Bridging the gap: understanding and enhancing the collaborative relationship between spine clinicians and researchers of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine (ISSLS)

Purpose: Effective collaboration between clinicians and researchers is essential for advancing spine health research and improving patient care. However, differing priorities can hinder interdisciplinary cooperation. This study explores the perspectives, interests, and collaborative experiences of clinicians and researchers within the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine (ISSLS), aiming to identify ways to improve collaboration. Methods: A two-phase survey was conducted between August and October 2024. A pilot test refined the survey, which was then distributed via Google Forms to ISSLS members. The survey included six sections: demographics; research interests; collaboration perceptions; understanding of clinical and research work; qualitative assessment; and final feedback. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests assessed group differences. A modified Content Validity Ratio (CVR) quantified consensus on high-interest topics. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: The survey was sent to 382 ISSLS members; 80 responded (20.9%), including 55% clinicians and 45% researchers. “Low Back Pain” received high CVR scores from both researchers (1.00) and clinicians (0.86). Clinicians favored “Surgical Outcomes” (p = 0.008) and “Fusion” (p < 0.001), while researchers preferred “Cell, Signalling, Mechanotransduction” (p = 0.018). Clinicians overestimated researchers’ interest in “Minimally invasive and robotic surgery” (44.4% perceived vs. 2.8% actual) and underestimated interest in “Chronic pain and psychosocial factors” (15.6% perceived vs. 41.7% actual) (χ² = 25.95, p = 0.0002). Main barriers included “lack of time” (86.1% researchers, 62.2% clinicians) and “differing professional focuses” (47.2% researchers, 35.6% clinicians). Benefits for clinicians included enhanced study design (60%) and knowledge exchange (57.8%); for researchers, access to clinical data (61.1%) (χ² = 33.39, p = 0.0025). Suggested improvements included joint research projects (clinicians 68.9%, researchers 72.2%) and interdisciplinary meetings. Discussion: The study highlights differing priorities and mutual misunderstandings between clinicians and researchers. Despite this, both groups agree on the importance of early collaboration in research development. Improving interdisciplinary communication and creating shared opportunities could strengthen collaboration. These findings reflect a subset of ISSLS members and may not generalize broadly.