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