Arnetz, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Department of Family Medicine

Despite substantial attention, healthcare systems face severe and recalcitrant quality challenges, like hospital-associated infections and 30-day readmissions. This suggests that the multidisciplinary teams traditionally used to address and implement quality initiatives are not sufficiently effective. We purport that there needs to be a structured process for implementation that promotes inter- and transdisciplinary team processes. In order to achieve the formation of such high-performance quality improvement teams in healthcare systems, we propose the use of tollgates. Tollgates are process checkpoints that facilitate an iterative process used to identify unit-level drivers of, and barriers to implementation, allowing for accurate adaptations to be made. For each proposed intervention, teams examine high- and low- performing units and identify drivers and barriers, which can then be statistically verified for sensitivity and specificity. The accurate, comprehensive identification of these factors requires effective collaboration, best achieved via transdisciplinary healthcare quality teams. We hypothesize that inter- and transdisciplinary teams will be able to identify drivers and barriers more accurately, resulting in higher sensitivity and specificity in proposed interventions, as well as better implementation outcomes. We plan to study the relationship between team maturity (multi-, inter-, transdisciplinary) and the effectiveness of tollgates at driving quality improvements.

Acknowledgements: This study was funded by Contributory Research Funds from Mercy Health St. Mary’s, Grand Rapids, MI.

11.   A Conceptual Model to Guide Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation of Transdisciplinary Research
Ms. Sarah D. Hohl, University of Washington/Fred Hutch Cancer Research Center; Dr. Sarah Knerr, University of Washington/Fred Hutch Cancer Research Center; Dr. Shirley Beresford, University of Washington; Dr. Marian Neuhouser, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; Dr. Beti Thompson, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

This work describes a conceptual model of determinants and outcomes of transdisciplinary research. The model offers the public health research and practice community tools to bolster evaluation capacity, advance knowledge, and inform efforts to conduct transdisciplinary research to confront complex public health problems. The model was developed based on theoretical literature of transdisciplinary research and the evidence generated from transdisciplinary initiatives in the United States. The model includes four major components: problem focus, institutional resources and organizational structure, collaboration characteristics, and transdisciplinary outcomes. The model posits that the problem focus i.e., the topic area that a research endeavor aims to address, and institutional resources and organizational structure influence collaboration characteristics, which, in turn influence outcomes of transdisciplinary research. Improved population health benefits from collaborative efforts to address the interacting biological, social, behavioral and environmental factors that influence public health problems and their outcomes. The conceptual model presented here may facilitate systematic planning and implementation of transdisciplinary projects, assist in evaluating transdisciplinary research, determining if a transdisciplinary approach is suited for a research question, and, perhaps most importantly, assess the value of transdisciplinary approaches to resolving complex public health problems and promoting gains in public health.

12.   Determining Depth of Collaboration Potential
Dr. Alicia Knoedler, Independent Contractor; Mr. Dave King, Exaptive, Inc.; Ms. Jill Macchiaverna, Exaptive, Inc.

A funding agency wants to identify and invite investigators to a convening around a topic relevant to their work. Undergraduate students wants to locate faculty with openings in their research programs to include undergraduate researchers. Team leaders want to become knowledgable about the current topics in their field to develop new teams to pursue leading research efforts. These and many other connection challenges occur on a daily basis in the domain of research development. Beyond just finding people, what are some ways that research development professionals can assess the collaboration potential within a research community? This Idea Showcase presentation will highlight concepts, methods and tools to help research development professionals increase their awareness and knowledge of information and factors that can influence research collaboration.

13.   Successful Process Evaluation Provides Insight into Team Development and Goal Attainment
Ms. Hannah Love, Colorado State University; Dr. Bailey Fosdick, Colorado State University; Dr. Jennifer Eileen Cross, Colorado State University; Dr. Meghan Suter, Colorado State University; Ms. Dinada Egan, Colorado State University; Dr. Ellen Fisher, Colorado State University

It is becoming more common for scientists to break out of their academic silos and combine knowledge to solve pressing scientific questions as members of teams. What makes an interdisciplinary scientific team successful? Often success is measured using classic metrics like publications, grants, and invention patents. However, these products may take years to amass. What if you needed to know ‘in the moment’ if a team was engaging in a meaningful way to meet their goals and achieve success? A process evaluation study examines various aspects of team interactions as indicators of long-term success. At Colorado State University, from 2015-2017 we conducted a mixed-methods evaluation on eight interdisciplinary research teams to investigate the processes of team development. Using a rank correlation, our results report which process metrics correlated with classic team outcomes. More specifically, successful teams are gender inclusive, serve on student committees together, and more!

14.   Using Structured Dialogue to Break Down Disciplinary Silos within Global Development Teams
Dr. Anna Malavisi, Western Connecticut State University; Dr. Marisa Rinkus, Michigan State University; Dr. Michael O'Rourke, Michigan State University

The theory and practice of sustainable development gives rise to many challenges, not least, how to achieve effective communication among the various disciplines within global development teams. The absence of effective communication can lead to a lack of mutual understanding. We might wonder whether different team members share an understanding of the concepts of development and sustainability? Do they coordinate their thinking about the impact on the communities that are the principal beneficiaries of their work? We submit that structured dialogue about these and other issues that undermine deep, mutual understanding within global development teams can improve the effectiveness of sustainable development efforts.

There is a need to generate a space for critical reflection and dialogue about the values and beliefs that influence development decisions. The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative offers an innovative, concrete, and tangible approach to critical dialogue that can help in two ways. First, it can generate a space for critical dialogue within teams about issues that matter to them; second, it can enable discussion and analysis of specific concerns that afflict those working in the practice of sustainable development, such as conflicting assumptions, power dynamics, implicit biases, ethical issues, and epistemic injustice.

15.   ICPSR Virtual Data Enclave as a Collaboratory for Team Science
Dr. John Marcotte, University of Michigan; Ms. Sarah Rush, University of Michigan; Ms. Sara Britt, University of Michigan

A challenge of managing access to restricted-use data is to ensure adequate protections and at the same time break down barriers to team science. Security requirements for restricted-use data often present obstacles to team science. For example, requiring the use of a non-networked computer thereby prevents file sharing and collaboration. The trend in security for restricted-use data is moving towards providing access through computing enclaves. Such enclaves can provide collaboration space for research teams and enhanced security over other options for restricted-use data access. Since this collaboration space is within the computing enclave, the shared disk space meets security requirements for restricted-use data.

As compared with non-networked computers, computing enclaves offered two important security enhancements: (1) Prohibiting the download of restricted-use data; and (2) Vetting of output for disclosure risk. Computing enclaves are accessible through encrypted network connections and prevent researchers from downloading or uploading restricted-use data and derivatives. Moreover, these enclaves enable third party review of output for compliance with disclosure protections such as minimum cell sizes and embargoed variables.

ICPSR has deployed one these enclaves. The ICPSR Virtual Data-Enclave (VDE) is accessible through encrypted network connections and two-factor authentication. The VDE facilitates team science for the analysis of restricted-use data archived with ICPSR. Because researchers access the restricted-use data virtually, physical proximity is no longer a barrier to collaboration. The VDE enables researchers in different disciplines and at different organizations to work together.

In this paper, we illustrate how the ICPSR VDE (and computing enclaves in general) promote team science by serving as a secure online Collaboratory.

16.   U-LINK: The Development and Evaluation of an Innovative Program to Support High-impact Interdisciplinary Research
Dr. Susan E. Morgan, University of Miami; Dr. Ali Mosser, University of Miami; Dr. Soyeon Ahn, University of Miami; Dr. Tyler Harrison, University of Miami; Dr. Jue Wang, University of Miami; Ms. Ashley Reynolds, University of Miami; Ms. Qian Huang, University of Miami; Ms. Bingjing Mao, University of Miami; Dr. John Bixby, University of Miami

The University of Miami has developed an innovative program, called U-LINK (University of Miami’s Laboratory for INtegrated Knowledge), designed to foster high-impact interdisciplinary research and education. In addition to its focus on societal grand challenges, U-LINK has five unique (unusual?) qualities: 1) a 2-phase structure that provides protected time for team development and vision refinement during Phase I; 2) strong, meaningful partnerships with the Graduate School (which funds the participation of a doctoral student on each Phase II team), the Clinical & Translational Science Institute (which financially supports one Phase I team), and the Libraries (which support the participation of librarians as U-LINK team members); 3) dedicated meeting space in each of 3 campus libraries helps to ease geographic barriers; 4) embedded librarians on each U-LINK team; and 5) sustained team science training and education based on empirically supported best practices for interdisciplinary collaborations. The success of U-LINK will be evaluated on several metrics, including team success (ROI from external funding, publications and citations) relative to non-U-LINK collaborative teams, as well as organizational impacts including future interdisciplinary collaborations by awardees, and greater levels of faculty satisfaction and commitment to the organization. Early outcomes of the U-LINK initiative are reported.

17.   Maintenance of a Multi-disciplinary Team to Study Preoperative Anxiety in Spine Surgery: A Two-Year Case Study
Mr. Arif Musa, Wayne State University; Dr. Jeffrey C Wang, University of Southern California; Dr. Frank L Acosta, University of Southern California; Dr. Rana Movahedi, University of Southern California; Ms. Adana Melkonian, Western University of Health Sciences; Mr. Alan Shahbazi, Touro College; Dr. David Safani, University of California; Mr. Syed F Hussain, Wayne State University; Dr. Gligor Gucev, University of Southern California

Multi-disciplinary teams are attractive in clinical research for a variety of reasons including varied expertise, resource efficiency, and potential for creative solutions. This case study describes the activity of a multi-institutional and interdisciplinary taskforce over a two-year time course and documents methods used to maintain the team in the face of changes following its initial development. The Spine Preoperative Anxiety Research Taskforce (SPARTA), a team of students from the University of Southern California, University of California Irvine, and Western University of Health Sciences and faculty in the fields of psychiatry, anesthesiology, neurosurgery, and orthopedic surgery, was developed to investigate preoperative anxiety – an under-studied phenomenon. Team members were chosen based on their expertise, interest in studying preoperative anxiety, and previous team building experience among other factors. The team obtained Institutional Review Board approval and was awarded the Nation Institutes of Health Southern California Clinical and Translational Science Institute (NIH SC CTSI) Team Building Award. After two years of activity, SPARTA produced research leading to two podium presentations, six poster presentations, and one peer-reviewed publication. As a result, the goals of SPARTA have shifted from development to maintenance of the multi-disciplinary team following the relocation of students to medical school and influx of new members, which presented several challenges. Solutions included reallocation of responsibility such as by assigning the Department of Anesthesiology at the University of Southern California the role of managing grant funds on behalf of the team. Outsourcing account management allowed members of SPARTA to redirect resources to the development of future research projects and to disseminate findings to the greater scientific community via conference travel. Previously, the team was local to southern California, but over the course of the second year, integral team members relocated to two different states. This led to further reliance on electronic means of communication such as by text messaging, online video calls, and electronical mail. The addition of new members also required reallocation of responsibilities and review of each team member’s role in SPARTA. Further plans were made for obtaining additional funding to maintain team activities and for developing follow-up studies. The presentation of this two-year case study analyzes the activities of a multi-disciplinary clinical research team and efforts to maintain those activities despite logistical challenges.

18.   R2D2: A Team Approach to Bridging Research in Medicine and Public Health
Dr. Harold W. Neighbors, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine Division of Public Health; Dr. Ike Iyioke, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine Division of Public Health

The purpose of this poster is to present an innovative NIH-funded developmental research program titled, “Research to Reduce Disparities in Disease” (R2D2). R2D2 develops the research skills of medical students at the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine (MSU-CHM). R2D2 prepares medical students from underrepresented groups to address racial/gender health disparities by developing a transdisciplinary research education program that combines medicine and public health. R2D2 prepares medical students to conduct the transdisciplinary research necessary to achieve health equity in cardiovascular diseases by providing mentored research internship opportunities to bridge the artificial boundary between medicine and public health. To accomplish these important goals, R2D2 created a trans-disciplinary team consisting of faculty from Public Health, Medicine, Psychology, Philosophy (bioethics), and Health Informatics. Medical doctors play an important role in the nation’s health by treating the sick. Public health complements medicine by focusing on population health. Medicine and public health are natural allies. However, professional differences in training and perspectives have led to a false impression that public health works “upstream” on prevention while physicians work “downstream” on patient care. R2D2 medical students will combine medicine and public health by bringing biology into the community and the community into the clinic.

19.   Education in Maximizing Team Performance for Early-Career Biomedical Research Faculty
Dr. Barbara Nicklas, Wake Forest School of Medicine; Dr. Holly Brower, Wake Forest School of Business; Dr. Amy Wallis, Wake Forest School of Business; Dr. Michael Nader, Wake Forest School of Medicine; Ms. Lyndsay Trost, Wake Forest School of Medicine

Early-career biomedical research faculty are often isolated by department or discipline and are not provided training opportunities in team science. To address this, the Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science Institute Team Science Program developed “Maximizing Team Performance” education modules as part of a broad “Translational Scholars Academy”. Scholars are early-career research scientists and the modules are delivered by team science faculty experts from the Wake Forest School of Business. The curriculum includes three sessions where scholars learn team development norms and best practices and develop skills to effectively lead teams. For program development, a mixed methods needs assessment was conducted consisting of a research scholar survey (n=42) and semi-structured individual interviews (n=8). Responsive training modules were constructed based on the popular classical model of team development (Tuckman, 1965) involving stages of forming, storming, norming and performing. Participants engage in case analyses, problem solving, lectures and class discussions about the value and process of developing team charters, engaging all members of a team, resolving conflict, planning and managing effective meetings, and follow-through. Scholars reported 93% high satisfaction; evaluation of new team formation and team effectiveness is on-going.

20.   Applying Team Science Principles to Biomedical Publications Teams: Understanding Team Effectiveness
Ms. Quentin O’Brien, George Washington University; Dr. Gaetano Lotrecchiano, George Washington University

The Science of Team Science is a relatively new interdisciplinary field of study that aims to investigate the factors that hinder or facilitate team-based research and practice, with a focus on how these factors impact scientific innovation and translation. Teams and their interactions are complex, making measurement of teams’ characteristics and outcomes challenging. There is a myriad of methods used in the Science of Team Science that aid in measuring the effectiveness of biomedical teams. Bibliometric analysis is one method by which researchers have attempted to measure team effectiveness. In bibliometric studies of team effectiveness, journal, article, and author level data have been used as a proxy for assessing the value of science teams in producing new and/or integrated knowledge. This method, however, is not without its flaws, as co-authorship does not necessarily equate to collaboration and teamwork. Bibliometrics are solely quantitative and leave much to be desired regarding the qualitative interactions between teams working together on biomedical publications. These quantitative metrics cannot provide sufficient insight into the factors that facilitate team functioning, effectiveness, and quality of experience. Given this gap, this case study aimed to assess a biomedical publications team using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Bibliometric data were collected and analyzed by the author. Additionally, a team teleconference with the biomedical publications team occurred in Fall 2018, and qualitative and quantitative coding of the discussion were used to evaluate team interactions. These methods revealed that scientific impact measured by bibliometrics was relatively equal between authors, with only one author having an h-index of at least 20, suggesting no significant differences between authors’ publication impacts. Coding of discussions between team members revealed positive sociopsychological dynamics and high levels of cohesion, as well as robust information sharing among team members leading to knowledge transfer and progression toward project goals. Conflict was least prominent among all types of communication, and when it did occur, it was resolved quickly. Preliminary findings from this study suggest that high levels of positive social interactions and cohesion are necessary to assembling functional publications teams. These findings point to the need to further understand optimal team factors when assembling biomedical publications teams. In future studies, more emphasis on the use of qualitative methods may help to provide further insights into the characteristics of teams and their members that facilitate effective functioning and positive team experiences.

21.   Team-Based Approaches to Opioid Misuse in Mid-Michigan
Mr. Payam Aminpour, Michigan State University; Dr. Madhur Chandra, Michigan State University; Ms. Suzanne Neefus, Michigan State University; Dr. Michael O’Rourke, Michigan State University; Dr. Stephanie E. Vasko, Michigan State University

Opioid misuse is a complex multifaceted problem with social, economic, biological and behavioral dimensions. We will employ an interdisciplinary team science approach to investigate the factors underlying the misuse of prescription opioids in Clare and Gladwin in order to integrate the knowledge and perspectives shared by various stakeholders. In the background of the problem is a policy shift in laws pertaining to prescription opioid use and a concomitant drain on hospital resources as perceived by community partners. Our methodology encompasses a combination of structured survey questions and qualitative interviews to elicit mental models that will help identify differential stakeholder perspectives on the issue. Our study will thus help enhance understanding of the larger opioid crisis as experienced by the community.

22.   Evaluating Translational Research - Tell Us What You Think
Ms. Kristi Pettibone, National Institute of Environmental Health Science

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) published a translational research framework that builds on previous models (Pettibone et al., Environmental Health Perspectives 2018). The framework defines five categories or rings of translational research that parallel the traditional translational research categories and new category names recognize the contribution of non-clinical work to the translational process. The model also incorporates nodes along these rings that represent the types of activities that might be conducted within these categories of translational research. Finally, the model recognizes movement from node to node as well as from ring to ring as translational. The framework can also be a helpful tool for reflecting on and demonstrating the value of team science in translational research. NIEHS is now using the model to evaluate translational research efforts, including the contributions of team science to translational work. This poster will provide an overview of the framework, will highlight the benefits of the framework, and will describe the strategies we are using to evaluate translational research. This poster will be designed as an interactive opportunity for participants to provide input on key evaluation questions that will shape how we ultimately use the framework to assess translational research efforts.

23.   Function, Information and Contributions – an Evaluation of National Multidisciplinary Team Meetings for Rare Cancer Types
Ms. Linn Rosell, Lund University; Dr. Jessica Wihl, Lund University; Mr. Oskar Hagberg, Regional Cancer Centre South; Dr. Björn Ohlsson, Regional Cancer Centre South; Dr. Mef Nilbert, Danish Cancer Society Research Centre

Background and Objective: Following centralized treatment for rare cancer types in Sweden, virtual national multidisciplinary treatment meetings (MDTM) have been established. We assessed function, information, participants´ contributions and views of the national MDTMs for rare cancer types.

Methods: Data on participants’ views were collected using an electronic survey distributed to participants in six national MDTMs. Data from structured observations were obtained from the MDTMs for penile-, anal-, and vulvar cancer using the standardized observational tools MDT-MOT and MDT-MODe which assess information presented and participants’ contributions to the case discussion.

Results: Participants’ rated the national MDTMs favorably with high scores for development of competence and consideration of patients comorbidity. Areas that received lower scores included stuctured evaluations of MDTMs functionality, technology and guidelines for communicating treatment recommendations. Application of the observational tools rated case histories, leadership and teamwork as well-functioning, whereas patient-centered care, consideration of comorbidities, psychosocial aspects and involvement of care professionals received low scores.

Conclusion: National virtual MDTMs are feasible with well-functioning leadership and teamwork. Weaknesses identified related to limited consideration of patient-centered aspects and suboptimal contribution to the case discussions from care professionals. Increased attention to these factors could further optimize treatment recommendations from national, virtual MDTMs.

24.   The Bio-CS Bridge: A Transdisciplinary Team Approach to Integrating Biology and Computer Science in High School Curricula
Dr. Elizabeth Ryder, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; Dr. Carolina Ruiz, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; Ms. Shari Weaver, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; Dr. Robert Gegear, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

To learn to solve today’s complex biological problems, high school students need to integrate scientific practices such as experimental design and hypothesis testing with computational thinking and skills such as modeling, simulation, and systems approaches to biology. However, it is difficult for educators to create integrated ‘STEM+C’ curricula, because teachers of biology and computer science have little understanding of the terminology, key concepts, and approaches that each side has to offer.

To address this problem, we created a transdisciplinary (TD) team consisting of university specialists in biology, computer science, and education, graduate and undergraduate students, and high school teachers and students.   The curriculum we are creating involves students in real research – a citizen science project addressing pollinator decline – while they learn scientific practices and use computational approaches. The TD team approach allowed us to build a shared vision for the project, and an understanding of teachers' needs in the classroom. In addition, teacher feedback helped us to make better choices in developing our computational tools, which in turn has allowed more varied and modular curriculum. We will present our ongoing progress in team development, as well as a sample of the curriculum itself, which our teachers are currently piloting.

25.   Adoption of the Scrum Framework for Agile Project Management in a Research Network
Mr. Enric Senabre Hidalgo, Internet Interdisciplinary Institute

This poster describes the process of adoption of agile methods for the online coordination of collaborative research. It's based on a case study at the Centre for the Evaluation of Complexity Across the Nexus (CECAN), a research network hosted by the University of Surrey, for testing and promoting innovative policy evaluation approaches. The study addresses the extent to which key principles and tools usually used in scrum, a specific set of agile principles and practices for self-organizing cross-functional teams in software development projects, can contribute to the collaborative management and coordination of tasks in research processes. The responses from interviews with 17 researchers, as well as participant observation and analysis of online activity, are examined and presented in this case study. Results indicate that integrating agile methods and principles for interdisciplinary collaboration can have a positive influence on team dynamics and efficiency, but it also requires a high degree of flexibility and a “learn by doing” approach.

26.   Advancing Team Science Principles through Interprofessional Team-Based Education
Dr. Sarah Shrader, The University of Kansas; Dr. Teri Kennedy, The University of Kansas Medical Center

Interprofessional team-based care addresses the needs of complex patients and connects with the Quadruple Aim in healthcare for improved patient, population, price, and practitioner outcomes. Safety-net clinics serve high-need patients experiencing health disparities who benefit from coordinated team-based care.

The University of Kansas Medical Center developed an academic/community partnership between health professions educators and safety-net clinics serving patients in Kansas City and Leavenworth, Kansas. Interprofessional practitioners at these sites were provided with two educational interventions that employed team science principles spanning over 9-months.

Pre- and post- survey data was collected using the Assessment for Collaborative Environments (ACE-15), a rapid 15-item assessment tool measuring practitioners’ perceptions of interprofessional “teamness,” suitable for a range of health professionals and clinical sites. The tool was administered to healthcare team members at baseline and 9-months (n=28) later following the educational team science intervention. Means were compared using an unpaired t-test.

Practitioners exposed to team education had improved scores on all 15-items. Seven of the items reached statistically significant improvements in “teamness”(p-value < 0.01). The largest improvement was the item stating “all voices on the team are heard and valued.” This intervention demonstrates the potential of interprofessional team-based education to advance team science principles.

27.   The Collaboration Kit: Research Insights Transformed into Practical Support for Interdisciplinary Collaboration
Dr. Veronica Stanich, Alliance for the Arts in Research Universities; Mr. Gabriel Harp, Alliance for the Arts in Research Universities

The Collaboration Kit is a physical toolkit that allows users to create for themselves the Alliance for the Arts in Research Universities (a2ru) two-day workshop on interdisciplinary collaboration. The workshop experience, and the Kit, represent a particular phase in a2ru’s research-to-practice cycle, which comprises data collection and analysis, derivation of insights, translation of insights into experiences, and finally collecting data from these experiences. For the Collaboration Workshop, we used data from our interviews at 38 research universities to surface characteristics of effective collaboration. Building on those characteristics, we designed the framework for a hands-on workshop experience. In this poster, we highlight individual activities in the workshop, identifying the research basis for each component and explaining how insights were translated into activities. We also unpack the workshop’s recursive design, wherein participants engage on two levels: acquiring information, skills, and best practices about collaboration even as they immerse themselves in a simulation activity that requires collaboration with other participants. By translating our research insights into hands-on activities, we mobilize all the benefits of active learning. We also use the experience as an opportunity for further research, completing the research-to-practice cycle.

28.   Data Science and Data Analytic Learning Environments at Small Liberal Arts Institutions
Dr. John Symms, Carroll University

On March 29 and 30, Carroll University hosted an NSF funded workshop with the goal being to form a consortium of small liberal arts colleges that would work together to expand the usage of and development of next generation digital learning environments (NGDLE’s) for teaching data science and data analytics (DSA). The workshop was attended by 55 people from 11 different institutions. Randomly assigned to teams based on interests, eight teams of participants worked on team building and content goals. Content consisted of NGDLE’s, DSA, learning science, and team science. Given the importance on working across institutions, team science was a central theme throughout. The consortium is working on six workstream goals, designed around four fundamental research questions: (1) How will NGDLE’s prepare students for employment that requires DSA? (2) How will the design of DSA NGDLE’s account for the variability of learners? (3) How will NGDLE’s be assessed to measure student DSA competency? (4) How will a national consortium for digital learning at small liberal arts institutions form and function to sustain and expand the workshop outcomes? We will report on results thus far, as well as report on post-workshop team activities. (NSF Grant No. 1824727)

29.   The ECHO Transdisciplinary Team Science Model
Dr. Leslie Thompson, NIH/ECHO; Dr. Christina Park, NIH/ECHO; Dr. Matthew Gillman, NIH/ECHO

Determining how a broad array of early environmental factors influence child health across the lifecourse is challenging. NIH’s Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) program, whose mission is to enhance the health of children for generations to come, addresses this challenge within a complex multidisciplinary consortium of over 1000 investigators. ECHO espouses a team science framework to cultivate investigator collaboration and novel approaches that transcend disciplinary boundaries, which we call transdisciplinary team science (TDTS). Based on observations within the first two years of ECHO and supporting literature, we developed a preliminary causal model for achieving TDTS. It involves two interrelated pathways, one via team science principles and the other via solution-oriented research practices. The purpose of this structured literature review is to refine the model and identify team member attitudes that promote these pathways. Early findings suggest that program and peer leadership can strengthen team integration by implementing best-practices for team science, like shared mission, language, and goals, and thereby fostering positive team-oriented attitudes. Motivation for conducting actionable science that involves early stakeholder input may enrich team-level stakeholder engagement and, subsequently, solution-oriented research. Though teams may achieve integration and solution-oriented research independently, we propose that together they catalyze TDTS.

30.   Team-Based Approaches to Arts Participation in Mid-Michigan
Dr. Stephanie Vasko, Michigan State University; Ms. Vy Dao, Michigan State University; Mr. Scott Jarvie, Michigan State University; Mr. AJ Rice, Michigan State University; Dr. Michael O'Rourke, Michigan State University; Ms. Debbie Mikula, Arts Council of Greater Lansing

Our study investigates arts participation of diverse populations in our community. Working with the Arts Council of Greater Lansing, we asked, what do arts experiences look like in these communities, and in what ways and spaces do these groups participate in the arts? Using both qualitative methods to collect narratives from diverse community members, and quantitative methods to measure the economic impact of the arts, our team considers the ways that arts and culture exist and matter to members of these communities, and how it might inform arts programming. As a transdisciplinary team with extensive backgrounds in arts-based education and African American and African Studies, we share a deep concern for exploring the relationship between the arts and justice. We are particularly interested in how the results of this inquiry could be used to direct resources to the spaces and programs that most effectively contribute to the economic development of the Greater Lansing area.

31.   The AAAS Center for Scientific Collaboration and Community Engagement (CSCCE) – a research and training institute to support scientific community building.
Ms. Lou Woodley, AAAS; Dr. Rebecca Aicher, AAAS

The AAAS Center for Scientific Collaboration and Community Engagement (CSCCE) was established in late 2018 as a research and training institute to support the individuals who nurture scientific communities and teams. Community engagement managers (CEMs) may be found in a range of scientific communities – from those convened by professional associations to large-scale collaborations between multiple research institutions. They may also possess a broad range of job titles – from program directors to project administrators and community managers. CSCCE’s activities combine research and practice to deliver an evolving set of resources and support a new community of practice of scientific CEMs, wherever they are found.

CSCCE has three synergistic areas of focus: i) The AAAS Community Engagement Fellowship Program, which trains and connects scientific CEMs through a year-long professional development fellowship; ii) on demand training and online resources for scientific CEMs, including workshops, reports and webinars and; iii) research into the roles of scientific CEMs including defining the skillsets of community professionals, and the impact of CEMs on communities focuses on broadening participation in STEM.

Poster Abstracts

Quick Links