Evaluation of Interactions and Group Processes in Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards in Gynecologic Oncology

Study Title Group Dynamics Evaluation in Gynecologic Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards - GOLD Study Background and Rationale Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards are central to complex oncologic decision-making. In gynecologic oncology, clinical decisions often require the integration of knowledge from different specialties, including surgery, medical oncology, radiology, pathology, radiation oncology, and other relevant disciplines. These teams function not only as groups of specialists but also as collective decision-making systems, where communication, collaboration, information sharing, psychological safety, and group dynamics may influence the quality of clinical discussion and final recommendations. Study Objective The GOLD Study aims to investigate the decision-making process and group dynamics within ovarian and uterine cancer Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards. The study will assess how communication patterns, collaboration, minority dissent, team cohesion, team learning, task interdependence, collective information processing, individual information processing, and psychological safety contribute to Tumor Board performance. Study Design This is a single-center, prospective, longitudinal observational study involving physicians participating in ovarian and uterine cancer Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards, either in person or online. Methods At the end of each Tumor Board meeting, participating physicians will complete an online survey using Microsoft Forms. The questionnaire was developed within a scientific collaboration with the Department of Business and Management of LUISS Guido Carli University and includes validated measurement scales derived from the literature. In addition, data on team composition and participation will be collected for each meeting. Statistical Analysis Survey data and participation data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, inferential methods, and social network analysis. Network measures such as density and centralization indices will be used to evaluate the structure of interactions and participation over time. Statistical analyses will be performed using Stata, R, and UCINET where appropriate. Target Population and Sample Size The target population includes physicians involved in the clinical decision-making process during ovarian and uterine cancer Tumor Boards. A total of approximately 400 questionnaires is planned, based on the rule of thumb of at least 10 respondents per questionnaire variable. Study Duration The expected study duration is six months.

Sex

All

Minimum age

18 Years

Inclusion Criteria:

* Physicians participating in the clinical decision-making process within ovarian and uterine cancer multidisciplinary tumor board meetings.
* Participation in the full tumor board session.
* Participation either in person or online.
* Representation of at least one relevant specialty or role involved in the clinical decision-making process.

Exclusion Criteria:

* Partial attendance at the ovarian and uterine cancer multidisciplinary tumor board session.
* Trainees or other attendees not directly involved in the clinical decision-making process.
* Physicians whose specialty contribution consists of occasional consultation for less than 50% of the study period.
* Incomplete survey completion.
* If more than one member represents the same specialty or role, participants with lower participation in the clinical decision-making process may be excluded.

• BACKGROUNDMayo, A. T., Woolley, A. W., John, L., March, C., Witchel, S., & Nowalk, A. (2025). Coordination in dynamic teams: Investigating a learning-productivity trade-off. Organization Science, 36(2), 967-992.
• BACKGROUNDMarkulis, P., Jassawalla, A. R., & Sashittal, H. (2006). The impact of leadership modes on team dynamics and performance in undergraduate management classes. Journal of Education for Business, 81(3), 145-150.
• BACKGROUNDLiberati EG, Gorli M, Scaratti G. Invisible walls within multidisciplinary teams: Disciplinary boundaries and their effects on integrated care. Soc Sci Med. 2016 Feb;150:31-9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.12.002. Epub 2015 Dec 9. PMID 26730879
• BACKGROUNDKearney E, Gebert D. Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: the promise of transformational leadership. J Appl Psychol. 2009 Jan;94(1):77-89. doi: 10.1037/a0013077. PMID 19186897
• BACKGROUNDHoegl M, Gemuenden HG (2001) Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organ. Sci. 12(4):435-449.
• BACKGROUNDHackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior. (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hill
• BACKGROUNDEdmondson, A. C., & Harvey, J. F. (2025). Team Learning in the Field: An Organizing Framework and Avenues for Future Research. Small Group Research, 10464964251316877.
• BACKGROUNDEdmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
• BACKGROUNDDe Dreu CK, West MA. Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making. J Appl Psychol. 2001 Dec;86(6):1191-201. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191. PMID 11768061
• Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of management Journal, 50(5), 1217-1234.