TY - JOUR
T1 - Cross-site collaboration on infection prevention and control research—room for improvement?
T2 - A 7-year comparative study in five European countries
AU - Eichel, Vanessa M.
AU - Brühwasser, Christina
AU - Castro-Sánchez, Enrique
AU - Birgand, Gabriel
AU - Bathoorn, Erik
AU - Salm, Florian
AU - Mutters, Nico T.
N1 - Funding Information:
To promote cross-site collaboration in IPC research we would suggest the following: Firstly, we propose the identification of hubs and gaps in the network and the creation of benchmarks in terms of targets to improve connectiveness. For example, the target to connect non-associated facilities with at least one project next year, and subsequently the appointment of persons in charge in the concerned facilities. The results of our study could be used as blue print.. In particular, sites with a strong research activity but few collaborations such as the university hospitals of Innsbruck, Marseille, Utrecht, Greifswald, and Imperial College London might easily raise their collaboration rate. Secondly, networking could be improved as a soft-skill development training. For instance, starting national networking at an early stage, e.g. during the IPC specialization, by organizing national exchange events and meetings for young doctors in training might act as seed event which could blossom in long-term scientific exchange. This could be supported by national grants for young doctors and PhDs issued by the national scientific societies. These grants could define as a condition that a minimum of 2 young researchers from different facilities need to be involved. Lastly, we must create awareness of the importance and advantages of national and international cohesion in this essential topic and support cooperative tendencies rather than competitive tendencies.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/12
Y1 - 2022/12
N2 - Background: The spread of SARS-CoV-2, multidrug-resistant organisms and other healthcare-associated pathogens represents supra-regional challenges for infection prevention and control (IPC) specialists in every European country. To tackle these problems, cross-site research collaboration of IPC specialists is very important. This study assesses the extent and quality of national research collaborations of IPC departments of university hospitals located in Austria, England, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, identifies network gaps, and provides potential solutions.Methods: Joint publications of IPC heads of all university hospitals of the included countries between 1st of June 2013 until 31st of May 2020 were collected by Pubmed/Medline search. Further, two factors, the journal impact factor and the type/position of authorship, were used to calculate the Scientific Collaboration Impact (SCI) for all included sites; nationwide network analysis was performed.Results: In five European countries, 95 sites and 125 responsible leaders for IPC who had been in charge during the study period were identified. Some countries such as Austria have only limited national research cooperations, while the Netherlands has established a gapless network. Most effective collaborating university site of each country were Lille with an SCI of 1146, Rotterdam (408), Berlin (268), Sussex (204), and Vienna/Innsbruck (18).Discussion: The present study indicates major differences and room for improvement in IPC research collaborations within each country and underlines the potential and importance of collaborating in IPC.
AB - Background: The spread of SARS-CoV-2, multidrug-resistant organisms and other healthcare-associated pathogens represents supra-regional challenges for infection prevention and control (IPC) specialists in every European country. To tackle these problems, cross-site research collaboration of IPC specialists is very important. This study assesses the extent and quality of national research collaborations of IPC departments of university hospitals located in Austria, England, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, identifies network gaps, and provides potential solutions.Methods: Joint publications of IPC heads of all university hospitals of the included countries between 1st of June 2013 until 31st of May 2020 were collected by Pubmed/Medline search. Further, two factors, the journal impact factor and the type/position of authorship, were used to calculate the Scientific Collaboration Impact (SCI) for all included sites; nationwide network analysis was performed.Results: In five European countries, 95 sites and 125 responsible leaders for IPC who had been in charge during the study period were identified. Some countries such as Austria have only limited national research cooperations, while the Netherlands has established a gapless network. Most effective collaborating university site of each country were Lille with an SCI of 1146, Rotterdam (408), Berlin (268), Sussex (204), and Vienna/Innsbruck (18).Discussion: The present study indicates major differences and room for improvement in IPC research collaborations within each country and underlines the potential and importance of collaborating in IPC.
KW - Collaboration
KW - Cross-site
KW - Europe
KW - Infection control
KW - IPC
U2 - 10.1186/s13756-022-01176-x
DO - 10.1186/s13756-022-01176-x
M3 - Article
C2 - 36329486
AN - SCOPUS:85141152392
SN - 2047-2994
VL - 11
JO - Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
JF - Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
M1 - 131
ER -