Kelsey L Ford1, Jenn Leiferman1, Bruno Sobral1,2, John K Bennett3,4, Susan L Moore1, Sheana Bull1,3. 1. Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA. 2. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA. 3. University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA. 4. University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Academic-industry collaborations (AICs) are endorsed to alleviate challenges in digital health, but partnership experiences remain understudied. The qualitative study's objective investigated collaboration experiences between academic institutions and digital health companies. METHODS: A phenomenology methodology captured experiences of AICs, eliciting perspectives from academic researchers and industry affiliates (e.g., leadership, company investigators). Semi-structured interviews probed eligible collaborators about their experiences in digital health. Analysts coded and organized data into significant statements reaching thematic saturation. RESULTS: Participants (N=20) were interviewed from 6 academic institutions and 14 unique industry partners. Seven themes emerged: (I) Collaboration evolves with time, relationships, funding, and evidence; (II) Collaboration demands strong relationships and interpersonal dynamics; (III) Operational processes vary across collaborations; (IV) Collaboration climate and context matters; (V) Shared expectations lead to a better understanding of success; (VI) Overcoming challenges with recommendations; (VII) Collaboration may help navigate the global pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Digital health academic industry collaboration demands strong relationships, requiring flexible mechanisms of collaboration and cultural fit. Diverse models of collaboration exist and remain dependent on contextual factors. While no collaboration conquers all challenges in digital health, AICs may serve as a facilitator for improved digital health products, thus advancing science, promoting public health, and benefiting the economy. 2021 mHealth. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Academic-industry collaborations (AICs) are endorsed to alleviate challenges in digital health, but partnership experiences remain understudied. The qualitative study's objective investigated collaboration experiences between academic institutions and digital health companies. METHODS: A phenomenology methodology captured experiences of AICs, eliciting perspectives from academic researchers and industry affiliates (e.g., leadership, company investigators). Semi-structured interviews probed eligible collaborators about their experiences in digital health. Analysts coded and organized data into significant statements reaching thematic saturation. RESULTS: Participants (N=20) were interviewed from 6 academic institutions and 14 unique industry partners. Seven themes emerged: (I) Collaboration evolves with time, relationships, funding, and evidence; (II) Collaboration demands strong relationships and interpersonal dynamics; (III) Operational processes vary across collaborations; (IV) Collaboration climate and context matters; (V) Shared expectations lead to a better understanding of success; (VI) Overcoming challenges with recommendations; (VII) Collaboration may help navigate the global pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Digital health academic industry collaboration demands strong relationships, requiring flexible mechanisms of collaboration and cultural fit. Diverse models of collaboration exist and remain dependent on contextual factors. While no collaboration conquers all challenges in digital health, AICs may serve as a facilitator for improved digital health products, thus advancing science, promoting public health, and benefiting the economy. 2021 mHealth. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Public-private sector partnerships; academic-industry collaboration (AIC); digital health; mHealth
Authors: Lauren F Fitz Harris; Lauren Toledo; Erica Dunbar; Gustavo A Aquino; Steven R Nesheim Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Elizabeth Murray; Eric B Hekler; Gerhard Andersson; Linda M Collins; Aiden Doherty; Chris Hollis; Daniel E Rivera; Robert West; Jeremy C Wyatt Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Kevin Patrick; Eric B Hekler; Deborah Estrin; David C Mohr; Heleen Riper; David Crane; Job Godino; William T Riley Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 5.043