Open AccessLooking Under the Hood: Factors that Drive Successful Study Group Participation and Publications in Pediatric Spine Programs
Author(s) -
Sonya Levine,
Bradley Hammoor,
Alison Morris,
Sushrut Arora,
Afrain Z Boby,
Hiroko Matsumoto,
M. Jason Fields,
Adam N Fano,
Matthew E. Oetgen,
Tricia St. Hilaire,
Michael R. Vitale,
David E. Skaggs,
AUTHOR_ID
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
journal of the pediatric orthopaedic society of north america
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2768-2765
DOI - 10.55275/jposna-2022-0009
Subject(s) - medicine , family medicine , multicenter study , cohort , quality (philosophy) , physical therapy , gerontology , medical education , psychology , randomized controlled trial , surgery , philosophy , epistemology
Introduction: Multicenter clinical research is critically important in a constantly evolving landscape, particularly in early onset scoliosis (EOS). There is variability from center to center with regard to the “quality of participation” in such research efforts as well as publications on EOS. The purpose of this study was to examine factors associated with “high-performing” centers. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study of 21 academic medical centers participating in an EOS registry. Factors examined include research personnel, spine research focus, and regular participation of faculty in research, collected through an eight-question survey. Outcomes included the quality of participation in the study group, derived from quarterly site reports generated by the registry, and average annual publication volume of each institution obtained from a PubMed search. Univariable analyses were utilized to investigate institutional factors associated with the quality of performance and publication volume. Results: All 21 sites completed the survey. Centers with full-time spine research staff had higher average quality of participation scores (90 vs. 60, p=0.026) as did centers with dedicated spine research meetings (90 vs. 70, p = 0.074) than those that lacked these features. Additionally, centers with higher average publication volumes were more likely to have full-time research staff (8.0 vs. 3.5, p = 0.115), a research team focused on spine (8.9 vs. 4.8, 0.067), and a dedicated physician assistant (PA) or nurse with >95% focus on spine (9.0 vs. 5.4, p = 0.107). Conclusion: The single most important and significant factor in quality of participation in the study group was a center having full-time research staff, with research meetings dedicated to spine being nearly significant. Factors most predictive of publications was a research team focused primarily on spine and a spine dedicated PA or nurse. If institutions want to improve spine research, we recommend investing in these factors.