Presentation on theme: "The Science of Team Science: Making Sure Psychology Is at the Table Bonnie Spring Bonnie Spring Council of Graduate Departments of Psychology February."— Presentation transcript:
The Science of Team Science: Making Sure Psychology Is at the Table Bonnie Spring Bonnie Spring Council of Graduate Departments of Psychology February 2013 Pacific Beach, CA
Overview Why bother with team science? How I got into studying team science An entrée for psychology into the biomedical research community 3 challenging scenarios for psychology in biomedical team science Resources
Why do we need a Science of Team Science (SciTS)? Volume of scientific knowledge has ↑ over time, making it increasingly difficult to have deep expertise in all needed areas Solving complex problems (eg., global warming, poverty, cancer, health care crisis) requires integration of specialized knowledge bases. Needs collaboration with more people from different specialties Stokols D, Hall KL, Taylor BK, Moser RP. The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. Am J Prevent Med. 2008;35(2 Suppl):S77-S89. Whitfield J. Group theory. Nature. 2008;455:720-723.
Research increasingly done by teams *Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. Over the last 50 years, the proportion of social science publications authored by teams (vs. solo authorship) has more than doubled.
Multi-university impact advantage Jones BF, Wuchty S, Uzzi B: Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science. 2008;322:1259-1262. Between-school collaboration publications tend to be higher impact than single school or solo author publications Science & Engineering Social Sciences
School stratification and cross-institution collaboration Jones BF, Wuchty S, Uzzi B: Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science. 2008;322:1259-1262.
Growth of Funding for Interdisciplinary Team Science NSF Total Funding ($6.9 bill 2010) 1982 2010 Single investigators 88% 38% Multiple Investigators 12% 62% 2003 NIH Roadmap (Total NIH funding $31.2 bill 2010 ) designed as a “fundamental change” in agency’s research culture – a shift away from the traditional model of supporting single-discipline research Belar (2012)
ENGAGED: E-Networking Guiding Adherence to Goals in Exercise and Diet Can we reduce DPP treatment intensity by half (from 16-24 to 8 sessions) but maintain weight loss effectiveness by doubling treatment efficiency? Decision Support Feedback Supportive Accountability Norms Social Support Arch Intern Medicine 2012, 172(10): 789-796; 2012, in press. BMC Public Health, 2010, 10::586. Grants: R01 HL07545, R01 DK097364, RC1 DK087126, F31MH070107
Seats for Psychology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine Seeing departmental siloes, Med School Dean diverts major resources to 9 cross-cutting IPHAM Centers: 3 Directed/Co-Directed by Psychologists (Behavior & Health; Medical Social Sciences; Engineering & Health) Northwestern Med rises 19 spots in NIH funding rankings since 2001 (40 to 21: greatest rise of any school) Value:
Psychology at the Team Science Table: 3 Challenging Scenarios NCI Comprehensive Cancer Center ($5 mill/yr) ▫ Basic sciences – 4 programs ▫ Clinical sciences – 3 programs ▫ Prevention & Control – 2 programs CTSA mHealth
Members: 28Departments: 11Schools: 3 Joint Appointments: 18 (STIC-2; CAPS-1; WC-5; TRIST-10) Center Support: $500K for 4 Recruits; $1.4M for 13 Grants to 9 Members 5 Yr Publications: 402 Total; 53 (13.2%) intra-prog; 175 (43.6%) inter-prog Impact Factor >5=129 (32.2%); >10=51 (12.7%); >15=25 (6.2%) Cancer Center Prevention & Control Program Direct Cost: $8,752,767Total Cost: $12,434,256 Percentages based on Direct Cost – 11/30/12 Peer Reviewed Funding
Journal Impact Factors ISI Web of Knowledge, Journal Citation Reports, 2010 Thomson Reuters Impact Factors
OBSSR workshop on Education, Training, Career Development of BSS in CTSA MD researchers often assume all BSS are clinicians, conduct focus groups, develop psychometric instruments “There’s no such thing as basic behavioral science research.” BSS knowledge is self-evident (common sense); behavioral interventions are simple to implement (give advice, information, education) Change in behavior or patient-reported outcome is meaningless; only change in biomarker or disease endpoint is real.
Access the modules and download interactive activities from http:// teamscience.net
CTSA Create durable, accessible online learning resource on science and praxis of team science Interactive problem-solving, exploration Address diverse sectors: Junior investigator Senior investigator Research development officer ------------------------------ Clinical medicine Basic medical science Behavioral science 3UL1RR025741-02S4 CTSA ARRA Research Supplement NIH OBSSR EBBP Contract N01-LM-6-3512 Supplement CTSA Behavioral team science
Move through a series of real-world exercises Module 2
What is the evidence that these work? Computer Scientist: functionality, few bugs Engineer, Designer: user satisfaction, sustained use Haptique certification: operability, privacy, security Corporation / investor: sales, return on investment Psychologist / Behavioral Scientist: efficacy/effectiveness, changes behavior and health outcome via valid research design, e.g., RCT, experiment FDA: safe and effective Government & Corporate Healthcare: cost-effectiveness, value What do I mean by evidence?
mThink at NIH 2/21/13 Francis Collins, MD, Ph.D. Director, NIH Eric Dishman, Ph.D. Director, Health Strategies Intel Anand Dyer, PhD., MBA President & COO, WellDoc Donald Jones, JD, MBA VP Qualcomm Life Scripps Translational Institute Joseph Selby, MD, Exec. Director PCORI Geeta Nayar, MD CMO, AT&T Patricia Machael, Ph.D., MHS Exec Director, mHealth Alliance United Nations Foundation Roderic Pettigrew, MD, PhD Director, NIH Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Jeffrey Shuran, MD, PhD Director, Devices, FDA William Shrank, MD Director, Ctrs. Medicare/Medicaid Martin J. Sepulvida, MD VP, IBM Peter Tippett, MD, PhD. CMO, Verizon
What’s the evidence for mHealth efficacy? 21 RCTs: >50% negative results* Industry Academia Let consumers decide RCTs take too long. We’re not going to hurt anyone Perfection is the enemy of the good. Don’t regulate and stifle the pace of technology innovation. Consumers liked snake oil too Apply new optimization methods from engineering Potential for risk and harm Concern for public safety and allocation of limited health care dollars for evidence based treatments *R. Kaplan & A. Stone (2013), Annual Review of Psychology
A place at the table conveys potential impact and also responsibilities Industry PerspectiveAcademic Research Perspective “We don’t need to do research – we have all the data we need from he digital exhaust” “Experiments (RCTs) aren’t needed AND they only include unrepresentative groups of people. I can learn more from just observing a bunch of people over time.” “Academic research is way too slow and inefficient. We own (and monetize) the IP and the data.” “The plural of anecdote isn’t evidence.” “It is harder than you think to produce healthy change in behavior.” “It is even possible for behavioral scientists to do harm.”