Skip to main content

Table 8 Comparison of the three collaboration surveys

From: Structuring successful collaboration: a longitudinal social network analysis of a translational research network

 

Survey #1

Survey #2

Survey #3

Date of survey

March 2012

April–May 2013

May–June 2015

Number of invitations to members

68

263

244

Response rate

76 % (2 % formally declined)

43 % (2 % formally declined)

79 % (9 % formally declined)

Density of collaboration network

4 % (pre-TRN = 31 %)

1 %

4 %

Number of respondents reporting their ties

26

94

171

Number of ties reported

106

326

1658

Number of new ties to people they did not know pre-network

1

119

671

Central actors’ ID numbers and title

131 (TRN director)

131 (TRN director)

206 (TRN manager)

206 (TRN manager)

206 (TRN manager)

213 (TRN staff)

262 (researcher)

Brokers’ ID numbers and titles

206 (TRN manager)

131 (TRN director)

206 (TRN manager)

165 (manager)

206 (TRN manager)

213 (TRN staff)

81 (researcher)

(TRN staff)a

(Clinician)a

143 (clinician)

126 (clinician)

106 (clinician-researcher)

Members nominated the most by new members as the person inviting or influencing them to join (ID numbers and titles)

NA

131(TRN director)

131(TRN director)

44 (researcher)

165 (manager)

236 (researcher)

44 (researcher)

134 (manager)

Research group 1

Examples given of changes in practice as a result of TRN activities

NA

Answered by 28 % of respondents

•Universal consent for the tumour tissue bank

•Use of the pain modules

•Involvement of consumers

Answered by 55 % of respondents

•Universal consent for tumour tissue bank

•Involvement of consumers

•Diagnostic improvements around hereditary breast, ovarian or colorectal cancer

•Improved assessment of pain

  1. Due to its low response rate, survey #2 needs to be compared with caution
  2. aNo longer a member