Harris Marcelline R, Ferguson Lisa A, Luo Airong
School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
School of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
J Clin Transl Sci. 2021 Sep 13;5(1):e186. doi: 10.1017/cts.2021.846. eCollection 2021.
Local nodes on federated research and data networks (FR&DNs) provide enabling infrastructure for collaborative clinical and translational research. Studies in other fields note that infrastructuring, that is, work to identify and negotiate relationships among people, technologies, and organizations, is invisible, unplanned, and undervalued. This may explain the limited literature on nodes in FR&DNs in health care.
A retrospective case study of one PCORnet® node explored 3 questions: (1) how were components of infrastructure assembled; (2) what specific work was required; and (3) what theoretically grounded, pragmatic questions should be considered when infrastructuring a node for sustainability. Artifacts, work efforts, and interviews generated during node development and implementation were reviewed. A sociotechnical lens was applied to the analysis. Validity was established with internal and external partners.
Resources, services, and expertise needed to establish the node existed within the organization, but were scattered across work units. Aligning, mediating, and institutionalizing for sustainability among network and organizational teams, governance, and priorities consumed more work efforts than deploying technical aspects of the node. A theoretically based set of questions relevant to infrastructuring a node was developed and organized within a framework of infrastructuring emphasizing enacting technology, organizing work, and institutionalizing; validity was established with internal and external partners.
FR&DNs are expanding; we provide a sociotechnical perspective on infrastructuring a node. Future research should evaluate the applicability of the framework and questions to other node and network configurations, and more broadly the infrastructuring required to enable and support federated clinical and translational science.
联合研究与数据网络(FR&DNs)中的本地节点为协作临床和转化研究提供了支持性基础设施。其他领域的研究指出,基础设施建设,即识别和协商人员、技术与组织之间关系的工作,是无形的、无计划的且未得到重视。这或许可以解释医疗保健领域关于FR&DNs节点的文献为何有限。
对一个PCORnet®节点进行回顾性案例研究,探讨了三个问题:(1)基础设施的组件是如何组装的;(2)需要开展哪些具体工作;(3)为实现节点的可持续性而进行基础设施建设时,应考虑哪些基于理论且务实的问题。对节点开发和实施过程中产生的工件、工作成果及访谈进行了审查。分析采用了社会技术视角。与内部和外部合作伙伴共同确立了效度。
建立该节点所需的资源、服务和专业知识在组织内部是存在的,但分散在各个工作单元中。在网络和组织团队、治理及优先事项之间进行协调、调解并使其制度化以实现可持续性,比部署节点的技术方面消耗了更多的工作精力。在强调技术应用、工作组织和制度化的基础设施建设框架内,开发并组织了一套与节点基础设施建设相关的基于理论的问题;与内部和外部合作伙伴共同确立了效度。
FR&DNs正在不断扩展;我们提供了关于节点基础设施建设的社会技术视角。未来的研究应评估该框架和问题对其他节点及网络配置的适用性,以及更广泛地评估实现和支持联合临床与转化科学所需的基础设施建设。