Using Web 2.0 Technology to Build A Cyber-Infrastructure for An Interdisciplinary Biomedical Research Community of Practice

Background: Developing an interdisciplinary biomedical research study requires highly collaborative communication and well executed information management. The trend toward converging researchers across disciplines and geographic locations begs for asynchronous connectivity. The Internet, and, more recently, innovative web-based tools and services that allow user participation on the Web, i.e. Web 2.0, can revolutionize communication and virtual collaboration. Web 2.0 team portal systems are comprised of a collection of editable Web pages that make it easy for investigators to collaboratively contribute and seamlessly link content, engage in team dialogue, exchange reference resources, and share information and experiences. 

Program background:  While over 45% of the Inc. 500 companies and 22% of the Fortune 500 used Web 2.0 social technologies in 2009, their use in healthcare is limited, and there is virtually no evidence-based research for its application in coalescing a biomedical research community of practice (CoP). Physicians and clinicians from six departments in a major southwest region resident-teaching university expect to leverage Web 2.0 social technology to bridge the gaps of time and distance and create a dynamic cyber-infrastructure to facilitate the development of a longitudinal, interdisciplinary chronic pain study. 

Evaluation Methods and Results:  A situational assessment planning SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis will precede a pilot study and result from the following four components: a systematic literature review of Web 2.0 use for biomedical research; a comparison of open source and proprietary platforms; key informant interviews with future portal users; and preliminary email and social technology usage analytics. The study is designed to provide evidence-based outcomes of implementing a peer-to-peer Web 2.0 social media knowledge management tool for biomedical research. Surveys and web analytics will provide quantitative measures, and qualitative ethnographically-based methods will be applied to investigate socio-technical issues of implementation. Expectations include the formation and analysis of an iterative digital knowledge repository documenting a detailed account of reproducible group processes and scientific methods toward the development of a biomedical research study. It is anticipated there will be progressively fewer numbers of face-to-face meetings and individual/group emails and inversely greater numbers of portal logons and contributions. On-line editing will eliminate multiple versions of word-processing documents and reduce time spent editing.  Sophisticated search and find features will reduce time spent accessing needed information. Anticipated barriers include the existing university culture and administrative policies; resistance to change; dependence on email communication; disparities between non-technical and tech-savvy physicians and clinicians; scheduling on-site training; integration with existing technologies; HIPAA and IT security regulations; information organization and portal architecture; securing protected staff time for portal maintenance and management; and determining meaningful outcome measures.

Conclusions:  Web 2.0 social technologies can facilitate a highly efficient and easy-to-use cyber-infrastructure for virtual communication and collaboration. 

Implications for research and/or practice:  Future implications of an evidenced-based use of Web 2.0 for knowledge sharing will provide a best practices model for interdisciplinary biomedical research teams. Findings of the pilot study will help improve our understanding of the interaction between people, processes and information technology systems for biomedical research CoPs when formulating highly complex, interdisciplinary biomedical research studies.