Trial Outcomes & Findings for Innovation Labs to Enhance Collaboration (NCT NCT05395286)

Each application was rated by 2-4 raters on a 1-4 scale for bringing diverse expertise to the Innovation Lab topic and fit for the Innovation Lab approach. Applicants with consistently poor scores (\~≤2) were excluded from RCT participation.

One participant in the Innovation Lab group did not disclose their sex.

Self-report: The Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx; Mallinson, Lotrecchiano, et al., 2016) benefits scale includes 17 items that tap into perceived motivators/benefits of collaboration. Each is rated on a 1-4 scale. Scale scores were computed as the mean of all 17 items, for a benefits scale score ranging from 1-4, with higher scores indicating greater collaboration readiness.

Self-report: The Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx; Mallinson, Lotrecchiano, et al., 2016) Threats Scale includes 31 barriers to -- or threats of -- collaboration. Each is rated on a 1-4 scale. Scale scores were computed as the mean of all 31 items, for a Barriers/Threats scale score ranging from 1-4, with lower scores indicating greater collaboration readiness.

Self-report: The Transdisciplinary Orientation scale (TDO; Misra, Stokols, \& Cheng, 2015) is a 12-item scale that measures values, attitudes, and beliefs, and conceptual skills and behaviors, that assesses the degree to which participants are oriented towards transdisciplinary collaboration. Items are rated on a five-point scale (1="Strongly Disagree," 5="Strongly Agree"). The total score is the mean of all 12 items, with a resulting 1-5 range, in which higher scores indicate greater transdisciplinary collaboration orientation.

Objective number of collaborators from published articles on PubMed

Self-Reported Number of Grants Submitted per Year. For the post-treatment period, the number of grants submitted at 6- and 12-M follow-up were summed. To make the pre-treatment period (which covered only 9 months) comparable to the post-treatment period, the number of grants at baseline and EOT were summed, divided by 9, and then multiplied by 12. Participants who did not report the number of grants submitted were coded as zero for the ITT analysis.

The Innovation Lab group was asked to rate the degree to which "The Lab met the goal of forming new transdisciplinary collaborations", answering on a 6-point scale (0 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree"), with higher scores indicating a beneficial effect of the Innovation Lab.

The Innovation Lab group was asked to rate the degree to which "The Lab met the goal of developing novel grant proposals", answering on a 6-point scale (0 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree"), with higher scores indicating a beneficial effect of the Innovation Lab.

The Innovation Lab group was asked to rate the degree to which "I would recommend an Innovation Lab to a colleague", answering on a 6-point scale (0 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree"), with higher scores indicating a beneficial effect of the Innovation Lab.

The Innovation Lab group was asked to rate the degree to which "My experience in the Innovation Lab will have a positive impact on my work at my home institution", answering on a 6-point scale (0 = "Strongly Disagree" to 5 = "Strongly Agree"), with higher scores indicating a beneficial effect of the Innovation Lab.