Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Science of Team Science:Making Sure Psychology Is at the Table
Bonnie SpringBonnie 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 2010Single 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 SupportFeedback 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
Team Science
Communication
One entrée into the biomedical research
community for psychology
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: 28 Departments: 11 Schools: 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
NCI321882436.8%
Other NIH(cancer relevant) $4,037,025
46.1%NSF7918889.0%
Other Peer Reviewed7050308.1%
Direct Cost: $8,752,767 Total Cost: $12,434,256
Percentages based on Direct Cost – 11/30/12
Peer Reviewed Funding
Journal Impact FactorsGeneral Science Journals
Medical Journals
General Psych Journals
Clinical Psych Journals
Nature, 36.104
Cancer J for Clinicians, 94.333
Psychol Bull, 11.975
Archives of Gen Psychiatry, 10.78
Science, 31.377
NEJM, 53.486
Psychol Rev, 7.784
Psychother Psychosom, 6.000
PNAS, 9.771
Lancet, 33.633
American Psychol, 6.012
Clinical Psychol Review, 5.882
JAMA, 30.011
Perspect Psychol Sci, 5.268
JCCP, 5.227
Ann Intern Med, 16.729
J Exp Psych General, 5.042
Psychol Med, 5.200
PLOS Med, 15.617
Psychol Sci, 4.439
Ann Behavioral Med, 3.984
Circulation 14.739
Health Psychol, 3.982
Arch Int Med 10.640
ISI Web of Knowledge, Journal Citation Reports, 2010 Thomson Reuters Impact Factors
Psychology / Behavioral and Social
Science in the CTSA
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
mHealth: Weight Loss Apps
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 StrategiesIntel
Anand Dyer, PhD., MBAPresident & COO, WellDoc
Donald Jones, JD, MBAVP Qualcomm LifeScripps Translational Institute
Joseph Selby, MD,Exec. Director PCORI
Geeta Nayar, MDCMO, AT&T
Patricia Machael, Ph.D., MHSExec Director, mHealth AllianceUnited Nations Foundation
Roderic Pettigrew, MD, PhDDirector, NIH Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
Jeffrey Shuran, MD, PhDDirector, Devices, FDA
William Shrank, MDDirector, Ctrs. Medicare/Medicaid
Martin J. Sepulvida, MDVP, 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
MelApp $1.99
Harms?
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.”
Team Science Resources
Team Science Field Guide 2010
Howard Gadlin & Michelle Bennett (NIH), 2010
Thriving in an Era of Team Science
Burroughs Wellcome 2012
