A Guide to the Scientific Career. Группа авторов
Читать онлайн книгу.
should not be challenged if that person contributed to the study design, analysis of data or its interpretation, or were contacted to review the manuscript before it is published. These guidelines, however, do not address the rights to authorship for contributions made by other stakeholders in research such as biobanks (Colledge et al. 2013).
14.4 Ethical Considerations
Most scholars agree that collaborative research calls for its own set of ethical guidelines. Community autonomy versus individual autonomy is one topic that is frequently debated in the literature. Some scholars are of the view that the traditional Belmont Report definition of patient autonomy is not comprehensive enough to provide appropriate guidance for community medicine and collaboration. Researchers are asked to recognize a community's right to self‐determination about the involvement of its individual members in research. Researchers are also asked to safeguard members of the community with impaired autonomy. A big aspect of respecting community autonomy involves the handling of research findings. However, some researchers argue against disclosing negative findings to community members (Mikesell et al. 2013). Researchers need to find ways of handling research data that does not jeopardize the confidentiality of the individual members in the community.
Collaborative research also imposes unique ethical dilemmas for researchers in terms of justice. For instance, problems can arise where there is a need to fairly distribute resources throughout the community despite limited funding. Minimizing harm to the community as well as managing informed consent can also prove more challenging for collaborative teams (Mikesell et al. 2013).
14.5 How to Make Collaborations Work
In order to make collaborations work, there should be ongoing communications between team members throughout the research process. These meetings should aim to clarify roles and expectations and to foster trust between members. It is important that problems are discussed openly as they arise and that the research goals address the needs of all parties in a relevant way (Happell 2010). It is also important that funding, capacity building (Mikesell et al. 2013), and post‐study sustainability (Blevins et al. 2010) in a community are addressed before the study is underway.
14.6 Conclusions
Regional and global health issues have become increasingly more important in society. As a result, academics are asked to make meaningful partnerships with key players within and outside of their field in order to have a more comprehensive understanding on health and healthcare policies. While most scholars would agree that collaborations are a good thing, there are still unique challenges that will need to be overcome to make these interactions beneficial to all stakeholders in the community.
References
1 Amendola, M. (2011). Empowerment: healthcare professionals' and community members' contributions. J. Cult. Divers. 18: 82–89.
2 Barkin, S. , Schlundt, D. , and Smith, P. (2013). Community‐engaged research perspectives: then and now. Acad. Pediatr. 13: 93–97.
3 Blevins, D. , Farmer, M.S. , Edlund, C. et al. (2010). Collaborative research between clinicians and researchers: a multiple case study of implementation. Implement. Sci. 5:: 76–84.
4 Colledge, F. , Elger, B. , and Shaw, D. (2013). “Conferring authorship”: biobank stakeholders' experiences with publication credit in collaborative research. PLoS One 8:: e76686.
5 Cummings, J.N. and Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organisational boundaries. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35: 703–722.
6 De las Nueces, D. , Hacker, K. , DiGirolamo, A. et al. (2012). A systematic review of community‐based participatory research to enhance clinical trials in racial and ethnic minority groups. Health Serv. Res. 47: 363–1386.
7 Giehl, C. , Lange, C. , Duarte, R. et al. (2012). TBNET ‐ collaborative research on tuberculosis in Europe. Eur. J. Microbiol. Immunol. 2: 264–274.
8 Happell, B. (2010). Protecting the rights of individuals in collaborative research. Nurse Res. 17: 34–43.
9 Hofmeyer, A. , Scott, C. , and Lagendyk, L. (2012). Researcher‐decision‐maker partnerships in health services research: practical challenges, guiding principles. BMC Health Serv. Res. 12: 280.
10 Koletzko, B. , Brands, B. , and Demmelmair, H. (2011). The early nutrition programming project (EARNEST): 5 y of successful multidisciplinary collaborative research. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 94: 1749S–1753S.
11 Krebbekx, W. , Harting, J. , and Stronks, K. (2012). Does collaborative research enhance the integration of research, policy and practice? The case of the Dutch health broker partnership. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 17: 219–226. Accessed June 3, 2014.
12 Mikesell, L. , Bromley, E. , and Khodyakov, D. (2013). Ethical community‐engaged research: a literature review. Am. J. Public Health 103: e7–e14.
13 Miles, P.V. , Conway, P.H. , and Pawlson, L.G. (2013). Physician professionalism and accountability: the role of collaborative improvement networks. Pediatrics 131: S2049.
14 O'Sullivan, P. , Stoddard, H. , and Kalishman, S. (2010). Collaborative research in medical education: a discussion of theory and practice. Med. Educ. 44: 1175–1184.
15 Raza, M. (2005). Collaborative healthcare research: some ethical considerations. Sci. Eng. Ethics 1: 177–186.
15 Personal Branding for Physicians and Researchers
Tracy E. Bunting‐Early
Bunting Medical Communications, Newark, DE, USA
15.1 Introduction
What is a brand, and how can it relate to a person? Branding originated from cattle branding, which involved marking cattle with a distinctive symbol. These days a brand has come to mean how an entity is characterized in an audience's mind. It can relate to a person, a product, a service, a company, or any entity. In many cases, a personal brand does not have a symbolic logo, but the person's name or image represents who they are in peoples' minds. It may be synonymous with reputation; however, because reputation often has a connotation of something that is defended, rather than something that is actively built, reputation is not exactly synonymous. Personal branding is nothing more than an exercise in how you communicate who you are to the outside world, and is best achieved when your desired brand is authentic and honest.
For a researcher, clinician, or physician, personal branding is important to consider if one wants to advance either a career or a clinical practice. Physicians and researchers can benefit greatly by proactively working toward their own brand identity. Depending on a physician's specialty and practice, it may be about building a greater patient base or it may be about securing career promotions or tenure. It may also simply open doors to collaborations. Once a personal brand is built, a physician/researcher then has an audience who respects him/her and also one that is likely to notice new pursuits or interests to align with and support. Being unknown or uncharacterized might make building these alliances more difficult.
The concept of branding might seem promotional on the surface. But if you are authentic and simply want to ensure that you are clearly communicating who you are, there is nothing dubious about it.
15.2 Personal Branding and Authenticity
Your brand identity is closely tied to what you stand for and what is unique or offers value to an intended target audience. It can be anything that you want to be known for, such as a particular set of skills, a vision, or some other value. Determining a brand strategy is rarely about one's basic skills or strengths alone, but, rather, how those play out within a particular environment and among other individuals in the environment, such as with your peers, colleagues,