- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
Thinking Together, Working Apart: Leveraging a Community of Practice to Facilitate Productive and Meaningful Remote Collaboration
letter
Author(s):
Mark Embrett
1
,
*
,
,
Rebecca H. Liu
2 ,
Katie Aubrecht
3 ,
Andriy Koval
4 ,
Jonathan Lai
5
Publication date (Electronic):
12 July 2020
Publisher:
Kerman University of Medical Sciences
Read this article at
There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
Considering the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, scholars were encouraged to cease collocated meetings. Many researchers have turned to remote collaboration to continue group-based projects. This paper focuses on the structure, processes, and outcomes that a group of physically distanced, embedded researchers used to collaborate across Canada to produce research outputs prior to the pandemic. The intent of this paper is to provide an overview of mechanisms that can facilitate meaningful and productive remote collaboration using online and digital technologies as a feasible and effective alternative mode of communication for research teams.
Related collections
Most cited references18
- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: not found
A novel coronavirus outbreak of global health concern
Chen Wang, Peter W Horby, Frederick G. Hayden … (2020)
In December, 2019, Wuhan, Hubei province, China, became the centre of an outbreak of pneumonia of unknown cause, which raised intense attention not only within China but internationally. Chinese health authorities did an immediate investigation to characterise and control the disease, including isolation of people suspected to have the disease, close monitoring of contacts, epidemiological and clinical data collection from patients, and development of diagnostic and treatment procedures. By Jan 7, 2020, Chinese scientists had isolated a novel coronavirus (CoV) from patients in Wuhan. The genetic sequence of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) enabled the rapid development of point-of-care real-time RT-PCR diagnostic tests specific for 2019-nCoV (based on full genome sequence data on the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data [GISAID] platform). Cases of 2019-nCoV are no longer limited to Wuhan. Nine exported cases of 2019-nCoV infection have been reported in Thailand, Japan, Korea, the USA, Vietnam, and Singapore to date, and further dissemination through air travel is likely.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 As of Jan 23, 2020, confirmed cases were consecutively reported in 32 provinces, municipalities, and special administrative regions in China, including Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. 3 These cases detected outside Wuhan, together with the detection of infection in at least one household cluster—reported by Jasper Fuk-Woo Chan and colleagues 6 in The Lancet—and the recently documented infections in health-care workers caring for patients with 2019-nCoV indicate human-to-human transmission and thus the risk of much wider spread of the disease. As of Jan 23, 2020, a total of 835 cases with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection have been detected in China, of whom 25 have died and 93% remain in hospital (figure ). 3 Figure Timeline of early stages of 2019-nCoV outbreak 2019-nCoV=2019 novel coronavirus. In The Lancet, Chaolin Huang and colleagues 7 report clinical features of the first 41 patients admitted to the designated hospital in Wuhan who were confirmed to be infected with 2019-nCoV by Jan 2, 2020. The study findings provide first-hand data about severity of the emerging 2019-nCoV infection. Symptoms resulting from 2019-nCoV infection at the prodromal phase, including fever, dry cough, and malaise, are non-specific. Unlike human coronavirus infections, upper respiratory symptoms are notably infrequent. Intestinal presentations observed with SARS also appear to be uncommon, although two of six cases reported by Chan and colleagues had diarrhoea. 6 Common laboratory findings on admission to hospital include lymphopenia and bilateral ground-glass opacity or consolidation in chest CT scans. These clinical presentations confounded early detection of infected cases, especially against a background of ongoing influenza and circulation of other respiratory viruses. Exposure history to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale market served as an important clue at the early stage, yet its value has decreased as more secondary and tertiary cases have appeared. Of the 41 patients in this cohort, 22 (55%) developed severe dyspnoea and 13 (32%) required admission to an intensive care unit, and six died. 7 Hence, the case-fatality proportion in this cohort is approximately 14·6%, and the overall case fatality proportion appears to be closer to 3% (table ). However, both of these estimates should be treated with great caution because not all patients have concluded their illness (ie, recovered or died) and the true number of infections and full disease spectrum are unknown. Importantly, in emerging viral infection outbreaks the case-fatality ratio is often overestimated in the early stages because case detection is highly biased towards the more severe cases. As further data on the spectrum of mild or asymptomatic infection becomes available, one case of which was documented by Chan and colleagues, 6 the case-fatality ratio is likely to decrease. Nevertheless, the 1918 influenza pandemic is estimated to have had a case-fatality ratio of less than 5% 13 but had an enormous impact due to widespread transmission, so there is no room for complacency. Table Characteristics of patients who have been infected with 2019-nCoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV7, 8, 10, 11, 12 2019-nCoV * MERS-CoV SARS-CoV Demographic Date December, 2019 June, 2012 November, 2002 Location of first detection Wuhan, China Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Guangdong, China Age, years (range) 49 (21–76) 56 (14–94) 39·9 (1–91) Male:female sex ratio 2·7:1 3·3:1 1:1·25 Confirmed cases 835† 2494 8096 Mortality 25† (2·9%) 858 (37%) 744 (10%) Health-care workers 16‡ 9·8% 23·1% Symptoms Fever 40 (98%) 98% 99–100% Dry cough 31 (76%) 47% 29–75% Dyspnoea 22 (55%) 72% 40–42% Diarrhoea 1 (3%) 26% 20–25% Sore throat 0 21% 13–25% Ventilatory support 9·8% 80% 14–20% Data are n, age (range), or n (%) unless otherwise stated. 2019-nCoV=2019 novel coronavirus. MERS-CoV=Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. SARS-CoV=severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. * Demographics and symptoms for 2019-nCoV infection are based on data from the first 41 patients reported by Chaolin Huang and colleagues (admitted before Jan 2, 2020). 8 Case numbers and mortalities are updated up to Jan 21, 2020) as disclosed by the Chinese Health Commission. † Data as of Jan 23, 2020. ‡ Data as of Jan 21, 2020. 9 As an RNA virus, 2019-nCoV still has the inherent feature of a high mutation rate, although like other coronaviruses the mutation rate might be somewhat lower than other RNA viruses because of its genome-encoded exonuclease. This aspect provides the possibility for this newly introduced zoonotic viral pathogen to adapt to become more efficiently transmitted from person to person and possibly become more virulent. Two previous coronavirus outbreaks had been reported in the 21st century. The clinical features of 2019-nCoV, in comparison with SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV, are summarised in the table. The ongoing 2019-nCoV outbreak has undoubtedly caused the memories of the SARS-CoV outbreak starting 17 years ago to resurface in many people. In November, 2002, clusters of pneumonia of unknown cause were reported in Guangdong province, China, now known as the SARS-CoV outbreak. The number of cases of SARS increased substantially in the next year in China and later spread globally, 14 infecting at least 8096 people and causing 774 deaths. 12 The international spread of SARS-CoV in 2003 was attributed to its strong transmission ability under specific circumstances and the insufficient preparedness and implementation of infection control practices. Chinese public health and scientific capabilities have been greatly transformed since 2003. An efficient system is ready for monitoring and responding to infectious disease outbreaks and the 2019-nCoV pneumonia has been quickly added to the Notifiable Communicable Disease List and given the highest priority by Chinese health authorities. The increasing number of cases and widening geographical spread of the disease raise grave concerns about the future trajectory of the outbreak, especially with the Chinese Lunar New Year quickly approaching. Under normal circumstances, an estimated 3 billion trips would be made in the Spring Festival travel rush this year, with 15 million trips happening in Wuhan. The virus might further spread to other places during this festival period and cause epidemics, especially if it has acquired the ability to efficiently transmit from person to person. Consequently, the 2019-nCoV outbreak has led to implementation of extraordinary public health measures to reduce further spread of the virus within China and elsewhere. Although WHO has not recommended any international travelling restrictions so far, 15 the local government in Wuhan announced on Jan 23, 2020, the suspension of public transportation, with closure of airports, railway stations, and highways in the city, to prevent further disease transmission. 16 Further efforts in travel restriction might follow. Active surveillance for new cases and close monitoring of their contacts are being implemented. To improve detection efficiency, front-line clinics, apart from local centres for disease control and prevention, should be armed with validated point-of-care diagnostic kits. Rapid information disclosure is a top priority for disease control and prevention. A daily press release system has been established in China to ensure effective and efficient disclosure of epidemic information. Education campaigns should be launched to promote precautions for travellers, including frequent hand-washing, cough etiquette, and use of personal protection equipment (eg, masks) when visiting public places. Also, the general public should be motivated to report fever and other risk factors for coronavirus infection, including travel history to affected area and close contacts with confirmed or suspected cases. Considering that substantial numbers of patients with SARS and MERS were infected in health-care settings, precautions need to be taken to prevent nosocomial spread of the virus. Unfortunately, 16 health-care workers, some of whom were working in the same ward, have been confirmed to be infected with 2019-nCoV to date, although the routes of transmission and the possible role of so-called super-spreaders remain to be clarified. 9 Epidemiological studies need to be done to assess risk factors for infection in health-care personnel and quantify potential subclinical or asymptomatic infections. Notably, the transmission of SARS-CoV was eventually halted by public health measures including elimination of nosocomial infections. We need to be wary of the current outbreak turning into a sustained epidemic or even a pandemic. The availability of the virus' genetic sequence and initial data on the epidemiology and clinical consequences of the 2019-nCoV infections are only the first steps to understanding the threat posed by this pathogen. Many important questions remain unanswered, including its origin, extent, and duration of transmission in humans, ability to infect other animal hosts, and the spectrum and pathogenesis of human infections. Characterising viral isolates from successive generations of human infections will be key to updating diagnostics and assessing viral evolution. Beyond supportive care, 17 no specific coronavirus antivirals or vaccines of proven efficacy in humans exist, although clinical trials of both are ongoing for MERS-CoV and one controlled trial of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir monotherapy has been launched for 2019-nCoV (ChiCTR2000029308). Future animal model and clinical studies should focus on assessing the effectiveness and safety of promising antiviral drugs, monoclonal and polyclonal neutralising antibody products, and therapeutics directed against immunopathologic host responses. We have to be aware of the challenge and concerns brought by 2019-nCoV to our community. Every effort should be given to understand and control the disease, and the time to act is now. This online publication has been corrected. The corrected version first appeared at thelancet.com on January 29, 2020
- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
Open Science Framework (OSF)
Erin Foster, Ariel Deardorff (2017)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Open Science Framework (OSF) is a tool that promotes open, centralized workflows by enabling capture of different aspects and products of the research lifecycle, including developing a research idea, designing a study, storing and analyzing collected data, and writing and publishing reports or papers. It is developed and maintained by the Center for Open Science (COS), a nonprofit organization founded in 2013 that conducts research into scientific practice, builds and supports scientific research communities, and develops research tools and infrastructure to enable managing and archiving research [1]. As an organization, the COS encourages openness, integrity, and reproducibility in research across scientific disciplines [2]. The OSF supports a variety of tools and services to assist in the research process. This review focuses primarily on the core functionality of the OSF, with brief descriptions of some of the other existing tools and services. FEATURES The core functionality of the OSF is its ability to create and develop projects. Very simply, a project functions as a workspace, with the design of a particular project depending on users and the type of research workflow that they are trying to manage and preserve. Users might wish to set up a project for a particular paper or specific experiment or for the work of an entire lab. To create a project, users must set up a free account with the OSF. Once logged in, users are taken to a dashboard with the option to create a project. The standard project layout includes a wiki, a log of recent activity, and spaces to upload files, add tags, and create new components (i.e., subprojects). Each user, project, component, and file is given a unique, persistent uniform resource locator (URL) to enable sharing and promote attribution. Projects can also be assigned digital object identifiers (DOIs) and archival resource keys (ARKs) if they are made publicly available. The OSF provides built-in version control that records changes to project files and previous versions through OSF Storage. The OSF is intended to be collaborative, and users can easily add contributors to projects. The OSF supports controlled access, so project members can be assigned different permissions: read only, read and write, and administrator. Contributors do not have to set up an OSF account prior to being added to projects. Unregistered contributors can be added to projects using their full names and email addresses; they will be contacted with a link to set up an OSF account. Contributors who already have an OSF account can be added to a project by searching for their names in the OSF. While the spirit of open science encourages making projects publicly available, there are options to make all or parts of a project private. The Project Overview page includes a toggle button that allows those with administrator-level permissions on the project to determine which parts of the project (if not all) will be public or private. In general, private projects are not browsable. Users can find public projects online. Certain components of a public project can be made private; those will be hidden from public view. To capture impact, the OSF also includes project-level analytics, such as unique visitors, downloads per project file, and top referrers. In addition to using unique, persistent URLs, DOIs, and ARKs, the OSF promotes sharing in a variety of additional ways. A primary one is the option to add a license. The COS links to resources for choosing a license with a variety of license options available, including Creative Commons, MIT, Apache, and GNU General Public. A user who does not wish to use any of the predetermined licenses can upload an alternative license. A license can apply to the project as a whole, or different licenses can be assigned to different parts of the project. While there are many features built into the OSF, the platform also allows third-party add-ons or integrations that strengthen the functionality and collaborative nature of the OSF. These add-ons fall into two categories: citation management integrations and storage integrations. Mendeley and Zotero can be integrated to support citation management, while Amazon S3, Box, Dataverse, Dropbox, figshare, GitHub, and oneCloud can be integrated to support storage. The OSF provides unlimited storage for projects, but individual files are limited to 5 gigabytes (GB) each. Using one of the storage add-ons eliminates this restriction. Registration is a major feature of the OSF and its efforts to preserve, provide access to, and promote transparency in research. Any OSF project can be registered, which means that a time-stamped version of the project is created that cannot be edited or deleted and is intended to act as a preserved version of a project. A user can, however, withdraw a project, which removes the content of the registered project but leaves behind a record of it. Registered projects can be made public immediately or embargoed for up to four years. Additionally, DOIs and ARKs can be created for public registrations. Any content stored on third-party servers is copied as part of the registration process and stored with the rest of the project content on OSF servers. USER COMMUNITY AND SERVICES The COS supports a diverse audience, from researchers and scientists to software developers to publishers and societies. While many of the features of the OSF are designed to help researchers create, manage, and preserve research, there are additional free OSF tools and services that can engage other user groups. OSF for Institutions allows institutions to create a landing page in the OSF to identify and connect affiliated users and projects. OSF users can identify their projects as being affiliated with particular institutions, and additional features, such as single-sign on and institutional branding of the landing page, can provide a seamless user experience for institutional affiliates using the OSF. OSF for Meetings provides a space to share posters and presentations from meetings and conferences. When a user registers a conference or meeting, the OSF will provide a branded, persistent page where conference attendees can upload posters and presentations, as well as browse content added by themselves or colleagues before, during, or after the event. OSF Preprints lets OSF users share preprints for feedback and to gain exposure. Each preprint receives a unique identifier, and users can upload supplementary files as needed. Users also have access to analytics for their uploaded preprints. In addition to engaging with user communities through these services, the COS maintains an Ambassador program, which works at local levels to promote and support open science at research institutions. These ambassadors represent the COS and can provide training and additional resources about the OSF or other COS products. A list of current COS ambassadors is available online. DOCUMENTATION AND TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS As an open source service, the OSF has freely available documentation and support. The OSF home page has a link to support, including FAQs, contact information, and a set of OSF Guides that give step-by-step guidance and instructions on using the OSF. The COS also delivers regular workshops, webinars, and online tutorials. Past webinars can be viewed on the COS YouTube channel. Access to the OSF requires only a working computer and Internet connection. Larger collaborations such as the OSF for Institutions program require additional configuration by the COS and institutional information technology staff. CASE STUDIES One of the most prominent uses of the OSF tool is the Psychology Reproducibility Study, a collaboration between the University of Virginia and the COS. The more than 270 researchers involved in this project replicated 100 top psychology studies to see if they could produce the same results [3]. While the study results are interesting (they were able to replicate fewer than half), what is more interesting in this context is that the entire research process for each study—including data, analysis, publications, and comments—was openly shared on the OSF [4]. The Psychology Reproducibility Study highlights the strengths of the OSF, including collaboration features, the ability to create subprojects, and citation features, which allow researchers (and authors like us) to cite various components of the project. While this project is probably larger than most using the OSF, it serves as a good example of how health sciences researchers might integrate the tool into their research workflows. A smaller-scale example of OSF usage comes from the University of California–San Francisco (UCSF) Library, where, in the fall of 2015, a team of librarians used the OSF for an assessment project [5]. They selected the OSF because they needed a tool that would allow them to easily keep notes, upload files, collaborate, and share information (Figure 1). Figure 1 University of California–San Francisco (UCSF) Open Science Framework (OSF) project page Available at https://osf.io/d8nje/. While initial response to the OSF was positive, some team members found it confusing to navigate the various components and had trouble locating particular documents or wiki pages. The wiki feature also proved not to be as user-friendly as they had hoped, because the formatting options were limited and editing took some getting used to. Some of these challenges might have been due to the design of the project in the OSF; a more well-thought-out project with less hierarchy might have been easier to navigate. In the end, the team decided that while they liked some aspects of the tool, particularly the ability to assign a DOI to a project, their institutional wiki or Box account would have been a better tool for this project. They did note, however, that the OSF would provide an excellent way to collaborate with colleagues at other institutions who do not have access to UCSF-only tools. SUMMARY Because of its focus on openness and unique identifiers, the OSF can be an excellent tool for promoting best practices around reproducibility, transparency, and research data management. The high degree of flexibility means that projects can be customized easily to fit a variety of needs, from small projects to large research collaborations. Moreover, the COS is continually working to add more components and capabilities to the tool. As with all research tools, the usefulness of the OSF depends on how easily it can be adapted into a researcher’s workflow. The librarians at UCSF found it to be less useful than other tools they had available to them, but the example of the Psychology Reproducibility Study shows how the unique registration and collaboration features can provide a real benefit. Beyond researchers’ workflows, local institutional requirements or policies can also affect how the OSF can be used. For example, whether or not the OSF is Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)–compliant depends upon an institution’s security and privacy practices and would require further conversations with an institution’s information technology administration. Anyone interested in using the OSF is encouraged to create a free account and give it a try. Librarians might also consider inviting a local COS ambassador to give a presentation or contact the COS for a presentation on the OSF as a service or tool.
- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
Evolution of Wenger's concept of community of practice
Linda C. Li, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Camilla Nielsen … (2009)
Background In the experience of health professionals, it appears that interacting with peers in the workplace fosters learning and information sharing. Informal groups and networks present good opportunities for information exchange. Communities of practice (CoPs), which have been described by Wenger and others as a type of informal learning organization, have received increasing attention in the health care sector; however, the lack of uniform operating definitions of CoPs has resulted in considerable variation in the structure and function of these groups, making it difficult to evaluate their effectiveness. Objective To critique the evolution of the CoP concept as based on the germinal work by Wenger and colleagues published between 1991 and 2002. Discussion CoP was originally developed to provide a template for examining the learning that happens among practitioners in a social environment, but over the years there have been important divergences in the focus of the concept. Lave and Wenger's earliest publication (1991) centred on the interactions between novices and experts, and the process by which newcomers create a professional identity. In the 1998 book, the focus had shifted to personal growth and the trajectory of individuals' participation within a group (i.e., peripheral versus core participation). The focus then changed again in 2002 when CoP was applied as a managerial tool for improving an organization's competitiveness. Summary The different interpretations of CoP make it challenging to apply the concept or to take full advantage of the benefits that CoP groups may offer. The tension between satisfying individuals' needs for personal growth and empowerment versus an organization's bottom line is perhaps the most contentious of the issues that make CoPs difficult to cultivate. Since CoP is still an evolving concept, we recommend focusing on optimizing specific characteristics of the concept, such as support for members interacting with each other, sharing knowledge, and building a sense of belonging within networks/teams/groups. Interventions that facilitate relationship building among members and that promote knowledge exchange may be useful for optimizing the function of these groups.
Author and article information
Journal
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Int J Health Policy Manag
Journal ID (publisher-id): Int J Health Policy Manag
Journal ID (publisher-id): Kerman University of Medical Sciences
Title:
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Publisher:
Kerman University of Medical Sciences
ISSN
(Electronic):
2322-5939
Publication date Collection:
September
2021
Publication date
(Electronic):
12
July
2020
Volume: 10
Issue: 9
Pages: 528-533
Affiliations
Author notes
Author information
Mark Embrett
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3969-0219
Article
DOI: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.122
PMC ID: 9278385
PubMed ID: 32668891
SO-VID: 6f979853-a44c-4bed-868d-a1203df32e93
Copyright © © 2021 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences
License:
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
History
Date
received
: 18
May
2020
Date
accepted
: 29
June
2020
Page count
Figures: 1,
Tables: 1,
References: 27,
Pages: 6
Categories
Subject:
Perspective
Data availability: