Submit articles online
ISMPO
THIEME

Year (Archive)

Year

Issues

Search

Recent Articles

IJMPO—A Journey of a Thousand Miles

Author : Padmaj S. Kulkarni

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Treatment—T-Cells Hold the Key in Severe Cases

Author : Kunal Das, Nitika Agrawal, Mansi Kala, Rakhee Khanduri

Why Is China Importing COVID-19 Vaccine Now?

Author : Purvish M. Parikh

Developing a Collaborative Research Environment in Health Care: Challenges and Opportunities

CC BY 4.0 · Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2025; 46(01): 096-098

DOI: DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1795112

Author : Rajisha Sharma, Fatema Hussain, Sneha G., Ramya K.

Introduction

In health care research, the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration between psychologists, technologists, and health care professionals cannot be overstated.[1] Interdisciplinary research holds transformative potential to facilitate a holistic understanding of the factors that enable the implementation of targeted interventions to mitigate risks and enhance patient outcomes.[2] [3] [4] It is a vital conduit for enriching research outcomes, by integrating psychological insights as a leverage to drive technological developments.[5] To improve our understanding of the clinical relevance of the sample, it was necessary for us to comprehend the nuances of both disciplines.

Navigating the landscape of hospital-based field research can pose an array of challenges ranging from issues with data collection procedures to cooperation from health care professionals or suspending the underlying sense of suspicion related to research.[6] [7] [8] These challenges can arise due to various factors, such as busy schedules, competing priorities, and institutional bureaucracy.[9] Obtaining necessary approvals and permissions can be an exhausting process given the multiple layers of review and coordination with hospital administrators and ethics committees.[10] More importantly, engaging with health care professionals can be challenging due to skepticism and perceived intrusion into clinical activities.[11] Demanding schedules and diverse commitments affect the availability and participation of health care professionals in research activities.[12] It is crucial to recognize and acknowledge that this can impede the data collection process.

Drawing from personal experiences as field researchers, these obstacles underscore the necessity for garnering support for research initiatives.[9] In such endeavors, the acquisition of certain skills over time becomes imperative, namely effective communication, adaptability, and technical proficiency.[13] For instance, when engaging with doctors, their primary focus often revolved around understanding the technical aspects and mechanisms behind the new device or intervention under investigation. Conversely, when communicating with nurses, they were particularly interested in how the new device or intervention could improve efficiency, and enhance patient outcomes in day-to-day routines. Additionally, they also highlighted that patient-related factors, such as comorbidities, demographics, and clinical history, were considered in the research design and implementation.[2]

For successful fieldwork, fostering rapport is a linchpin, especially when collaborating with nurses who play a pivotal role in the health care ecosystem.[14] Despite facing initial skepticism, nurses became staunch allies, providing invaluable support and guidance throughout the research process.[15] They played a pivotal role in making the whole process of interviewing patients less intimidating for the patients and those collecting data from them, thereby enabling a smoother research process.[16] Their intimate familiarity with the daily realities of clinical practice, nuanced understanding of patient needs and experiences, and hands-on engagement with health care technologies render them invaluable collaborators in the research process.[17]

Operating within multidisciplinary teams demands adeptness in approaching several different individuals for the successful accomplishment of research tasks.[18] Tailoring communication strategies to effectively engage with diverse stakeholders and address their specific interests and concerns also becomes important.[1] It becomes crucial to adapt language to suit the needs of the context, such as using technical terms that focus on usability for tech teams and emphasizing practical implications for clinicians.[19] As we moved further ahead in research by introducing the developed instrument into the field, there was a constant need for change in language and narrative with each stratum of the population, for example, there was a considerable difference in what constituted an idea of convenience, reliability, dependability, and other related metrics to the personnel developing the instrument from that of the health care professionals who were to utilize this architecture in the field practically.[20] Therefore, it has become of great importance to map the changes of the instrument moving from an experimental laboratory to a clinical one.[13] Conversely, challenges with patients and their caregivers can be based on contextual comprehension, where we had to explain the need and uses of the instrument.[21] Given the diverse patient sample across critical care, pediatric, and geriatric populations, technological integration, advocacy, and understanding confidentiality were a few challenging areas.[22] It was important to have patience while empathizing with their circumstances and requirements. A large number of people expressed their emotions existentially, downplaying their challenges in light of the more severe illness they were facing. As psychologists, we bridge this gap, conveying the needs of both groups to optimize patient outcomes.[23]

In our personal experience, data collection in a clinical environment differs significantly from other settings due to the constant prioritization of emergencies and critical situations.[24] Quoting back on the issue of scheduling interviews with health care professionals, it is only appropriate that patient well-being is given precedence over other activities in a hospital setting.[21] On the other hand, this also implies that we as a research team are provided with minimal time and resources to investigate the problem under study. Working in a field also entails that one repeats their observations over time—notice patterns, associate and un-associate cause and effects, and observe the behavior of the people involved in the study. Over time, we realize that there is often more to observe than one would imagine otherwise.[25] It is through these consistent and continuous observations that one can understand and analyze the variables under study, thereby necessitating the need for psychologists as the bridge between laboratory and field.[26]

Navigating through the complexities of hospital settings and collaborating with a diverse range of healthcare professionals also helped foster skills of adaptability and team work. It also instilled an understanding of professional conduct and cultivated a stronger sense of work ethic, which applies to every other workplace.[14] Additionally, this experience honed our skills in working with vulnerable populations and what precautions one must be mindful of taking with such groups.

This article highlights the critical importance incorporating psychological perspectives into biomedical research and its role in advancing the shared goal of enhancing patient care within both biomedical and psychological disciplines. It also focuses on the ground-level experiences of conducting research in hospital environments, which present unique challenges, such as difficulties in data collection and skepticism from health care professionals for which researchers must employ strong communication skills and adaptability to address the diverse needs of different stakeholders. By leveraging personal experiences, this study explores how psychologists function as a conduit between laboratory research and clinical practice. Their expertise in behavioral analysis and patient interaction is instrumental in making research findings more applicable and impactful in health care settings highlighting how the contributions are crucial for translating research into practical, patient-centered interventions. The overarching objective of this perspective study is to highlight the role of psychologists in bridging the divide between laboratory-based research and real-world clinical practice and shed light on the challenges inherent in conducting such interdisciplinary research.



Publication History

Article published online:
11 December 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

We recommend

Introduction

In health care research, the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration between psychologists, technologists, and health care professionals cannot be overstated.[1] Interdisciplinary research holds transformative potential to facilitate a holistic understanding of the factors that enable the implementation of targeted interventions to mitigate risks and enhance patient outcomes.[2] [3] [4] It is a vital conduit for enriching research outcomes, by integrating psychological insights as a leverage to drive technological developments.[5] To improve our understanding of the clinical relevance of the sample, it was necessary for us to comprehend the nuances of both disciplines.

Navigating the landscape of hospital-based field research can pose an array of challenges ranging from issues with data collection procedures to cooperation from health care professionals or suspending the underlying sense of suspicion related to research.[6] [7] [8] These challenges can arise due to various factors, such as busy schedules, competing priorities, and institutional bureaucracy.[9] Obtaining necessary approvals and permissions can be an exhausting process given the multiple layers of review and coordination with hospital administrators and ethics committees.[10] More importantly, engaging with health care professionals can be challenging due to skepticism and perceived intrusion into clinical activities.[11] Demanding schedules and diverse commitments affect the availability and participation of health care professionals in research activities.[12] It is crucial to recognize and acknowledge that this can impede the data collection process.

Drawing from personal experiences as field researchers, these obstacles underscore the necessity for garnering support for research initiatives.[9] In such endeavors, the acquisition of certain skills over time becomes imperative, namely effective communication, adaptability, and technical proficiency.[13] For instance, when engaging with doctors, their primary focus often revolved around understanding the technical aspects and mechanisms behind the new device or intervention under investigation. Conversely, when communicating with nurses, they were particularly interested in how the new device or intervention could improve efficiency, and enhance patient outcomes in day-to-day routines. Additionally, they also highlighted that patient-related factors, such as comorbidities, demographics, and clinical history, were considered in the research design and implementation.[2]

For successful fieldwork, fostering rapport is a linchpin, especially when collaborating with nurses who play a pivotal role in the health care ecosystem.[14] Despite facing initial skepticism, nurses became staunch allies, providing invaluable support and guidance throughout the research process.[15] They played a pivotal role in making the whole process of interviewing patients less intimidating for the patients and those collecting data from them, thereby enabling a smoother research process.[16] Their intimate familiarity with the daily realities of clinical practice, nuanced understanding of patient needs and experiences, and hands-on engagement with health care technologies render them invaluable collaborators in the research process.[17]

Operating within multidisciplinary teams demands adeptness in approaching several different individuals for the successful accomplishment of research tasks.[18] Tailoring communication strategies to effectively engage with diverse stakeholders and address their specific interests and concerns also becomes important.[1] It becomes crucial to adapt language to suit the needs of the context, such as using technical terms that focus on usability for tech teams and emphasizing practical implications for clinicians.[19] As we moved further ahead in research by introducing the developed instrument into the field, there was a constant need for change in language and narrative with each stratum of the population, for example, there was a considerable difference in what constituted an idea of convenience, reliability, dependability, and other related metrics to the personnel developing the instrument from that of the health care professionals who were to utilize this architecture in the field practically.[20] Therefore, it has become of great importance to map the changes of the instrument moving from an experimental laboratory to a clinical one.[13] Conversely, challenges with patients and their caregivers can be based on contextual comprehension, where we had to explain the need and uses of the instrument.[21] Given the diverse patient sample across critical care, pediatric, and geriatric populations, technological integration, advocacy, and understanding confidentiality were a few challenging areas.[22] It was important to have patience while empathizing with their circumstances and requirements. A large number of people expressed their emotions existentially, downplaying their challenges in light of the more severe illness they were facing. As psychologists, we bridge this gap, conveying the needs of both groups to optimize patient outcomes.[23]

In our personal experience, data collection in a clinical environment differs significantly from other settings due to the constant prioritization of emergencies and critical situations.[24] Quoting back on the issue of scheduling interviews with health care professionals, it is only appropriate that patient well-being is given precedence over other activities in a hospital setting.[21] On the other hand, this also implies that we as a research team are provided with minimal time and resources to investigate the problem under study. Working in a field also entails that one repeats their observations over time—notice patterns, associate and un-associate cause and effects, and observe the behavior of the people involved in the study. Over time, we realize that there is often more to observe than one would imagine otherwise.[25] It is through these consistent and continuous observations that one can understand and analyze the variables under study, thereby necessitating the need for psychologists as the bridge between laboratory and field.[26]

Navigating through the complexities of hospital settings and collaborating with a diverse range of healthcare professionals also helped foster skills of adaptability and team work. It also instilled an understanding of professional conduct and cultivated a stronger sense of work ethic, which applies to every other workplace.[14] Additionally, this experience honed our skills in working with vulnerable populations and what precautions one must be mindful of taking with such groups.

This article highlights the critical importance incorporating psychological perspectives into biomedical research and its role in advancing the shared goal of enhancing patient care within both biomedical and psychological disciplines. It also focuses on the ground-level experiences of conducting research in hospital environments, which present unique challenges, such as difficulties in data collection and skepticism from health care professionals for which researchers must employ strong communication skills and adaptability to address the diverse needs of different stakeholders. By leveraging personal experiences, this study explores how psychologists function as a conduit between laboratory research and clinical practice. Their expertise in behavioral analysis and patient interaction is instrumental in making research findings more applicable and impactful in health care settings highlighting how the contributions are crucial for translating research into practical, patient-centered interventions. The overarching objective of this perspective study is to highlight the role of psychologists in bridging the divide between laboratory-based research and real-world clinical practice and shed light on the challenges inherent in conducting such interdisciplinary research.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Acknowledgments

This research endeavor would not have been possible without the assistance of several people to whom we would like to express our sincere gratitude. We would like to thank all the health care professionals who helped us navigate and conduct research in the hospital landscape. We thank them for their patience and invaluable support in data collection activities. We would also like to thank the Department of Liberal Arts and the Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, for having given us the opportunity to conduct field research and work on an interdisciplinary project. Finally, we thank all the participants who were a part of this research; their contribution is greatly appreciated.

References

  1. LaFrance DL, Weiss MJ, Kazemi E, Gerenser J, Dobres J. Multidisciplinary teaming: enhancing collaboration through increased understanding. Behav Anal Pract 2019; 12 (03) 709-726
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  2. Boeldt DL, Wineinger NE, Waalen J. et al. How consumers and physicians view new medical technology: comparative survey. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17 (09) e215
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  3. Kessel F, Rosenfield P, Anderson N. eds. Interdisciplinary Research: Case Studies from Health and Social Science. New York, NY: Oxford Academic; 2008
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  4. Fewster-Thuente L, Velsor-Friedrich B. Interdisciplinary collaboration for healthcare professionals. Nurs Adm Q 2008; 32 (01) 40-48
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  5. Hashmi FA, Burger O, Goldwater MB. et al. Integrating human-centered design and social science research to improve service-delivery and empower community health workers: lessons from project rise. She Ji J Design Econ Innov 2023; 9 (04) 489-517
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  6. Saczynski JS, McManus DD, Goldberg RJ. Commonly used data-collection approaches in clinical research. Am J Med 2013; 126 (11) 946-950
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  7. Holden RJ, McDougald Scott AM, Hoonakker PL, Hundt AS, Carayon P. Data collection challenges in community settings: insights from two field studies of patients with chronic disease. Qual Life Res 2015; 24 (05) 1043-1055
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  8. Garfield S, Jheeta S, Jacklin A, Bischler A, Norton C, Franklin BD. Patient and public involvement in data collection for health services research: a descriptive study. Res Involv Engagem 2015; 1 (01) 8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  9. Lee CM, Schneider BH, Bellefontaine S, Davidson S, Robertson C. Interprofessional Collaboration. A survey of Canadian psychologists and psychiatrists. Can Psychol 2012; 53 (03) 159-164
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  10. Banerjee M, Chiew D, Patel KT. et al. The impact of artificial intelligence on clinical education: perceptions of postgraduate trainee doctors in London (UK) and recommendations for trainers. BMC Med Educ 2021; 21 (01) 429
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  11. Bonfim D, Belotti L, de Almeida LY. et al. Challenges and strategies for conducting research in primary health care practice: an integrative review. BMC Health Serv Res 2023; 23 (01) 1380
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  12. Nancarrow SA, Booth A, Ariss S, Smith T, Enderby P, Roots A. Ten principles of good interdisciplinary team work. Hum Resour Health 2013; 11 (01) 19
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  13. Schot E, Tummers L, Noordegraaf M. Working on working together. A systematic review on how healthcare professionals contribute to interprofessional collaboration. J Interprof Care 2020; 34 (03) 332-342
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  14. Jackson J, Maben J, Anderson JE. What are nurses' roles in modern healthcare? A qualitative interview study using interpretive description. J Res Nurs 2022; 27 (06) 504-516
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  15. Belita E, Sidani S. Attrition in smoking cessation intervention studies: a systematic review. Can J Nurs Res 2015; 47 (04) 21-40
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  16. Kwame A, Petrucka PM. A literature-based study of patient-centered care and communication in nurse-patient interactions: barriers, facilitators, and the way forward. BMC Nurs 2021; 20 (01) 158
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  17. Brown S-A, Sparapani R, Osinski K. et al; Cardio-Oncology Artificial Intelligence Informatics & Precision (CAIP) Research Team Investigators. Team principles for successful interdisciplinary research teams. Am Heart J Plus 2023; 32: 100306
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  18. Zajac S, Woods A, Tannenbaum S, Salas E, Holladay CL. Overcoming challenges to teamwork in healthcare: a team effectiveness framework and evidence-based guidance. Front Commun (Lausanne) 2021; 6: 606445
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  19. Sha M, Gabel T. Essential Role of Language in Survey Research. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press/RTI International; 2020
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  20. Vahdat S, Hamzehgardeshi L, Hessam S, Hamzehgardeshi Z. Patient involvement in health care decision making: a review. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2014; 16 (01) e12454
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  21. Alexander D, Quirke M, Greene J, Cassidy L, Hilliard C, Brenner M. The role of bioethics services in paediatric intensive care units: a qualitative descriptive study. BMC Med Ethics 2024; 25 (01) 20
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  22. Leventhal G, Stamm KE, Washburn JJ. et al. Patterns of psychologists' interprofessional collaboration across clinical practice settings. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 2021; 28 (04) 844-867
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  23. Columb MO, Haji-Michael P, Nightingale P. Data collection in the emergency setting. Emerg Med J 2003; 20 (05) 459-463
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  24. Holleman GA, Hooge ITC, Kemner C, Hessels RS. The “real-world approach” and its problems: a critique of the term ecological validity. Front Psychol 2020; 11: 721
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  25. Teachman BA, Drabick DA, Hershenberg R, Vivian D, Wolfe BE, Goldfried MR. Bridging the gap between clinical research and clinical practice: introduction to the special section. Psychotherapy (Chic) 2012; 49 (02) 97-100
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  26. Robiner WN, Petrik ML. Managing difficult patients: roles of psychologists in the age of interdisciplinary care. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 2017; 24 (01) 27-36
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar

    Address for correspondence

    Rajisha Sharma
    Department of Liberal Arts, Indian Institute of Technology
    Hyderabad 502284, Telangana
    India   

    Publication History

    Article published online:
    11 December 2024

    © 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

    Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
    A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

    We recommend

References

  1. LaFrance DL, Weiss MJ, Kazemi E, Gerenser J, Dobres J. Multidisciplinary teaming: enhancing collaboration through increased understanding. Behav Anal Pract 2019; 12 (03) 709-726
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  2. Boeldt DL, Wineinger NE, Waalen J. et al. How consumers and physicians view new medical technology: comparative survey. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17 (09) e215
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  3. Kessel F, Rosenfield P, Anderson N. eds. Interdisciplinary Research: Case Studies from Health and Social Science. New York, NY: Oxford Academic; 2008
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  4. Fewster-Thuente L, Velsor-Friedrich B. Interdisciplinary collaboration for healthcare professionals. Nurs Adm Q 2008; 32 (01) 40-48
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  5. Hashmi FA, Burger O, Goldwater MB. et al. Integrating human-centered design and social science research to improve service-delivery and empower community health workers: lessons from project rise. She Ji J Design Econ Innov 2023; 9 (04) 489-517
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  6. Saczynski JS, McManus DD, Goldberg RJ. Commonly used data-collection approaches in clinical research. Am J Med 2013; 126 (11) 946-950
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  7. Holden RJ, McDougald Scott AM, Hoonakker PL, Hundt AS, Carayon P. Data collection challenges in community settings: insights from two field studies of patients with chronic disease. Qual Life Res 2015; 24 (05) 1043-1055
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  8. Garfield S, Jheeta S, Jacklin A, Bischler A, Norton C, Franklin BD. Patient and public involvement in data collection for health services research: a descriptive study. Res Involv Engagem 2015; 1 (01) 8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  9. Lee CM, Schneider BH, Bellefontaine S, Davidson S, Robertson C. Interprofessional Collaboration. A survey of Canadian psychologists and psychiatrists. Can Psychol 2012; 53 (03) 159-164
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  10. Banerjee M, Chiew D, Patel KT. et al. The impact of artificial intelligence on clinical education: perceptions of postgraduate trainee doctors in London (UK) and recommendations for trainers. BMC Med Educ 2021; 21 (01) 429
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  11. Bonfim D, Belotti L, de Almeida LY. et al. Challenges and strategies for conducting research in primary health care practice: an integrative review. BMC Health Serv Res 2023; 23 (01) 1380
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  12. Nancarrow SA, Booth A, Ariss S, Smith T, Enderby P, Roots A. Ten principles of good interdisciplinary team work. Hum Resour Health 2013; 11 (01) 19
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  13. Schot E, Tummers L, Noordegraaf M. Working on working together. A systematic review on how healthcare professionals contribute to interprofessional collaboration. J Interprof Care 2020; 34 (03) 332-342
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  14. Jackson J, Maben J, Anderson JE. What are nurses' roles in modern healthcare? A qualitative interview study using interpretive description. J Res Nurs 2022; 27 (06) 504-516
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  15. Belita E, Sidani S. Attrition in smoking cessation intervention studies: a systematic review. Can J Nurs Res 2015; 47 (04) 21-40
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  16. Kwame A, Petrucka PM. A literature-based study of patient-centered care and communication in nurse-patient interactions: barriers, facilitators, and the way forward. BMC Nurs 2021; 20 (01) 158
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  17. Brown S-A, Sparapani R, Osinski K. et al; Cardio-Oncology Artificial Intelligence Informatics & Precision (CAIP) Research Team Investigators. Team principles for successful interdisciplinary research teams. Am Heart J Plus 2023; 32: 100306
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  18. Zajac S, Woods A, Tannenbaum S, Salas E, Holladay CL. Overcoming challenges to teamwork in healthcare: a team effectiveness framework and evidence-based guidance. Front Commun (Lausanne) 2021; 6: 606445
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  19. Sha M, Gabel T. Essential Role of Language in Survey Research. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press/RTI International; 2020
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  20. Vahdat S, Hamzehgardeshi L, Hessam S, Hamzehgardeshi Z. Patient involvement in health care decision making: a review. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2014; 16 (01) e12454
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  21. Alexander D, Quirke M, Greene J, Cassidy L, Hilliard C, Brenner M. The role of bioethics services in paediatric intensive care units: a qualitative descriptive study. BMC Med Ethics 2024; 25 (01) 20
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  22. Leventhal G, Stamm KE, Washburn JJ. et al. Patterns of psychologists' interprofessional collaboration across clinical practice settings. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 2021; 28 (04) 844-867
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  23. Columb MO, Haji-Michael P, Nightingale P. Data collection in the emergency setting. Emerg Med J 2003; 20 (05) 459-463
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  24. Holleman GA, Hooge ITC, Kemner C, Hessels RS. The “real-world approach” and its problems: a critique of the term ecological validity. Front Psychol 2020; 11: 721
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  25. Teachman BA, Drabick DA, Hershenberg R, Vivian D, Wolfe BE, Goldfried MR. Bridging the gap between clinical research and clinical practice: introduction to the special section. Psychotherapy (Chic) 2012; 49 (02) 97-100
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  26. Robiner WN, Petrik ML. Managing difficult patients: roles of psychologists in the age of interdisciplinary care. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 2017; 24 (01) 27-36
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar

CONTACT US

QUICK LINKS

NEWSLETTER

Get all the information, latest updates delivered directly in your inbox

© Indian Journal of Medical and Paediatric Oncology. Designed and Developed by Stackloom & Minerrals