ArticleEvaluation & the health professions2023
Network Analysis for Formative Evaluation of Collaborative, Team Science Research Partnerships.
Article in Evaluation & the health professions, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding and evaluating the impact of a multi-institutional academic partnership to reduce cancer health disparities.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Science Speed Dating to Spur Inter-Institutional Collaborative Research.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Cancer health disparities persist across the cancer care continuum despite decades of effort to eliminate them. Among the strategies currently used to address these disparities are multi-institution research initiatives that engage multiple stakeholders and change efforts. Endemic to the theory of change of such programs is the idea that collaboration-across institutions, research disciplines, and academic ranks-is necessary to improve outcomes. Despite this emphasis on collaboration, however, it is not often a focus of evaluation for these programs and others like them. In this paper we describe a method for evaluating collaboration within the Meharry-Vanderbilt-Tennessee State University Cancer Partnership using network analysis. Specifically, we used network analysis of co-authorship on academic publications to visualize the growth and patterns of scientific collaboration across partnership institutions, research disciplines, and academic ranks over time. We presented the results of the network analysis to internal and external advisory groups, creating the opportunity to discuss partnership collaboration, celebrate successes, and identify opportunities for improvement. We propose that basic network analysis of existing data along with network visualizations can foster conversation and feedback and are simple and effective ways to evaluate collaboration initiatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.