PURPOSE: Conduct of cancer clinical trials requires coordination and cooperation among research and clinic teams. Diffusion of and confusion about responsibility may occur if team members' perceptions of roles and objectives do not align. These factors are critical to the success of cancer centers but are poorly studied. METHODS: We developed a survey adapting components of the Adapted Team Climate Inventory, Measure of Team Identification, and Measure of In-Group Bias. Surveys were administered to research and clinic staff at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t tests, and analyses of variance. RESULTS: Responses were received from 105 staff (clinic, n = 55; research, n = 50; 61% response rate). Compared with clinic staff, research staff identified more strongly with their own group ( P < .01) but less strongly with the overall cancer center ( P = .02). Both clinic staff and research staff viewed their own group's goals as clearer than those of the other group ( P < .01) and felt that members of their groups interacted and shared information within ( P < .01) and across ( P < .01) groups more than the other group did. Research staff perceived daily outcomes as more important than did clinic staff ( P = .05), specifically research-related outcomes ( P = .07). CONCLUSION: Although there are many similarities between clinic and research teams, we also identified key differences, including perceptions of goal clarity and sharing, understanding and alignment with cancer center goals, and importance of outcomes. Future studies should examine how variation in perceptions and group dynamics between clinic and research teams may impact function and processes of cancer care.
PURPOSE: Conduct of cancer clinical trials requires coordination and cooperation among research and clinic teams. Diffusion of and confusion about responsibility may occur if team members' perceptions of roles and objectives do not align. These factors are critical to the success of cancer centers but are poorly studied. METHODS: We developed a survey adapting components of the Adapted Team Climate Inventory, Measure of Team Identification, and Measure of In-Group Bias. Surveys were administered to research and clinic staff at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t tests, and analyses of variance. RESULTS: Responses were received from 105 staff (clinic, n = 55; research, n = 50; 61% response rate). Compared with clinic staff, research staff identified more strongly with their own group ( P < .01) but less strongly with the overall cancer center ( P = .02). Both clinic staff and research staff viewed their own group's goals as clearer than those of the other group ( P < .01) and felt that members of their groups interacted and shared information within ( P < .01) and across ( P < .01) groups more than the other group did. Research staff perceived daily outcomes as more important than did clinic staff ( P = .05), specifically research-related outcomes ( P = .07). CONCLUSION: Although there are many similarities between clinic and research teams, we also identified key differences, including perceptions of goal clarity and sharing, understanding and alignment with cancer center goals, and importance of outcomes. Future studies should examine how variation in perceptions and group dynamics between clinic and research teams may impact function and processes of cancer care.
Authors: Julia Neily; Peter D Mills; Yinong Young-Xu; Brian T Carney; Priscilla West; David H Berger; Lisa M Mazzia; Douglas E Paull; James P Bagian Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stephen H Taplin; Sallie Weaver; Eduardo Salas; Veronica Chollette; Heather M Edwards; Suanna S Bruinooge; Michael P Kosty Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: David E Gerber; Torsten Reimer; Erin L Williams; Mary Gill; Laurin Loudat Priddy; Deidi Bergestuen; Joan H Schiller; Haskell Kirkpatrick; Simon J Craddock Lee Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Sl Greenspan; D Nace; S Perera; M Ferchak; G Fiorito; D Medich; K Zukowski; D Adams; C Lee; M Saul; Nm Resnick Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Denis Chênevert; Tyler L Brown; Marie-Pascale Pomey; Nadia Benomar; Philippe Colombat; Evelyne Fouquereau; Carmen G Loiselle Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-05-03
Authors: Simon J Craddock Lee; Torsten Reimer; Sandra Garcia; Erin L Williams; Mary West; Tobi Stuart; David E Gerber Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2019-10-07
Authors: David E Gerber; Valerie L Clark; Thomas Y Sheffield; M Shaalan Beg; Yang Xie; M E Blair Holbein; Celette Sugg Skinner; Simon J Craddock Lee; Erin L Williams Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-07-29
Authors: David E Gerber; Thomas Y Sheffield; M Shaalan Beg; Erin L Williams; Valerie L Clark; Yang Xie; M E Blair Holbein; Celette Sugg Skinner; Simon J Craddock Lee Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 11.908