NN&I - May 2010
Research 52 Nephrology News & Issues May 2010www.nephronline.com As suggested in the first article of this series (February NN&I), one of the most important changes in social work practice in the recent past has been the increased emphasis on 'evidence--based practice.' It further discussed how clinical transplant social workers were, and had been since the 1970s, at the forefront of this movement by developing outcome-based interven -tion models by collaborating with their physician, surgeon, and nursing col -leagues. The article also highlighted how the Council of Nephrology Social Workers (CNSW) had been one of the earliest and most consistent sponsors of outcome-focused research by pro-viding both the technical expertise and grant funding to conduct clinical stud-ies. It concluded by suggesting that as important as this program had been, there was scarce information outlin- ing exactly how this could be accom-plished. In particular, there were no guides to help plan for and confront the problems that academic-clinical col -laboration efforts may encounter. This current paper will briefly review the existing literature regarding aca -demic-clinical collaboration and will hopefully provide the foundation upon which the final two articles will be based. The third article will highlight the specific problems and barriers faced by the authors in their own aca-demic-clinical collaborative efforts, and the fourth and final article will outline some suggested strategies based on the existing literature and the authors' own research experience. One of the most important, though often-unstated positives associated with CNSW sponsorship and encour -agement of clinical-academic partner -ships is the absence of conflict of inter -est. As universities have had to face severe underfunding, particularly with clinical research, there has been mount -ing pressure to form collaborative rela -tionships with private industry.1,2 In the past few years, these pressures have only intensified. One of the more prom -inent pitfalls of such partnerships is the increased potential for conflicts of interest that may arise. By partnering with CNSW members, academics will have secured funding which does not have those same risks. As an indepen-dent, not for profit source of research Academic and clinical research collaborationPart 2: Review of existing academic-clinical collaboration literatureBy Wayne Paris, PhD, LCSW, Mary Beth Callahan, ACSW, LCSW, and Melinda Pierson, BA Dr. Paris is an assistant professor at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, School of Social Work, Carbondale, Ill. Ms. Callahan is a senior social worker at the Dallas Transplant Institute in Dallas. Ms. Pierson is pursuing her masters in social work.support, coupled with the requirement of clinical-based projects, this all but guarantees their findings will serve a scientific-clinically oriented purpose. The added requirement of having to first present the work at NKF meetings, and publish the work in the Journal of Nephrology Social Work, is an added help as well. Surprisingly few social work studies have been conducted on the unique dif-ferences and benefits of collaboration among academic and clinical partners in the practice of research. The exact opposite is true in the medical-based literature. There are multiple studies, which report both the importance of and how to conduct clinical-academic projects.3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 Instead, the social work literature has primarily focused on the benefits and models of col -laboratively linking research and clin -ical practice. Reback, Cohen, Freese and Shoptaw10 point out that research and practice collaborations have obvi-ous opportunities for partnership, as researchers have scientific and techni -cal capabilities and practitioners have both access to and an understanding of the target population. Joubert12 goes on to note that research and clinical Historically, practitioners have felt that academic researchers are out of touch with the treatment of patients in real time, and have felt exploited by researchers and powerless with the research team. Author's note: This is the second in a series of four articles which outlines the challenges, benefits, and recommends models to help enhance academic and clinical research col-laboration. The first article appeared in the February 2010 issue of NN&I. Research_NNI0510_6.indd 52 4/16/10 3:49:10 PM
You must have JavaScript enabled to view digital editions.
