Cited by 20Interdisciplinary Research and CollaborationHealth and Medical Research ImpactsResearch, Science, and Academia

National Institute of Nursing Research Centers of Excellence: A logic model for sustainability, leveraging resources, and collaboration to accelerate cross-disciplinary science

Open access
Dorsey, Susan G., Schiffman, Rachel, Redeker, Nancy S., Heitkemper, Margaret, McCloskey, Donna Jo, Weglicki, Linda S., Grady, Patricia A.·2014·Nursing Outlook

Abstract

The National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) Centers of Excellence program is a catalyst enabling institutions to develop infrastructure and administrative support for creating cross-disciplinary teams that bring multiple strategies and expertise to bear on common areas of science. Centers are increasingly collaborative with campus partners and reflect an integrated team approach to advance science and promote the development of scientists in these areas. The purpose of this paper is to present the NINR Logic Model for Center Sustainability. The components of the logic model were derived from the presentations and robust discussions at the 2013 NINR center directors' meeting focused on best practices for leveraging resources and collaboration as methods to promote center sustainability. Collaboration through development and implementation of cross-disciplinary research teams is critical to accelerate the generation of new knowledge for solving fundamental health problems. Sustainability of centers as a long-term outcome beyond the initial funding can be enhanced by thoughtful planning of inputs, activities, and leveraging resources across multiple levels.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.outlook.2014.06.003

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Approaches to monitoring included diverse areas to assess including having appropriate data to document progress, having a management or monitoring system in place, and having regular reporting and feedback mechanisms.

    “Approaches to monitoring included diverse areas to assess including having appropriate data to document progress [64, 65], having a management or monitoring system in place [15, 53, 61, 66, 67], and having regular reporting and feedback mechanisms [46, 47, 52, 54, 68, 69].”
  • The ability of an initiative to share resources with partners and other organisations, seek out alternative and supplemental resources and/or uncover multiple funding sources were highlighted across some approaches as important to overall sustainability.

    “The ability of an initiative to share resources with partners and other organisations [41, 46], seek out alternative and supplemental resources [18, 47–49] and/or uncover multiple funding sources [8, 36, 49, 50] were also highlighted across some approaches as important to overall sustainability.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Stokols D Misra S Moser R Hall K Taylor B The ecology of team science: Understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008 35 2S S96 S115 18619410

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dorsey, S. G., Schiffman, R., Redeker, N. S., Heitkemper, M., McCloskey, D. J., Weglicki, L. S., & Grady, P. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Dorsey, Susan G.
Venue
Nursing Outlook
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-11
Volume
62
Issue
6
Pages
384-393
ISSN
0029-6554 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2033403986
Cited by
20
References
20
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4
FWCI
5.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nursing Outlook (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Nursing Research
  • National Institutes of Health (P30NR014129, P30NR011396, P20NR010674, P20NR014126, P30NR011400)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
Keywords
National Institute of Nursing Research, centers of excellence, logic model, research collaboration, resource leverage, institutional infrastructure, research funding
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Organizational Objectives, Research Personnel, United States, Nursing Research, Logistic Models, Models, Organizational, National Institute of Nursing Research (U.S.)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review