Table 8.
Comparison of the three collaboration surveys
| Survey #1 | Survey #2 | Survey #3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date of survey | March 2012 | April–May 2013 | May–June 2015 |
| Number of invitations to members | 68 | 263 | 244 |
| Response rate | 76 % (2 % formally declined) | 43 % (2 % formally declined) | 79 % (9 % formally declined) |
| Density of collaboration network | 4 % (pre-TRN = 31 %) | 1 % | 4 % |
| Number of respondents reporting their ties | 26 | 94 | 171 |
| Number of ties reported | 106 | 326 | 1658 |
| Number of new ties to people they did not know pre-network | 1 | 119 | 671 |
| Central actors’ ID numbers and title | 131 (TRN director) | 131 (TRN director) | 206 (TRN manager) |
| 206 (TRN manager) | 206 (TRN manager) | 213 (TRN staff) | |
| 262 (researcher) | |||
| Brokers’ ID numbers and titles | 206 (TRN manager) | 131 (TRN director) | 206 (TRN manager) |
| 165 (manager) | 206 (TRN manager) | 213 (TRN staff) | |
| 81 (researcher) | (TRN staff)a | ||
| (Clinician)a | 143 (clinician) | ||
| 126 (clinician) | |||
| 106 (clinician-researcher) | |||
| Members nominated the most by new members as the person inviting or influencing them to join (ID numbers and titles) | NA | 131(TRN director) | 131(TRN director) |
| 44 (researcher) | 165 (manager) | ||
| 236 (researcher) | 44 (researcher) | ||
| 134 (manager) | Research group 1 | ||
| Examples given of changes in practice as a result of TRN activities | NA | Answered by 28 % of respondents •Universal consent for the tumour tissue bank •Use of the pain modules •Involvement of consumers |
Answered by 55 % of respondents •Universal consent for tumour tissue bank •Involvement of consumers •Diagnostic improvements around hereditary breast, ovarian or colorectal cancer •Improved assessment of pain |
Due to its low response rate, survey #2 needs to be compared with caution
aNo longer a member