%0期刊文章%@ 1438-8871 % 1 Gunther Eysenbach %V 7 %N 5 %P 53 %T两个生物医学研究合作实验室的比较案例研究%A Schleyer,Titus KL %A Teasley,Stephanie D %A Bhatnagar,Rishi %+美国匹兹堡大学口腔医学院牙科信息中心，3501 Terrace St, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA， +1 412 648 8886，titus@pitt.edu %K生物医学研究%K协作%K合作实验室%K社区网络%K信息技术%K跨学科研究%D 2005 %7 25.10.2005 %9原论文%J J医学互联网研究%G英语%X背景:在大规模、复杂、跨学科的研究项目中，高效、有效地协同工作提出了重大挑战。合作实验室是帮助应对这一挑战的一种新兴方法。然而，生物医学研究中心的正式合作实验室是例外，而不是规则。目的:本文的主要目的是比较和描述两个使用现成工具和相对适度的资源来支持两个生物医学研究中心的科学活动的合作实验室。这两个中心分别是大湖地区艾滋病研究中心(HIV/AIDS中心)和纽约大学青少年和成人健康促进中心口腔癌研究中心(口腔癌中心)。方法:在每个合作实验室中，我们使用半结构化访谈、调查和上下文查询来评估用户需求并定义技术需求。我们通过比较它们的特性集和需求来评估和选择商业软件应用程序，然后对应用程序进行试验测试。本地和远程支持人员在协作工具的实施和最终用户培训方面进行了合作。协作实验室的工作人员通过分析使用数据、管理用户调查和作为参与者观察者来评估每个实现。 Results: The HIV/AIDS Center primarily required real-time interaction for developing projects and attracting new participants to the center; the Oral Cancer Center, on the other hand, mainly needed tools to support distributed and asynchronous work in small research groups. The HIV/AIDS Center’s collaboratory included a center-wide website that also served as the launch point for collaboratory applications, such as NetMeeting, Timbuktu Conference, PlaceWare Auditorium, and iVisit. The collaboratory of the Oral Cancer Center used Groove and Genesys Web conferencing. The HIV/AIDS Center was successful in attracting new scientists to HIV/AIDS research, and members used the collaboratory for developing and implementing new research studies. The Oral Cancer Center successfully supported highly distributed and asynchronous research, and the collaboratory facilitated real-time interaction for analyzing data and preparing publications. Conclusions: The two collaboratory implementations demonstrated the feasibility of supporting biomedical research centers using off-the-shelf commercial tools, but they also identified several barriers to successful collaboration. These barriers included computing platform incompatibilities, network infrastructure complexity, variable availability of local versus remote IT support, low computer and collaborative software literacy, and insufficient maturity of available collaborative software. Factors enabling collaboratory use included collaboration incentives through funding mechanism, a collaborative versus competitive relationship of researchers, leadership by example, and tools well matched to tasks and technical progress. Integrating electronic collaborative tools into routine scientific practice can be successful but requires further research on the technical, social, and behavioral factors influencing the adoption and use of collaboratories. %M 16403717 %R 10.2196/jmir.7.5.e53 %U //www.mybigtv.com/2005/5/e53/ %U https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7.5.e53 %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16403717