[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-594715-105":59,"doc-detail-594715-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","optimising-the-efficacy-of-hybrid-academic-teams-lessons-from-a-systematic-review-process","Optimising the efficacy of hybrid academic teams - Lessons from a systematic review process","","Optimising the efficacy of hybrid academic teams focuses on how a hybrid academic team can improve performance when undertaking a systematic review. The paper explains the practical strategies used by a multidisciplinary team at a regional Australian university, emphasizing cooperation across two campuses. It addresses how systematic review planning, evidence-based decision making, clear protocol work, and careful documentation support both the research team and systematic review readers. It also clarifies common misconceptions between systematic reviews and meta-analyses.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/optimising-the-efficacy-of-hybrid-academic-teams-lessons-from-a-systematic-review-process/594715/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/optimising-the-efficacy-of-hybrid-academic-teams-lessons-from-a-systematic-review-process/594715.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Ben ","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-16","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":14},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What benefits does the paper associate with undertaking a systematic review?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The paper describes multiple benefits beyond theoretical or conceptual discoveries, highlighting value for both the research team and systematic review readers.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does the paper characterize a hybrid academic team in the systematic review process?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It presents the hybrid team as supporting cooperation across campuses, and as offering skills and expertise spanning discipline content, project management, and professional knowledge.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What definition does the paper use to distinguish systematic reviews from meta-analyses?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It states that a systematic review answers a defined question by collecting and summarising all eligible empirical evidence, while a meta-analysis applies statistical methods to summarise results across those studies.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},594715,1792165867,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":14,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":44,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},2336478951081,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W  \nOptimising the efficacy of hybrid academic teams  \nLessons from a systematic review process  \nWarren Lake, Margie Wallin, Bill Boyd, Geoff Woolcott, Christos Markopoulos, Wendy Boyd & Alan Foster  \nSouthern Cross University  \nUndertaking a systematic review can have many benefits, beyond any theoretical or conceptual discoveries pertaining to the underlying research question. This paper explores the value of utilising a hybrid academic team when undertaking the systematic review process, and shares a range of practical strategies. The paper also comments on how such a hybrid team sits in a continuum of cooperation, coordination and collaboration. Key recommendations include choosing a great team, communicating well, documenting everything, and being explicit – for the benefit of your research team, and the readers of your systematic review.  \nKeywords: teams, collaboration, systematic reviews, protocols  \nWhile much has been written about the process-related elements of undertaking a systematic review or metaanalysis (Booth et al., 2012; Durlak, 2008; Gough et al., 2012; Littell et al., 2008; Machi & McEvoy, 2012; Ridley, 2012), few publications discuss the practical elements, especially when undertaking such a process for the first time, and with a hybrid team. During 2015, a multidisciplinary team at a regional Australian university undertook a funded research project, using a systematic review framework. While the results of that review have been published (Lake et al., 2017), this article documents and shares discoveries made by the team about practical elements, in the hope of supporting others who may be contemplating such an activity.  \nThe core elementsofa systematic review underpinned a research project that investigated alternative mathematics pedagogies for students with poor mathematics skills, ina higher education setting. The multidisciplinary project team comprised five academics from both the School of Education and the School of Environment, Science and Engineering, as well as a research assistant from the  \nSchool of Environment, Science and Engineering and the School of Education liaison librarian.This hybrid team was based across two campuses.This was the first experience of participating in the systematic review process for many of the team members.  \nSystematic reviews  \nThe systematic review was planned as the first stage of a multi-phase research project, and was intended to inform the direction of future research.The project team agreed on a commitment to an evidence-based approach, and elected to use a systematic review framework. While the evidence-based practice movement originated within the health and clinical sciences (Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group, 1992; Sackett et al. , 1996), the approach has since been adopted and adapted for use within the majority of professional disciplines (Booth, 2003; Borrego et al. , 2014; Davies, 1999;Webb, 2001) . An increasing number of institutions, such as the Campbell Collaboration (2016) and the Evidence for Policy and  \n16 Optimising the efficacy of hybrid academic teams Warren Lake et al. vol. 60, no. 1, 2018  \nA U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W  \nPractice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPICentre, 2017), also support evidence-based research across a range of disciplines. In addition to publishing systematic reviews, such institutions generally produce a range of training materials and resources, designed to support those undertaking systematic reviews. Supplementary resources, including the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA, 2015) checklist and PRISMA flow diagram (Moher et al., 2009), were also used throughout this research and review process.  \nWhile the processes of systematic reviews and metaanalyses are clearly defined in the literature (Cochrane Collaboration, 2016; Glass, 1976; Higgins & Green, 2011; Oxman & Guyatt, ","cbCaiel6EGbYsiWT","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiel6EGbYsiWT","pdf",179253,"English","# Introduction\n## Value of systematic review process\n## Hybrid team approach\n# Systematic Review Framework\n## Evidence-based practice and institutional support\n## PRISMA resources and reporting\n# Clarifying Concepts\n## Systematic review vs meta-analysis\n# Team Approach and Practical Strategies\n## Team skills and division of expertise\n## Communication and group cooperation","[{\"question\":\"What benefits does the paper associate with undertaking a systematic review?\",\"answer\":\"The paper describes multiple benefits beyond theoretical or conceptual discoveries, highlighting value for both the research team and systematic review readers.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the paper characterize a hybrid academic team in the systematic review process?\",\"answer\":\"It presents the hybrid team as supporting cooperation across campuses, and as offering skills and expertise spanning discipline content, project management, and professional knowledge.\"},{\"question\":\"What definition does the paper use to distinguish systematic reviews from meta-analyses?\",\"answer\":\"It states that a systematic review answers a defined question by collecting and summarising all eligible empirical evidence, while a meta-analysis applies statistical methods to summarise results across those studies.\"}]","Optimising the efficacy of hybrid academic teams - Lessons from a systematic review process | PDF",1792079700,23]