Tag Archives: Clinical and Translational Science

Alternative Metrics ARE Common Metrics

3 Mar

I few weeks back, I was invited by the good folks at Altmetric to take part in a webinar to discuss my use of alternative metrics in my work as an evaluator for the UMass Center for Clinical & Translational Science. The webinar is available online, but for those who might want to see my slides and read the transcript from my part, here you go:

Slide01

Slide02I thought that I’d start with an overview of what’s happening regarding evaluation from the National perspective, since NCATS, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, as the overseer of the CTSA program, steers the ship, so to speak. For those unaware, NCATS is the Center within NIH that oversees the 62 CTSA programs across the country.

The Common Metrics Initiative is a fairly new – or I should say re-newed/re-tooled – working group coordinated by some of the Principal Investigators from the CTSA sites. FYI, the proper jargon for a site is now, hub. So when you see the word “hub,” it refers to an individual CTSA site, such as the UMass Center for Clinical & Translational Science, where I work. Consortium refers to all of the sites, as a whole.

The Common Metrics Initiative came about in an effort to better measure, evaluate, and disseminate the impact of translational science and the concepts behind it. If you think about it, the idea of translational science is that by eliminating some of the barriers and obstacles that exist between biomedical research, clinical research, and clinical practice, discoveries that improve health will move from the lab bench to the bedside, i.e. patient care, faster. The questions of how we measure the truth of this idea is what’s behind establishing a set of common metrics – a uniform, standard set of metrics that measure the speed, efficiency, and quality of this large practice called translational science.

With multiple centers, an infinite amount of programs and research projects, countless individuals involved as researchers, clinicians, students, subjects… you can easily imagine how difficult it is to come up with a common set of metrics that everyone will collect and analyze. But it’s certainly an important thing to do, not only so that we can evaluate our respective individual hubs, but also so that we can compare across hubs.

Briefly, there are four key areas that have been identified as targets for the implementation of common metrics – workforce development (this involves training opportunities for individuals to learn, among other things, how to conduct clinical research); resources and services of each CTSA site; the collective impact of all the programs, functions, and such of an individual site; and the larger CTSA consortium as a whole.

Slide03For today’s talk, I’m going to focus on the area where alternative metrics are most useful. NCATS defines the different resources and services each hub offers as the following:

  • Biomedical informatics
  • Biostatistics, Epidemiology, Research Design and Ethics (commonly known as “the BERD”)
  • Pilot project funding
  • Regulatory Knowledge and Support
  • Community Engagement in Research
  • And Navigational Support – how well those administering hubs connect people to the resources and services that they need.

Slide04Further, I want to focus on the first three bits within this area, BMI, the BERD, and Pilot Funding.

Slide05As the evaluator for the UMCCTS, my job is basically all about answering questions. It’s a good thing that I was a librarian already, since answering questions is the librarians forte. I can also say that one of the things that I love most about being a librarian is answering interesting questions, and my role now certainly offers up a few interesting questions like these:

How effective are our resources and services – from bioinformatics to the parts of the BERD – in contributing to translational research?

When we give people money for pilot research, how well does this research then generate funding for further research? And then, what’s the impact of that research? How is it transforming health care practice and, ultimately, health?

And then the big elephant in the room, not mentioned on this slide, how do we go about answering these questions? The idea of identifying and analyzing a core set of common metrics is one attempt, but what should those metrics be?

These are big, difficult, and very interesting questions.

Slide06Of course, we start with the usual suspects. We count things. How many new projects are initiated? How many people are involved? How many trans-disciplinary collaborations are formed? How many students and new investigators are mentored and trained? How many publications result from the research done? How much new grant funding is obtained to further the work? Remember, the pilot funds offered by CTSA hubs are seed funds. They are meant to help get projects started, not fund them forever.

But what else besides these common metrics can we look to to draw a bigger picture of the success of our work? This, you guessed it, is where we look at alternative or altmetrics.

Slide07So let’s take an example. Here’s a paper authored by one of our researchers and funded, in part, through the resources and services of the UMCCTS. When we’re counting publications as a measure of success, it’s one that I can count. The other thing that I can count that’s fairly traditional is the number of citing articles. We know that this is a relatively good marker for impact – someone citing your work means that they used your work, in some way, to further their own. So the original work is having an effect. In this case, I could point out that 141 other publications needed to use this publication somehow. So we’ve got a reach, in the simplest terms, of 141 – 141 people, projects, research studies, something. This we can say from these two metrics: 1 paper, 141 citations.

But as we all know, today’s communication tools allow for much broader – and easier – dissemination of science. One of my goals, in my work, (you could see it as a challenge and/or an opportunity, too), is to help researchers and funders and other stakeholders appreciate the value of these other tools. To help them see how these tools give us a whole set of other metrics that can help us evaluate the impact of the work.

Slide08This particular paper is always a good example because you can clearly see, via the Altmetric tool, how far it’s traveled beyond the strict confines of scholarly, scientific publications. It’s also reached news outlets and social media users. It’s reached a wide cross-section of people – the general public, patients, other health care practitioners, other researchers in different disciplines. These are also important. We can argue over the level of importance, as compared to citations, but it’s difficult to ignore them – to claim that they have nothing to say when it comes to the measurable impact of this one paper.

The other reason that I like to use this particular paper as an example, besides its impressive Altmetric donut, is because the final author listed – one of the co-PIs for this work – also happens to be the PI for our CTSA site. She’s my boss. The big boss. She’s one of the PIs involved in the evaluation initiatives for NCATs. The first time that I demoed the Donut for her, she loved it. How could she not? Apart from the non-biased reaction that it’s good to see one’s work being shared, it’s also a great ego boost. Researchers, in case you don’t know, are a little bit competitive by nature. They like to see a good score, a good result, a big donut… you name it. They like it.

For those of us trying to reach the goal of bringing altmetrics into favorable light within very traditional disciplines, being able to show this type of example to your stakeholder, in this instance, my boss … it works.

Slide09So day to day, I spend a lot of time at my rock pile doing these sorts of things. I establish collections of publications, related to different groups within the UMCCTS. I maintain those collections regularly – using Collections within MyNCBI in Pubmed, or Scopus and SciVal – two tools available to me thanks to the Library of UMass Medical School. I collect data related to the common metrics outlined by NCATS, but I also collect the altmetrics. I track them all. And then I report on them all via progress reports and infographics (my latest love). It’s an ongoing – never ending – project, but it’s certainly interesting to step back from time to time and look at the big picture, the story, that all of these metrics, together, tell us.

I recently finished the final progress report for the first 5-year funding cycle of our CTSA. It really was impressive to see where we are today, in comparison to where we were just 8 or 9 years ago, when the idea of establishing a clinical and translational science center at UMass Med first took hold.

Slide10“Telling the story” is what my PI reminds me is my job. Using common and alternative metrics, I can tell the story of this one clinical research scholar who, over the past several years, has published 18 papers related to work she’s done in this program. These papers have been cited, she’s worked with many colleagues as co-authors, she’s developed a number of effective collaborations, she’s presented her work locally, regionally, and nationally, and she’s received several new grants to help her continue in her area of research. She’s also reached the public, patients, and other health care providers through multiple means.

Based on all of these metrics, I can write a pretty good story of how well this one doctor is utilizing the resources of the UMCCTS to inform practice and improve care. In a nutshell, I can tell a story of the impact of her research. If I repeat the same for each of our clinical scholars, or a group of researchers utilizing one of our research cores, or one or more of our pilot-funded projects … the story, the picture, gets bigger and, hopefully, clearer. Our Center is making a difference. That’s what we want to show. And that’s possible through the use of all of these tools and metrics.

Slide11Finally, I want and need to give a shout-out to my former colleagues and friends over at the Lamar Soutter Library here at UMass Med. I worked in the Library for 10 years before moving to the UMCCTS a little over a year ago now. It’s the work that I did in the library that first enabled me to build a relationship with our Center, and then inspired me to approach them to do the evaluation work that I do for them now. Kudos to the LSL for all of the initiatives carried out related to scholarly communications and research impact. I think together we’re helping change the environment around here and raising the level of awareness and acceptance of altmetrics.Slide12

The Art of Collaboration

12 Nov

[The following is my monthly column for the November issue of the UMCCTS newsletter.]

One of the goals of the UMCCTS is to promote and facilitate collaboration across departments and disciplines, thus effectively reducing barriers between the basic and clinical sciences, and ultimately speeding the pathway between the discovery and implementation of new treatments, therapies, and the like that improve health. One means of demonstrating collaboration is through co-authorship. The networks that develop between authors of publications give us a picture of how individuals are connected and where collaborations exist.

Social network analysis is the process of investigating social structures through the use of network and graph theories. It characterizes networked structures in terms of nodes (individual actors, people, or things within the network) and the ties or edges (relationships or interactions) that connect them. (Wikipedia, Social Network Analysis

For this month’s column, let’s look at an example of a social network analysis that shows the co-authorship relationships between members of the Division of Health Informatics and Implementation Science in the Department of Quantitative Health Sciences (QHS). QHS is one of the newest departments at UMMS, with several of the senior faculty arriving on campus only about 6 years ago. The research that the Department does in developing innovative methodologies, epidemiological research, outcomes measurement science, and biostatics is integral to the nature of clinical translational research. By examining the co-authorship relationships of members of the Health Informatics group, we get a snapshot of how well these faculty members are connecting with other departments, other disciplines, and even other institutions. In short, we see how and where collaborations have developed and thus how well the UMCCTS goal of building them is being met.

To do this analysis, we first need to identify all of the publications authored by at least one of the Division’s faculty members for the period of time that s/he has been part of the Division, as well as all of the unique co-authors associated with these papers. In doing this, I found 221 publications authored by 716 different individuals. Using Sci2, a toolset developed at Indiana University, I was able to analyze the patterns and create a visualization showing the connections between the co-authors.

Informatics Division CoAuthor Network

One thing that we clearly see is that several faculty members are prominent hubs in the network, meaning they co-author many papers with many people. Drs. Houston and Allison are the most obvious examples here. We can also see that a number of branches grow from the periphery. At the base of each of these is a faculty member from the Division (counterclockwise from upper right, Drs. Cutrona, Hogan, Shimada, Mattocks, and Yu). Finally, we note that even hubs that are less connected to the clustered middle, e.g. Drs. Yu and Pelletier, are still linked, representing the reach of the collaborative network that the Division has formed over the past years.

Tools like Sci2, Scopus, SciVal, and ISI Web of Science provide another way, i.e. a visual demonstration, of the success of our programs and the impact of the translational science being done by the members of the UMCCTS.

Sci2 Team. (2009). Science of Science (Sci2) Tool. Indiana University and SciTech Strategies, https://sci2.cns.iu.edu.

Translating “Translational”

16 Jun

UMCCTS LogoYesterday marked my six month anniversary working for the UMass Center for Clinical and Translational Science. It’s been six months of challenges and opportunities, lots of learning and adjustments, and many experiences that I both expected and didn’t. All in all, a good, positive change.

Since moving from the UMass Med School’s library to the UMCCTS, lots of people have asked me, “What are you doing now?” Truth be told, many of these same people had no idea what I was doing before, but at least they think that they know what librarians do and I let it go at that. But since becoming an evaluator for the UMCCTS, I find I have to explain two concepts; (1) the role of an evaluator and (2) translational science.

Last night, I attended Science Cafe Woo, a monthly gathering of folks in Worcester where local scientists can talk to the public about what they research. I’ve written about Science Cafe Woo here a couple of times before (An Infectious Dialogue; Sustainability: It Mean’s More than “Tit for Tat”) because it’s always a highlight of my month in terms of learning interesting science, plus I’m a strong advocate for science communication and the promotion of scientific literacy. As noted in an excellent article by Boston Globe reporter, Sacha Pfeiffer, over the past decades, government funding for scientific research and development has steadily fallen from 9.1% in the late 1960s to a paltry 3.6% today. Efforts like Science Cafe Woo, the Science Cafe movement overall, and programs like the one at my own institution that help scientists deliver a comprehensible message to different stakeholders, from corporate donors to the public tax payer, are essential if we are to be successful in our efforts to advance science, eradicate diseases, and reach our fullest potential as human beings.

And thus, there I was at last night’s Science Cafe Woo, ready to learn about the work of Glenn Gaudette, PhD, from Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Dr. Gaudette’s talk entitled, How Science Can Mend a Broken Heart, was a fascinating mini-lecture on the anatomy of the heart, cardiology, pluripotent stem cells, and … TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE. It’s the latter that made me say to my spouse when I got home, “I wish everyone who wonders what that term, translational science, means had been at Science Cafe tonight.”

Dr. Gaudette talked about his research in the Myocardial Regeneration Lab at WPI. There, he and his students discover ways to get stem cells to become myocardial (heart) cells and then how to implant these cells into damaged heart muscle, encouraging new growth and healing that without such a treatment, is impossible. In other words, when a person suffers a heart attack, some portion of their heart muscle is damaged. It eventually scars over and the heart as a whole is less efficient in its business of pumping blood throughout the body. Myocardial muscle cells don’t regenerate on their own, thus the damage remains. The theory behind Dr. Gaudette’s work, then, is if we can learn how to induce the growth of new cells in the heart, we can help a damaged heart heal, not just scar.

The exercise physiologist in me LOVED this talk. I’ve studied the heart and cardiac rehabilitation enough to understand how monumental such a new treatment could be for the millions of Americans who suffer from heart disease. It’s such a cool idea and if/when it reaches its fullest potential, becoming a clinical procedure, it will be truly amazing.

And this, in a nutshell, is translational science:

  • Dr. Gaudette and his colleagues have an idea; if we can get stem cells to become myocardial cells and deliver them into damaged heart muscle, they’ll grow into new, healthy heart muscle.
  • They work in their respective labs to figure out the problems; growing the cells, delivering the cells to the tissue, seeing if the delivered cells actually grow into new cells.
  • They come up with a novel concept to more effectively get the cells to the heart muscle; the VitaSuture.
  • They go out and talk about their ideas and findings to investors, funding agencies, and the like, trying to secure the money needed to manufacture and test this product. (There is no money in academia.)
  • They talk to regulatory agencies like the FDA about their idea, about their product, and about how to actually test it in human beings.
  • They get squashed. Stem cells are SUCH a red flag, they’re told, especially when you’re talking about putting them on a person’s heart.
  • They get back up. They think of ways to lower the risk. They make other proposals. How about regenerating ligaments?
  • They test this idea out on animals and find some success.
  • They go back to the regulatory agency with their new proposal.
  • Squashed again.
  • They get back up again. Other ideas. Even less risky.
  • And on it goes… (Read a TERRIFIC piece on this process in WPI’s spring issue of Research.)

That, my readers, is translational science. It’s getting from an idea, to success in non-human models, to successful testing in humans, to what ultimately becomes clinical practice. Translational science centers, like UMCCTS, exist to help identify and remove the barriers in this lengthy, winding, often inefficient process.

And my job … it’s to evaluate the different programs and core research centers we sponsor, so that we can determine how well we’re doing towards bringing down some of those barriers and hurdles. It’s also to disseminate the findings and the work of translational scientists at UMMS, so that our stakeholders better know and understand what we’re doing.

This morning when I came into work and told my boss all about last night’s talk, he immediately asked, “Is he working with anyone here?” and we began to talk about clinical researchers doing science here that might collaborate really well with Dr. Gaudette and his colleagues across town. Surely, there’s some follow-up to be done.

To me, these are the most interesting, exciting, and fulfilling aspects about working in a scientific research environment. There are just so many fascinating stories and I get to hear them, share them, and sometimes be part of them. Translating translation. Everyone should be so fortunate in his or her work.

Thanks to Science Cafe Woo for continuing to encourage scientists to talk to the public about their work, to Dr. Gaudette and his colleagues and students at WPI for the work they’re doing, and to the UMCCTS and all of our members who keep striving to bring the breakthroughs of science and medicine to the world.

Where the Buffalo Roam: Adventures in Health Sciences Librarianship in North Dakota

27 Oct

I’ve been on the road a LOT this month, traveling to North Dakota and Maine and, later this week, Virginia. It’s been a full schedule and I’ve missed catching up with my blog post each week. Here’s an attempt to begin filling in the holes.

Roamin' with the buffalo in North Dakota.

Roamin’ with the buffalo in North Dakota.

Last year, I was invited by members of the Program Planning Committee of the Midwest Chapter of the Medical Library Association to present a keynote lecture at their Annual Conference. As the meeting was to take place in Bismarck, ND and North Dakota was the only state of the 48 states in the Continental United States that I’d never visited, I jumped at the chance! I was flattered to be asked to talk about my work, too. 

I shared the first morning’s sessions with Betsy Humphreys, the Deputy Director of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. When we realized that we would be speaking back-to-back at the conference, Betsy and I arranged a quick phone call to talk about what we thought we were each going to say. It proved to be a really beneficial chat, as our keynotes ended up complementing one another very well.

Betsy’s talk, entitled “Points of Departure,” offers a survey of the current landscape in which medical libraries and medical librarians find themselves, and sheds light on the MANY places that professionals can insert themselves and their skills. From electronic health records to patient advocacy to health literacy to informatics, the opportunities abound for those individuals and libraries who are willing to step out (or step up) to the challenges, rather than saying the future holds no place for us. “Set out from any point,” we were reminded. They all lead to opportunity. (You can see my sketchnotes of Betsy’s talk here.)

I titled my own keynote, “Making the Case: Health Sciences Librarians Staking their Claim in a ‘New World.'” You can download the slides here, but I’ll provide an annotated version of the talk in this post.

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_01

I confess that in those times when I’m facing many deadlines, feeling stressed, feeling bored, or feeling tired, I have a particular vice that I indulge in. Fortunately for me (though not necessarily for my practices in discipline of any sort), my vice is pretty easy to partake in, as it involves a certain television show that one is hard pressed to not be able to find airing at any hour of any given day. As the deadline for this talk loomed larger, I found myself giving in to my vice so often that eventually, I figured I’d use it as a framework for my talk. Here goes…

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_02

A disclaimer.

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_03

Imagine the infamous “duhn duhn” sound. (It played during the talk.)

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_04Our episode starts at a dinner party in Louisville, Kentucky, some time in the late 1980s. Everyone had finished eating and gathered in the living room, sitting in a circle and chatting, when someone said, “I know. Let’s go around the room and everyone share a dream.” 

The usual suspects were offered up; “I hope for a family.” “I want to have children.” “I want to travel around the world.”

When it came my turn, I shared what has, for as long as I can remember, been my life’s dream,” I want to win the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.”

“GET SERIOUS!” shouted this woman who, by the way, I’d never met in my life. “Tell us something that you might ACTUALLY do!”

Sigh… My dream. Busted.

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_05

Thank you, Lenny.

 

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_06So, what’s your dream for libraries? When you think of what a library is and/or can be, what do you dream? Do you imagine the “Library of the Future,” complete with no books and lots of modular furniture, spaces for gaming and tools to help students and faculty and researchers fuel their innovative spirits? Do you dream of tranquility and order and the beauty of our National treasures, like the Library of Congress? Or do you see the library as not a place at all, but people embedded in research centers, bringing the services of libraries directly to the patrons?

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_07

And what do you dream for librarians? Do you miss the “good old days” when we held the keys to the information kingdom; when we were the gatekeepers that everyone had to pass through and by in order to access what they needed? Do you miss the heady power of those days? Or do you dream of times when librarians are no longer associated with libraries; when we’re not even called librarians anymore? What do you dream?

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_08

And for all of those dreams, do you have any kind of plan in mind for how to get there?

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_09My own library recently had our annual all-staff retreat in which our Director, Elaine Martin, delivered her “State of the Library” address. She covered where we’ve been the past year, where we are now, and where we’re likely headed over the next months. One of these future places involves the development of a new strategic plan. Looking ahead five years, where do we think we’ll be? That’s the question Elaine posed to her staff.

When I think back on all of the change that’s happened here in the past 10 years (the amount of time that I’ve worked at UMass Med), I find it pretty hard to even imagine that I ever could have imagined the things I’ve seen come and go, the transformations we’ve endured, and the many different roles we’ve taken on as a library (and as librarians). The thought of imagining the next five years seems daunting, if not downright impossible for me, and it got me to thinking about how I do go about planning my work, my roles, and my future as a health sciences librarian.

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_10

Backyard camping!

I grew up in a camping family. We camped weekends and summer vacations. We camped in the mountains, occasionally at the beach, and often in New England and Canada. My father was also a backpacker and he took my brother and I on week-long backpacking adventures, alternating years between us, during spring breaks. The first time I went on one of these trips, I was probably about 10 years old. My dad, being a good bit taller than me, often hiked ahead on the trail. He’d make his way up the path, me following behind, always being sure that he never got too far ahead that I couldn’t see his pack. (It was always a bright color – red or orange – so that I could easily see it.) 

As I thought about how I strategically plan my work, I came to realize that I do so very much like I strategically made it through the Appalachian Trail in Virginia. I call my strategy…

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_11

It works. Not just for hiking along unknown trails, but also for making one’s way down the mysterious, always developing and ever evolving paths of medical librarianship.

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_12And as every strategic plan needs goals and objectives, these are the ones that I propose for my Backpacking model:

  • Know yourself – what you do well, what you don’t do well, what you like to do, what you don’t like to do, etc.
  • Know your environment – the people, places, and things that surround you and make up your workplace.
  • Know how to bring these two things together – YOU and your environment.

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_13We talk a lot in our profession about the gap between what students, faculty, staff, and researchers want from health sciences libraries and what health sciences librarians know how to do. We’re very focused upon identifying the skills that we need to develop to close this gap and become, again, a vital and relevant resource to our patrons. The gap produces a great deal of anxiety for many of us; we don’t know how we’ll ever keep up, ever gain the skills we need, and/or ever meet our patrons’ needs again.

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_14

So I propose an exercise…

I've had LOTS of jobs.

I’ve had LOTS of jobs.

Take some time to think about every single job that you’ve ever had in your life. Write them down. Every job, everything you’ve ever volunteered for, every class that you’ve ever taken in formal education or not. List them all.

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_16

And then, take that list and from it create another list of all of the many, many, many things that you know how to do. Yes, you’re a librarian and you have a whole host of skills that come with that, but think of others. Think of how all of the other things that you’ve done in your life have helped you gain expertise in information management or communication or team building or organization. And once you have that list, look around you at all of the many, many, many needs your current environment offers. Can you now, with all of these lists in hand, find one or two or a dozen matches, opportunities where you can put yourself, the librarian, to good use to meet these needs? As Betsy Humphreys noted in her talk, these opportunities are our POINTS OF DEPARTURE. They are our keys to relevancy and the future of our profession.

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_17

My list looks like this.

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_18

And it defines me, the health sciences librarian, as a person who does all of those things. As we each redefine ourselves and our roles, we will, ultimately, redefine our profession. Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_19

And our value will no longer be such a mystery.

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_20

This plan, I think, pretty much closes that gap that worries us so.

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_21

Next, I provide a bunch of examples from my own work. For each, I offer the project that came to be and the skills used to meet the needs of each.

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_22

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_23

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_24

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_25

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_26

I can imagine some new projects and dream up some new places to perhaps find myself working.

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_27

I can dream of really BIG things on the horizon, areas that could offer countless opportunities for a librarian.

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_28

For my closing argument, I offer up my good friend, Cindy Stewart. If you’re a medical librarian, you may well know Cindy, for up until just a few weeks ago, she was an Associate Director for the health sciences library at Dartmouth’s medical school. Today, though, she’s the new Program Manager for Dartmouth’s Clinical and Translational Science Award. Do you think she stopped being a librarian, simply because she assumed this new position? NO. Do you think that she got this position in large part because of all of the skills she honed over the years as a medical librarian. YES. Cindy was able to sell herself as the person for this job because of all of the things that she knows how to do, from being a librarian, that fit all of the information needs (and more) that the researchers at Dartmouth and their CTSA program have and/or are going to have over the next few years. She closed that gap, but good.

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_29

Next I read a great passage from this book, but I’m not going to post it here. Suffice it to say, it summed up how we do a lot of things in life, develop a lot of habits and patterns and trains of thought, based upon not much more than a couple of horse’s asses. (The story is about why railroad tracks are the width that they are.)

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_30Did I make my case?

Sally-Gore-keynote_Page_31

You decide.

*********************************************************

There were other tremendously great talks at the conference. I won’t recap them all here, but I’ve posted my sketchnotes for each:

 

 

Let’s Decide!

6 Jun

The title of this post can be found written in large, bold letters in the notes I took during a meeting on Tuesday. “LET’S DECIDE!” It followed the side comment (my notes from any meeting are filled with side comments and/or digressions), “Basically, we can facilitate this work and see that as our role or keep doing our own thing.” I realize that it’s not truly an “either/or” situation, but…

Maybe I should offer a little background, first.

Initially, Aim 2 in the proposal for my work as an informationist on the mammography study was this:

Aim 2: Assist investigators in identifying and reporting information technology issues that have arisen in the implementation of the study that may be of use to others.

After spending a great deal of time searching the literature in fields from information technology to medical informatics to team science (or simply teamwork), I realized that not much existed that fit the issues that they’d encountered. Further, I wasn’t convinced that writing an article and/or white paper on the topic was the place to start in terms of reporting their experience. I thought that perhaps bringing people together, i.e. the different stakeholders, to talk about the issues, problems, lessons learned, etc. that occur when IT folks and a research team come together to work on a project. I felt that such a discussion would yield a lot of valuable information that could then, somehow, be collected, organized, and disseminated in a useful manner. After a lot of talk and brainstorming within the team, we all agreed that this seemed a good path to take.

Making a long story short, this idea took hold, evolved, grew, and a couple of weeks ago, took the form of a mini-symposium that was part of the annual research retreat for our Center for Clinical and Translational Science. The program, entitled, “Data Acquisition, Data Management, and Subject Tracking in Clinical and Translational Research: Seeking Solutions to Persistent Challenges,” brought together the researchers from the mammography study, two faculty members from our Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, a biostatistician from the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, and a representative from our Information Services department. My role now is to pull all of the content from the symposium, along with other useful resources, and make it available online for the benefit of our research community.

This is all a really happy story for me in that I’ve been able to help facilitate and see something come together that we have been talking about in my library for a number of years now. Finally… FINALLY … people are starting to talk about issues around data. For too long, the only folks that I’ve heard talking about managing data are librarians. And frustratingly, we’ve mostly been talking among ourselves. But over the past months, I’ve been able to watch people that we’ve been wanting to reach addressing the issue. And best of all, the different players are talking to one another and not just among themselves.

So why the frustrating digression in my notes from Tuesday? Well, it’s because in my position, I can see several things happening. First, I can see several different camps, including the library, trying to stake their claim on one or another aspect in the data management services suite. And there’s a lot of overlap.

Secondly, there’s a lot of the feeling of “we’re the experts, so we should be the ones to do this.” Going along with this is also a lack of awareness and/or understanding of what each stakeholder really is expert in. For example, I might think that the people in Information Services ought to address issues around data storage and security. This is true, of course, but it leaves out the expertise that some in that department have around the proper ways to build databases and thus best practices in file structures and naming conventions and other things that might make me want to say, “Hey! That’s my area of expertise, not yours.” Similarly, many libraries developing data management services are focusing a great deal on providing data management planning in grant applications, but if you asked my colleagues in Quantitative Health Sciences, they’d say, “That’s what we do. Why are you saying it’s your role?”

talk talk talkLastly, despite the success of the mini-symposium, there’s still an awful lot of “talking amongst ourselves” going on. I see this more easily, and thus get a little frustrated at times, because I have my foot in several different areas where I’m hearing the same message. In other words, despite the success of bringing people together for the mini-symposium, there’s still a lot of room for improving how well we communicate and coordinate our efforts, not only campus-wide, but even within my library. So when I wrote “LET’S DECIDE!” it was my reaction to what I see as a really big need that we can fill. There is a huge need for someone to fix the broken communication system, help eliminate some of the duplication of efforts, and facilitate the development of services around data within my institution. And I believe that someone is me and my colleagues in the library. 

One of the characteristics of the library that was lost when we brought our resources to the researchers was our place as the hub of a lot of academic activity. People used to come to our physical library and here the different worlds of campus would collide. Researchers and faculty members and clinicians were forcibly less isolated in labs or offices. They literally ran into one another and likely had a bigger picture of things that were going on, simply through the interactions. At the same time, librarians were more easily able to know a lot of what was going on, too. We had a front row seat for all of the collisions. What I’ve found, as I got out of the library and started working on research teams, is that by going to the people that used to come to us, I’m bringing that lost quality back to life. While it can be incredibly frustrating to observe different groups addressing the same issues, each unaware of what the other is up to, the fact is that I can make them aware.

The mammography study team didn’t know that a team in the library has been working and working and working towards a goal of teaching good data management practices to the students, but as I’m a member of both teams, I did. So, when the study team made a suggestion that we recreate the symposium via a webinar series, archive it, and make it available to the students as part of their curriculum, I immediately chimed in, “Wait! Let me tell you what we’ve been working on.” A similar thing happened with the data management group in Quantitative Health Sciences. And now, we have a meeting scheduled for next month where we will bring these groups together – the research team, the QHS group, IS, and the library’s data services group.

To me, being able to facilitate these gatherings is one of the most rewarding parts of this informationist work. It’s a great role for librarians to take in the area of data management. As I wrote a few posts back, it’s the networking aspect of eScience and a place where we can put our skills to good use. The library itself used to bring people together. Today, librarians do.

Get the Word Out!

7 Nov

Stay tuned for a report of a really full, really engaging, and really interesting few days of learning that I experienced at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association this week. It was a terrific opportunity and I look forward to sharing some of the insights and thoughts (and pictures – of course there will be sketchnotes) that I gleaned while there.

But first… there’s ANOTHER symposium that I have to attend to attending. Tomorrow is the 2013 Community Engagement and Research Symposium here at UMass Medical School. One of my embedded informationist assignments is on the leadership team of the CER Section of our Center for Clinical and Translational Science. I’ve been doing some work for them around the topic of research impact and research dissemination, so I thought I’d submit a poster for the symposium. It got accepted and I’ll be presenting it tomorrow, but you don’t have to wait. Here’s a preview for my readers:

IMPACT_CER-SYMPOSIUM-POSTER

HUGE thanks to my friends and colleagues, Kristi Holmes, PhD and Cathy Sarli, MLIS, for being leaders in our field in the area of documenting research impact. If you’re unfamiliar with the Becker Model, check it out. It’s a valuable tool and helping researchers better understand the many ways in which they can share their work is a perfect role for librarians to assume.