Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Microenvironmental Influences on Team Performance in Cancer Care

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Geospatial Approaches to Energy Balance and Breast Cancer

Part of the book series: Energy Balance and Cancer ((EBAC,volume 15))

  • 464 Accesses

Abstract

Effective delivery of cancer care requires coordination across many professional and organizational boundaries. Breakdowns in coordination within this complex system underlie many quality of care issues. The interactions of care team members and multi-team systems matters to patient, staff, and organizational outcomes. Maturing the evidence-base for interventions and management strategies for teamwork and coordination within cancer care requires a robust toolset of measurement approaches suited to research and operational challenges. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the science of teams and traditional methods employed measure aspects of teamwork and coordination. We then review emerging unobtrusive and sensor-based methods and use cases for their application in cancer care delivery system research and operations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Taplin SH, Price RA, Edwards HM, et al. Introduction: understanding and influencing multilevel factors across the cancer care continuum. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012;2012:2–10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Walsh J, Harrison JD, Young JM, et al. What are the current barriers to effective cancer care coordination? A qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:132.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Walsh J, Young JM, Harrison JD, et al. What is important in cancer care coordination? A qualitative investigation. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2011;20:220–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosen MA, DiazGranados D, Dietz AS, et al. Teamwork in healthcare: key discoveries enabling safer, high-quality care. Am Psychol. 2018;73:433–50.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Nestel D, Walker K, Simon R, et al. Nontechnical skills: an inaccurate and unhelpful descriptor? Simul Healthc. 2011;6:2–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Salas E, Cooke NJ, Rosen MA. On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Hum Factors. 2008;50:540–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad Manag Rev. 2001;26:356–76.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mathieu JE, Wolfson MA, Park S. The evolution of work team research since Hawthorne. Am Psychol. 2018;73:308–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bell ST. Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2007;92:595–615.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Stewart GL. A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. J Manage. 2006;32:29–55.

    Google Scholar 

  11. LePine JA, Piccolo RF, Jackson CL, et al. A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Pers Psychol. 2008;61:273–307.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Waldfogel JM, Battle DJ, Rosen M, et al. Team leadership and cancer end-of-life decision making. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12:1135–40. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2016.013862.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tremblay D, Latreille J, Bilodeau K, et al. Improving the transition from oncology to primary care teams: a case for shared leadership. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12:1012–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2016.013771.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Page JS, Lederman L, Kelly J, et al. Teams and teamwork in cancer care delivery: shared mental models to improve planning for discharge and coordination of follow-up care. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12:1053–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. D’Ambruoso SF, Coscarelli A, Hurvitz S, et al. Use of a shared mental model by a team composed of oncology, palliative care, and supportive care clinicians to facilitate shared decision making in a patient with advanced cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12:1039–45.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Valentine MA, Nembhard IM, Edmondson AC. Measuring teamwork in health care settings: a review of survey instruments. Med Care. 2015;53:e30.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dietz AS, Pronovost PJ, Benson KN, et al. A systematic review of behavioural marker systems in healthcare: what do we know about their attributes, validity and application? BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23:1031–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wageman R, Hackman JR, Lehman E. Team diagnostic survey: development of an instrument. J Appl Behav Sci. 2005;41:373–98.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wildman JL, Salas E, Scott CPR. Measuring cognition in teams: a cross-domain review. Hum Factors. 2014;56:911–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kruger J, Dunning D. Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;77:1121–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Baker DP, Salas E. Principles for measuring teamwork: a summary and look toward the future. In: Brannick MT, Salas E, Prince C, editors. Team performance assessment and measurement: theory, methods, and applications: Psychology Press; 1997. p. 331–56.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Russ S, Hull L, Rout S, et al. Observational teamwork assessment for surgery: feasibility of clinical and nonclinical assessor calibration with short-term training. Ann Surg. 2012;255:804–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rosen MA, Dietz AS, Yang T, et al. An integrative framework for sensor-based measurement of teamwork in healthcare. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;22:11–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Rosen M, Dietz A, Kazi S. Beyond Coding Interaction. Cambridge Handb Gr Interact Anal Cambridge Handbooks Psychol. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press; 2018. p. 142–62.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Marlow SL, Lacerenza CN, Paoletti J, et al. Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach?: a meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2018;144:145–70.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Brauner E, Boos M, Kolbe M. The Cambridge handbook of group interaction analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Grimmer J, Stewart BM. Text as data: the promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Polit Anal. 2013;21:267–97.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tausczik YR, Pennebaker JW. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. J Lang Soc Psychol. 2010;29:24–54.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gilbert CJHE. Vader: a parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In: Eighth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM-14). Available at 20 04 2016. 2014. http://comp.social.gatechedu/papers/icwsm14vaderhuttopdf.

  30. Gonzales AL, Hancock JT, Pennebaker JW. Language style matching as a predictor of social dynamics in small groups. Commun Res. 2010;37:3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sexton JB, Helmreich RL. Analyzing cockpit communications: the links between language, performance, error, and workload. Hum Perform Extrem Environ. 2000;5:63–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Fischer U, McDonnell L, Orasanu J. Linguistic correlates of team performance: toward a tool for monitoring team functioning during space missions. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2007;78:B95.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Evans JA, Aceves P. Machine translation: mining text for social theory. Annu Rev Sociol. 2016;42:21–50.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Landauer TK, Foltz PW, Laham D. An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Process. 1998;25:259–84.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gorman JC, Foltz PW, Kiekel PA, et al. Evaluation of latent semantic analysis-based measures of team communications content. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Sage CA; 2003. p. 424–8.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Martin MJ, Foltz PW. Automated team discourse annotation and performance prediction using LSA. In: Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2004: short papers. Association for computational linguistics, 2004. pp 97–100.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gorman JC, Martin MJ, Dunbar TA, et al. Cross-level effects between neurophysiology and communication during team training. Hum Factors. 2016;58:181–99.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Chuang J, Gupta S, Manning C, Heer J. Topic model diagnostics: assessing domain relevance via topical alignment. In: International conference on machine learning; 2013. p. 612–20.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gatica-Perez D. Automatic nonverbal analysis of social interaction in small groups: a review. Image Vis Comput. 2009;27:1775–87.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Vinciarelli A, Pantic M, Bourlard H. Social signal processing: survey of an emerging domain. Image Vis Comput. 2009;27:1743–59.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Schuller B, Steidl S, Batliner A, et al. A Survey on perceived speaker traits: personality, likability, pathology, and the first challenge. Comput Speech Lang. 2015;29:100–31.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Charfuelan M, Schröder M, Steiner I. Prosody and voice quality of vocal social signals: the case of dominance in scenario meetings. In: Eleventh annual conference of the international speech communication association. 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Charfuelan M, Schröder M. Investigating the prosody and voice quality of social signals in scenario meetings. Lect Notes Comput Sci (including Subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinformatics). 2011;6974. LNCS:46–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24600-5_8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hung H, Gatica-Perez D. Estimating cohesion in small groups using audio-visual nonverbal behavior. IEEE Trans Multimed. 2010;12:563–75.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sanchez-Cortes D, Aran O, Mast MS, Gatica-Perez D. A nonverbal behavior approach to identify emergent leaders in small groups. IEEE Trans Multimed. 2012;14:816–32.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, et al. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science. 2010;330:686–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Gontar P, Fischer U, Bengler K. Methods to evaluate pilots’ cockpit communication: cross-recurrence analyses vs. speech act–based analyses. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak. 2017;11:337–52.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Tschan F. Ideal cycles of communication (or cognitions) in triads, dyads, and individuals. Small Group Res. 2002;33:615–43.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Gorman JC, Hessler EE, Amazeen PG, et al. Dynamical analysis in real time: detecting perturbations to team communication. Ergonomics. 2012;55:825–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Strang AJ, Funke GJ, Russell SM, et al. Physio-behavioral coupling in a cooperative team task: contributors and relations. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014;40:145–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Feese S, Arnrich B, Troster G, et al. Quantifying behavioral mimicry by automatic detection of nonverbal cues from body motion. In: Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT), 2012 International confernece on social computing (SocialCom) IEEE, 2012. pp 520–525.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Chikersal P, Tomprou M, Kim YJ, et al. Deep structures of collaboration: physiological correlates of collective intelligence and group satisfaction: CSCW; 2017. p. 873–88.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mønster D, Håkonsson DD, Eskildsen JK, Wallot S. Physiological evidence of interpersonal dynamics in a cooperative production task. Physiol Behav. 2016;156:24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.01.004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Gontar P, Mulligan JB. Cross recurrence analysis as a measure of pilots’ visual behaviour. In: Proceedings of the 32nd conference of the european association for aviation psychology. Groningen; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Hauland G. Measuring individual and team situation awareness during planning tasks in training of en route air traffic control. Int J Aviat Psychol. 2008;18:290–304.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kazi S, Khaleghzadegan S, Dinh J, et al. Team physiological dynamics: critical review hum factors under review.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Fusaroli R, Bjørndahl JS, Roepstorff A, Tylén K. A heart for interaction: shared physiological dynamics and behavioral coordination in a collective, creative construction task. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2016;42:1297–310.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Guastello SJ. Physiological synchronization in a vigilance dual task. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci. 2016;20:49–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Stevens R, Galloway T, Lamb C. Submarine navigation team resilience: linking EEG and behavioral models. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Sage CA; 2014. p. 245–9.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Toppi J, Borghini G, Petti M, et al. Investigating cooperative behavior in ecological settings: an EEG hyperscanning study. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0154236.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Kozlowski SWJ, Klein KJ. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ, editors. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2000. p. 3–90.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Knight AP, Kennedy DM, McComb SA. Using recurrence analysis to examine group dynamics. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract. 2016;20:223–41.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Järvelä S, Kivikangas JM, Kätsyri J, Ravaja N. Physiological linkage of dyadic gaming experience. Simul Gaming. 2014;45:24–40.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Elkins AN, Muth ER, Hoover AW, et al. Physiological compliance and team performance. Appl Ergon. 2009;40:997–1003.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Henning RA, Boucsein W, Gil MC. Social–physiological compliance as a determinant of team performance. Int J Psychophysiol. 2001;40:221–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Walker AD, Muth ER, III FSS, Rosopa PJ. Predicting team performance in a dynamic environment: a team psychophysiological approach to measuring cognitive readiness. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak. 2013;7:69–82.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Rosen MA, Dietz AS, Lee N, et al. Sensor-based measurement of critical care nursing workload: Unobtrusive measures of nursing activity complement traditional task and patient level indicators of workload to predict perceived exertion. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0204819.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Isella L, Romano M, Barrat A, et al. Close encounters in a pediatric ward: measuring face-to-face proximity and mixing patterns with wearable sensors. PLoS One. 2011;6:e17144.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Olguín Olguín D, Waber BN, Kim T, et al. Sensible organizations: technology and methodology for automatically measuring organizational behavior. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B. 2009;39:43–55.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Arora NK. Interacting with cancer patients: the significance of physicians’ communication behavior. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:791–806.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Zachariae R, Pedersen CG, Jensen AB, et al. Association of perceived physician communication style with patient satisfaction, distress, cancer-related self-efficacy, and perceived control over the disease. Br J Cancer. 2003;88:658–65.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Venetis MK, Robinson JD, Turkiewicz KL, Allen M. An evidence base for patient-centered cancer care: a meta-analysis of studies of observed communication between cancer specialists and their patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77:379–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Epstein RM, Duberstein PR, Fenton JJ, et al. Effect of a patient-centered communication intervention on oncologist-patient communication, quality of life, and health care utilization in advanced cancer: the VOICE randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:92–100.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Bagshaw SM, Opgenorth D, Potestio M, et al. Healthcare provider perceptions of causes and consequences of ICU capacity strain in a large publicly funded integrated health region: a qualitative study. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:e356.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Dietz AS, Salas E, Pronovost PJ, et al. Evaluation of a measurement system to assess ICU team performance. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:1898–905.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Zaccaro SJ, Marks MA, DeChurch LA. Multiteam systems: an introduction. Routledge; 2012. p. 18–47.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Weaver SJ, Jacobsen PB. Cancer care coordination: opportunities for healthcare delivery research. Transl Behav Med. 2018;8:503–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work was partially funded by a grant from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Grant # NNX17AB55G; PI: Rosen).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Michael A. Rosen, Sadaf Kazi & Salar Khaleghzadegan

Authors
  1. Michael A. Rosen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sadaf Kazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Salar Khaleghzadegan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael A. Rosen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA

    David Berrigan

  2. Center for Science, Health and Society Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Nathan A. Berger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rosen, M.A., Kazi, S., Khaleghzadegan, S. (2019). Microenvironmental Influences on Team Performance in Cancer Care. In: Berrigan, D., Berger, N. (eds) Geospatial Approaches to Energy Balance and Breast Cancer. Energy Balance and Cancer, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18408-7_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18408-7_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-18407-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-18408-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation