Do synthesis centers synthesize? A semantic analysis of topical diversity in research.

Synthesis centers are a form of scientific organization that catalyzes and supports research that integrates diverse theories, methods and data across spatial or temporal scales to increase the generality, parsimony, applicability, or empirical soundness of scientific explanations. Synthesis working groups are a distinctive form of scientific collaboration that produce consequential, high-impact publications. But no one has asked if synthesis working groups synthesize: are their publications substantially more diverse than others, and if so, in what ways and with what effect? We investigate these questions by using Latent Dirichlet Analysis to compare the topical diversity of papers published by synthesis center collaborations with that of papers in a reference corpus. Topical diversity was operationalized and measured in several ways, both to reflect aggregate diversity and to emphasize particular aspects of diversity (such as variety, evenness, and balance). Synthesis center publications have greater topical variety and evenness, but less disparity, than do papers in the reference corpus. The influence of synthesis center origins on aspects of diversity is only partly mediated by the size and heterogeneity of collaborations: when taking into account the numbers of authors, distinct institutions, and references, synthesis center origins retain a significant direct effect on diversity measures. Controlling for the size and heterogeneity of collaborative groups, synthesis center origins and diversity measures significantly influence the visibility of publications, as indicated by citation measures. We conclude by suggesting social processes within collaborations that might account for the observed effects, by inviting further exploration of what this novel textual analysis approach might reveal about interdisciplinary research, and by offering some practical implications of our results.

Use of Hospital Referral Regions in Evaluating End-of-Life Care.

Background: Hospital referral regions (HRRs) are often used to characterize inpatient referral patterns, but it is unknown how well these geographic regions are aligned with variation in Medicare-financed hospice care, which is largely provided at home. Objective: Our objective was to characterize the variability in hospice use rates among elderly Medicare decedents by HRR and county. Methods: Using 2014 Master Beneficiary File for decedents 65 and older from North and South Carolina, we applied Bayesian mixed models to quantify variation in hospice use rates explained by HRR fixed effects, county random effects, and residual error among Medicare decedents. Results: We found HRRs and county indicators are significant predictors of hospice use in NC and SC; however, the relative variation within HRRs and associated residual variation is substantial. On average, HRR fixed effects explained more variation in hospice use rates than county indicators with a standard deviation (SD) of 10.0 versus 5.1 percentage points. The SD of the residual error is 5.7 percentage points. On average, variation within HRRs is about half the variation between regions (52%). Conclusions: The magnitude of unexplained residual variation in hospice use for NC and SC suggests that novel, end-of-life-specific service areas should be developed and tested to better capture geographic differences and inform research, health systems, and policy.

System dynamics applications to injury and violence prevention: a systematic review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: System dynamics (SD) is an approach to solving problems in the context of dynamic complexity. The purpose of this review was to summarize SD applications in injury prevention and highlight opportunities for SD to contribute to injury prevention research and practice. RECENT FINDINGS: While SD has been increasingly used to study public health problems over the last few decades, uptake in the injury field has been slow. We identified 18 studies, mostly conducted in the last 10 years. Applications covered a range of topics (e.g., road traffic injury; overdose; violence), employed different types of SD tools (i.e., qualitative and quantitative), and served a variety of research and practice purposes (e.g., deepen understanding of a problem, policy analysis). SUMMARY: Given the many ways that SD can add value and complement traditional research and practice approaches (e.g., through novel stakeholder engagement and policy analysis tools), increased investment in SD-related capacity building and opportunities that support SD use are warranted.

Impact of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network: Accelerating the Translation of Research Into Practice.

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a thematic network dedicated to accelerating the adoption of evidence-based cancer prevention and control practices in communities by advancing dissemination and implementation science. Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute, CPCRN has operated at two levels: Each participating network center conducts research projects with primarily local partners as well as multicenter collaborative research projects with state and national partners. Through multicenter collaboration, thematic networks leverage the expertise, resources, and partnerships of participating centers to conduct research projects collectively that might not be feasible individually. Although multicenter collaboration is often advocated, it is challenging to promote and assess. Using bibliometric network analysis and other graphical methods, this paper describes CPCRN's multicenter publication progression from 2004 to 2014. Searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science in 2014 identified 249 peer-reviewed CPCRN publications involving two or more centers out of 6,534 total. The research and public health impact of these multicenter collaborative projects initiated by CPCRN during that 10-year period were then examined. CPCRN established numerous workgroups around topics such as: 2-1-1, training and technical assistance, colorectal cancer control, federally qualified health centers, cancer survivorship, and human papillomavirus. This paper discusses the challenges that arise in promoting multicenter collaboration and the strategies that CPCRN uses to address those challenges. The lessons learned should broadly interest those seeking to promote multisite collaboration to address public health problems, such as cancer prevention and control.