Challenges in developing collaborative interdisciplinary research between gastroenterologists and engineers

References

• Trifan E-L, Serban C, Poenaru E, et al. Innovation approaches for engineering-medicine-marketing interdisciplinary research teams. In: 2013 E-Health and Bioengineering Conference (EHB), Iasi, Romania: IEEE; 2013, p. 1–4. doi: 10.1109/EHB.2013.6707308.
   Google Scholar
• Cummings JN, Kiesler S. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc Stud Sci. 2005;35:703–722.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger N, Zare RN. Interdisciplinary research: from belief to reality. Science. 1999;283:642–643.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokols D, Misra S, Moser RP, et al. The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35:S96–S115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokols D. Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. Am J Commun Psychol. 2006;38:63–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laberge S, Albert M, Hodges BD. Perspectives of clinician and biomedical scientists on interdisciplinary health research. CMAJ. 2009;181:797–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Currie G, El Enany N, Lockett A. Intra-professional dynamics in translational health research: the perspective of social scientists. Soc Sci Med. 2014;114:81–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivak MV. Gastrointestinal endoscopy: past and future. Gut. 2006;55:1061–1064.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banerjee S, Pasricha PJ. Embracing new technology in the gastroenterology practice. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:848–850.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woolf SH. The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA. 2008;299:523–526.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jia X. Translational medicine: creating the crucial bidirectional bridge between bench and bedside. IJMS. 2016;17:1918.
   Google Scholar
• Jeffrey P. Smoothing the waters. Soc Stud Sci. 2003;33:539–562.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzzo RA, Dickson MW. Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annu Rev Psychol. 1996;47:307–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi BCK, Pak AWP. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 2. Promotors, barriers, and strategies of enhancement. CIM. 2007;30:224–232.
   Google Scholar
• Nimgaonkar A, Yock PG, Brinton TJ, et al. Gastroenterology and biodesign: contributing to the future of our specialty. Gastroenterology. 2013;144:258–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Gargiulo M. Where do interorganizational networks come from? Am J Sociol. 1999;104:1439–1493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long JC, Cunningham FC, Carswell P, et al. Patterns of collaboration in complex networks: the example of a translational research network. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salazar M, Lant T, Kane A. To join or not to join: an investigation of individual facilitators and inhibitors of medical faculty participation in interdisciplinary research teams. Clin Transl Sci. 2011;4:274–278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinds PJ, Carley KM, Krackhardt D, et al. Choosing work group members: balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2000;81:226–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman PS, Leyden DP. Familiarity and group productivity. J Appl Psychol. 1991;76:578–586.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings JN, Kiesler S. Who collaborates successfully? In Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on computer supported cooperative work – CSCW ’08, San Diego, CA: ACM Press, p. 437. doi: 10.1145/1460563.1460633.
   Google Scholar
• Guimera R. Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science. 2005;308:697–702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings JN, Kiesler S. Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Res Policy. 2007;36:1620–1634.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldsack JC, Michalec B, Cipolle M, et al. Remote and interdisciplinary research in surgical knowledge production. J Surg Res. 2016;202:139–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010;376:1923–1958.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szczerba R, Huesch M. Why technology matters as much as science in improving healthcare. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medicine + Engineering Degree Programs. Duke University Website, 2017; [cited 2017 July 30]. Available from: http://medx.duke.edu/education/medicine-engineering-degree-programs.
   Google Scholar
• Engineering a Revolutionary Medical School. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 2015; [cited 2017 July 30]. Available from: https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/newsroom/engineering-revolutionary-medical-school
   Google Scholar
• Banks MK, Ferrari M. Physician engineers: a new breed of professionals. Engineering Village. 2016; [cited 2017 July 30]. Available from: https://blog.engineeringvillage.com/content/physician-engineers-a-new-breed-of-professionals
   Google Scholar
• Yazdi Y, Acharya S. A new model for graduate education and innovation in medical technology. Ann Biomed Eng. 2013;41:1822–1833.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker M, Churchwell AL. Clinical immersion and biomedical engineering design education: ‘Engineering Grand Rounds’. Cardiovasc Eng Tech. 2016;7:1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brinton TJ, Kurihara CQ, Camarillo DB, et al. Outcomes from a postgraduate biomedical technology innovation training program: the first 12 years of Stanford Biodesign. Ann Biomed Eng. 2013;41:1803–1810.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eberhardt AW, Johnson OL, Kirkland WB, et al. Team-based development of medical devices: an engineering–business collaborative. J Biomech Eng. 2016;138:70803.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oden M, Mirabal Y, Epstein M, et al. Engaging undergraduates to solve global health challenges: A new approach based on bioengineering design. Ann Biomed Eng. 2010;38:3031–3041.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia P, Armstrong R, Zaman MH. Models of education in medicine, public health, and engineering. Science. 2014;345:1281–1283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knoben J, Oerlemans LAG. Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: a literature review. Int J Manag Rev. 2006;8:71–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olson G, Olson J. Distance matters. Hum Comput Inter. 2000;15:139–178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein M, Sayama H, Faratin P, et al. The dynamics of collaborative design: insights from complex systems and negotiation research. Underst Complex Syst. 2006;2:158–174.
   Google Scholar