< PreviousConstructing aConsensus FrameworkDeveloping an Approach To solicit further feedback on the considerationsfor a translational research approach forneuroaesthetics, IAM Lab convened aninterdisciplinary working group of neuroscientists,cognitive researchers, artists, architects,neurologists, video game designers, digital mediadevelopers, design thinking experts, engineers,computer scientists, philosophers, musicologists,social scientists, science of learning scholars,communications and implementation experts, andhumanities scholars in April 2017 at the BrainScience Institute. The working group considered whether a newapproach to accelerating the translation,implementation, and dissemination of arts-basedsolutions in health, wellbeing, and learning wasneeded by reviewing existing research-basedmodels including implementation sciences inpublic heath, action research, theory of change,empirical basic research models, science oflearning, and design thinking. Using straw manimpact-based neuroaesthetics research questions,working group members assessed the relative fitof various existing models. Working group members recommended that anapproach to neuroaesthetics research and translationshould:•Value exploration within a standard frame. Perhapsbest defined as a kind of structured flexibility, thisapproach should move forward with anappreciation for the unexpected and openness tothe idea that we don’t already know the answer.•Consider all the characteristics endemic to theproblem (social, cultural, geographic) at theoutset— the molecular all the way to societal. Then,convene the right interdisciplinary team of experts,including members of the communities affected bythe problem. These questions are too complex tobe addressed by anyone working in one discipline.•Go beyond traditional efforts at dissemination. As apre-condition, seek a practitioner partner with theability to scale the intervention and receive trainingand technical assistance for ongoingimplementation and sustainability of the work.Include key dissemination partners from thebeginning.•Train a team of facilitators or principal investigatorsto operate consistently in this approach. IAM Labwill create and benefit from a team ofneuroaesthetics researchers and practitioners whounderstand the process and are able to shepherdvarious partners through the interdisciplinaryapproach.Proposing a Translational Approach forNeuroaesthetics Based on the ongoing collaboration with the IAM Labinterdisciplinary working group, interviews with keypartner organizations, and research on existingmultidisciplinary research models, IAM Lab proposesthe development of Impact Thinking forneuroaesthetics. Impact Thinking is designed to offerresearchers and arts practitioners a rigorous,interdisciplinary, evidence-based process foridentifying, quantifying, documenting, anddisseminating solutions. The goals of Impact Thinkingare threefold:1.Provide a rigorous universal translational approachthat can create measurable and scalable solutions.2.Share and train professionals to apply this approachfor use in all arts/mind-integrated research topractice solutions as a guide for efficacy and quality.3.Demonstrate evidence that a transdisciplinaryresearch-rich translational process will enhanceoutcomes in health, wellbeing, and learning. Guiding Principles/RequirementsImpact Thinking:•Creates a common language and framework for avariety of studies in neuroaesthetics. •Is focused on increasing the impact of the arts,music, and architecture on health, wellbeing, andlearning. •Is applicable to the study of creating as well asbeholding the arts, music, and architecture. •Can be used to improve or evaluate existingprograms/interventions as well as build and testnew programs and interventions. •Applies rigorous, evidence-based brain scienceresearch methods to arts, architecture, and musicinterventions. •Engages a broad, multidisciplinary team. •Is designed to get research to practice faster andwith more fidelity. •Includes a strong focus on communication anddissemination throughout the research project. •Is initiated by an Impact Team of a brain scientist anda practitioner in an arts discipline or program. •Is facilitated by an Impact Thinking Expert (ITE) whois trained in the eight-step approach andinterdisciplinary studies and has an advanceddegree that includes evaluation sciences. The ITEwill support the Impact Team throughout the study,matching them with advisors and stakeholders asneeded, implementing best practices in datamanagement, and facilitating the iterativereflection, documentation, and communicationprocess. •Is supported by an Advisory Team ofmultidisciplinary experts, driven by the problemstatement and research questions, as well as aDissemination Team of experts in implementationsciences and communications. IAM Lab willmaintain a database of experts. ITEs can makematches and staff key teams as needed. •Is reviewed by a broader group of Stakeholders. Impact Thinking StepsThe eight proposed steps of Impact Thinking arederived from the guiding principles and are bestvisualized as a spiral. 1.Problem Identification:At the outset, an ITEconvenes a problem identification workshop,bringing together a group of interested scientistsand practitioners who study the general topic. Thisfacilitated workshop enables practitioners andresearchers to expand their thinking beyond theirparticular interventions or areas of study toquestions with broader societal implications,including an initial review of data related to thescope and characteristics of the problem as well asrelated research and case studies. At this stage, theProblem Identification12Collaborative Discovery Impact Thinking4Research Design5Research Implementation6Analysis7Refine-Retest-Recommend 8Dissemination & Scaling 3HypothesisP Implementation6 Constructing a Universal Model 31questions may be broad, though it is assumed thatthe problems are documented by evidence and thatan arts-based intervention with a measurablehealth, wellbeing, or learning outcome is a feasiblesolution. At the conclusion of the workshop anImpact Team is formed, and together with the ITEthey narrow to a particular set of research questionsor problems to solve. It is important to acknowledge that an unansweredquestion in this stage of Impact Thinking is exactlywho comprises the Impact Team and whether or nota practitioner can serve as a principal investigator,which is an expressed desire from the field that IAMLab would hope to accommodate withoutcompromising the rigor of the research. 2.Collaborative Discovery:In the second step, theImpact Team is matched with a multidisciplinaryAdvisory Team (research and practice) andDissemination Team to expand the discoveryprocess in search of potential solutions andapplications. Collaborative Discovery is aformalized process facilitated by the ITE anddesigned to answer questions such as: What do weknow about the problem and potential solutionsfrom a range of fields, including basic science, andwhat additional information do we need to knowthat is accessible? Who else do we need to bringinto this group? What is the universe for thisintervention? What are the applications? Who elsecould learn from this study? How do we reachthem? The team might find they require additionalinformation in the form of surveys, focus groups, oradministrative data to answer these questions. Theend product is a discovery map and report that laysthe groundwork for hypothesis development andoutreach and communication throughout theImpact Thinking process. The discovery map andreport will become publicly available documents inthe Impact Thinking database to build fieldknowledge and common approaches. 3.Hypothesis:In the third step, the Impact Teamdevelops and tests the face validity of a number ofhypothesized solutions, considering impacts at theindividual, organizational, field, and even societallevels. In the case of an evaluation of an existingintervention, the Impact Team will seek to distill thecomponents of the intervention that contribute tothe desired outcome, based on themultidisciplinary discovery process. Thehypothesized solution must include a measurablechange in skill, knowledge, behavior, orattitude/disposition. The Advisory Team reviewshypotheses and provides feedback to the ImpactTeam. The ITE facilitates this process. 4.Research Design:In the fourth step, the ImpactTeam develops a proposed research design to testthe hypotheses. The ITE will present methodologiesused in previous neuroaesthetics research asoptions for the Impact Team, and designs, includingmeasurement tools/assessments, will vary based onthe discipline and proposed solution. Essential toImpact Thinking is a truly collaborative researchdesign with involvement at all stages from both thebrain scientist and practitioner. Research designsmay include qualitative and quantitative methodsand are assumed to include human subjectsresearch. Impact Thinking has a bias towardrigorous, controlled studies, and IAM Lab willsupport Impact Teams to achieve adequatestatistical power to produce both causal andcorrelational findings to the degree possible. Theduration of research will vary based on thehypothesized solution and intended outcomes. Inthe case of a multi-year study, the research designwill include plans for mid-stream interpretation,analysis, and reporting to continue to build theresearch-to-practice pipeline of information. Theresearch design will be reviewed by the Advisoryteam to ensure validity, viability, and independence. 5.Research Implementation:In the fifth step, ImpactThinking brings a variety of supports to the ImpactTeam. The ITE and Advisory Team act as independentreviewers. The ITE supports logistics in the study andbest practices in data management and use with agoal of cataloging data in a way that might be usefulfor other research teams. The Dissemination Teamobserves the research process to document andtranslate for a wider audience. Throughout researchimplementation, Impact Team members and the ITEare documenting steps, struggles, and reflections inthe Impact Thinking workbook to capture lessonslearned for future teams. 6.Analysis:Once the intervention and data collectionare complete, the Impact Team conducts an initialanalysis of data and shares findings with the AdvisoryTeam. Depending on the findings, the Impact Teammay decide more data collection is necessary ormove on to report writing and recommendations. 7.Refine, Retest, Recommend:If initial analysiswarrants, step seven includes refining and retestingthe solution to increase impact or understanding.Once any retesting and subsequent analysis iscomplete, the Impact Team writes its full report,drawing from its discovery map and report andImpact Thinking workbook to detail the process andcollaborative research methods and includerecommendations for practitioners, researchers, andpolicymakers. The report should include any featuresor conditions of the intervention that are correlatedwith better outcomes with an eye toward practitionerimplementation. At this stage, a broader StakeholderTeam is brought into the process to review andprovide expertise in areas such as public policy.8.Dissemination and Scaling:As a research-to-practiceapproach, Impact Thinking culminates with a multi-faceted dissemination effort. While publishing maybe part of the dissemination plan, efforts must gobeyond academic journals to practitioner and policy-maker focused media, events and networks. In theinitial discovery phase, the Advisory andDissemination teams helped to identify a broadgroup of stakeholders and applications for the study.The ITE will partner with the Impact Team andDissemination Team to implement an appropriatedissemination plan to these various groups that mayinclude developing interactive technology, digitaltools, presentations, and print materials. If theintervention is deemed successful, a critical task forthe Impact Team will be assessing the opportunitiesfor scaling the solution. ITEs will be trained in scalestrategies, including associative strategies such astraining others/capacity building; multiplicativestrategies such as replication through a proscribedapproach; and expansion strategies which includeserving more people in the same way. The ImpactTeam will work together to recommend and plan foran appropriate scale strategy. Constructing a Universal Model 33Where We Go From HereOpportunitiesOne of the primary opportunities inherent to acommon approach to neuroaestheticstranslation is building shared definitions andlanguage and a repository of experts, data, andreferences for the field. IAM Lab does notexpect to get Impact Thinking right the firsttime. Still, over time, as the process takes shapeand gains buy-in from researchers andpractitioners, there is a tremendous opportunityto tap into IAM Lab’s network to expand the useof Impact Thinking to a number of institutionalpartners through a coordinated training andprofessional development program. Solidifyingsuch a working group model will accelerateinterdisciplinary research in many settings. IAMLab is considering Impact Thinking fellowshipsacross a number of disciplines focused onhealth, wellbeing, and learning to access thesizable graduate student community to buildexpertise, career pathways, and capacity forImpact Thinking. ChallengesFunding for arts research is thin. IAM Lab and itspartners will work to change the culture andexpectations of arts funders toward impact and rigor.While Impact Thinking is a fit for traditional funding forbrain science research from the National Institutes ofHealth and National Science Foundation, IAM Lab andits partners also have the opportunity to engage theworld of private philanthropy that is granting hundredsof millions of dollars to arts and education programsevery year with little focus on their impact. Findinginstitutional support to develop, test and refine ImpactThinking will be essential to success. Demonstrating thereturn on investment of evidence-based artsinterventions will be necessary for long-termsustainability. Impact Thinking Proofs of ConceptIAM Lab is also pursuing proof-of-concept projects in forImpact Thinking with six organizations, includingKennedy Krieger Institute, Silkroad, The CreativeAlliance, Port Discovery Children’s Museum and JohnHopkins University. These proposed projects exploreaesthetics across different art forms, settings, andintended audiences and outcomes, providing anopportunity to test the viability of a consensusframework against the diversity of the field. Moreover,these proof-of-concept projects will enable IAM Lab tocalibrate team member roles, responsibilities, andcapacity with the duration and scope of variousprojects. Ultimately, these projects are an important firststep to building a common language and approach andunderstanding the costs of the Impact Thinkingapproach. Outreach and Education The IAM Lab is also eager to move into development ofa training program for Impact Thinking Experts, thefacilitators and translators across projects. To do so, wemust assess and document the required knowledge,skills, and competencies for this important role anddetermine the best methods to build the same. Beyondresearch and practice expertise, Impact ThinkingExperts may require training and support to hone theirequity lens, ensuring that their projects advance effortsto level the playing field for outcomes acrosssocioeconomic and demographic factors. Community Building Finally, IAM Lab has many plans to build a connectedand informed community for Impact Thinking. Withwidespread interest, we must find ways to share projectupdates while building a repository of research, casestudies, best practices, and experts for neuroaestheticsstakeholders around the world. References1.World Health Organization. (1948). Constitution of theWorld Health Organization. Retrieved from:http://apps.who.int/gb/bd/PDF/bd47/EN/constitution-en.pdf?ua=1.2. Council on Foreign Relations. (2014). The emerging crisis:Noncommunicable diseases. Retrieved from:https://www.cfr.org/interactives/diseases-noncommunicable#!/ 3. Marrero, S.L., Bloom, D.E., and Adashi, E. Y. (2013).Noncommunicable diseases: A global health crisis in a newworld order. JAMA, 3017(19):2037-2038. Retrieved from:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/226651014. World Health Organization. (2006). NeurologicalDisorders: Public Health Challenges. Retrieved from:http://www.who.int/mental_health/neurology/chapter_2_neuro_disorders_public_h_challenges.pdf?ua=1.5. World Health Organization. (Reviewed April 2017). MentalDisorders Fact Sheet. Retrieved from:http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs396/en/6. National Institute of Mental Health. (2015). Any mentalillness (AMI) among U.S. adults. Retrieved from:https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/any-mental-illness-ami-among-us-adults.shtml7. World Health Organization. (2017). Dementia Fact Sheet.Retrieved from:http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs362/en/.8. Parkinson’s Foundation. (2017). Statistics. Retrieved from:http://www.parkinson.org/Understanding-Parkinsons/Causes-and-Statistics/Statistics 9. Christensen D. L., Baio J., Braun K. V., et al. (2012).Prevalence and characteristics of autism spectrum disorderamong children aged 8 years — Autism and DevelopmentalDisabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States,MMWR Surveillance Summary 2016, 65(No. SS-3)(No. SS-3):1–23. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6503a1.10. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, McGovern Institutefor Brain Research. Brain disorders: By the numbers. Retrievedfrom: https://mcgovern.mit.edu/brain-disorders/by-the-numbers11. Greenberg, P. E., Fournier, A. A., Sisitsky, T., Pike, C. T.,and Kessler, R. C. (2015). The economic burden of adults withmajor depressive disorder in the United States (2005 and2010). Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 2015 Feb; 76(2): 155-62.Retrieved from:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25742202 12. Alzheimer’s Disease International. (2015). WorldAlzheimer’s report 2015. The global impact of dementia.Retrieved from:https://www.alz.co.uk/research/WorldAlzheimerReport2015-sheet.pdf 13. The Alzheimer’s Association. (2015). The impact ofAlzheimer’s disease on Medicaid costs: A growing burden forstates. Retrieved from:https://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_trajectory.asp 14. Gaskin D. J., Richard P. (2011). The economic costs of painin the United States. In: Institute of Medicine (US) Committeeon Advancing Pain Research, Care, and Education. Relievingpain in America: A blueprint for transforming prevention,care, education, and research, Appendix C. Washington,D.C.: National Academies Press.15. National Institutes of Health. (2017, July). Estimates offunding for various research, condition, and diseasecategories. Retrieved from:https://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx16. Cohen, R. A., Villarroel, M. A. (2015, January). Strategiesused by adults to reduce their prescription drug costs: UnitedStates (National Center for Health Statistics Info Brief No.184). Retrieved from:https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db184.htm17. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2015, August). Kaiser HealthTracking Poll: August 2015. Retrieved from:https://www.kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-august-2015/18. Herper, M. (2016, November). Five lessons from today’spharma failures. Forbes. Retrieved from:https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/11/23/five-lessons-from-todays-pharma-failures/#1456bf7b1a3119. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Thefour domains of chronic disease prevention. Retrieved from:https://www.cdc.gov/ chronicdisease/pdf/four-domains-factsheet-2015.pdf 20. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2017).Wellness, health promotion and disease prevention.Retrieved from:http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/public-health-and-prevention/wellbeing-health-promotion-and-disease-prevention.aspx21. Kelly, J. (2016). What are the leading causes of stress forAmericans? Advocate Health Care. Retrieved from:http://www.ahchealthenews.com/ 2016/03/16/leading-causes-stress-americans/Where Do We Go From Here37Next >