IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v47yi4p561-570..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How practitioners between bench and bedside evaluate biomedical translation?

Author

Listed:
  • Arno Simons
  • Barbara Hendriks
  • Martin Reinhart
  • Faten Ahmed

Abstract

While translational research (TR) aims at changing regulatory and organizational practices in the biomedical field, surprisingly little is known about how practitioners in the lab or the clinic think about translation. Addressing this gap, we present results from a Q-methodological study on the meanings and values associated with translation held by researchers, clinicians, and clinician scientists at two major German biomedical research institutions implementing TR strategies. We identify eight different collective understandings of translation, with respect to both where primary translational problems are located and what the most immediate and effective measures should be. Our findings suggest that there may not be a one-fits-all solution for improving translation and that general regulatory and organizational measures may be less effective than measures addressing specific audiences and their specific viewpoints. TR does, however, work well as an umbrella term in stimulating and orchestrating a productive interaction between various viewpoints, practices, and contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Arno Simons & Barbara Hendriks & Martin Reinhart & Faten Ahmed, 0. "How practitioners between bench and bedside evaluate biomedical translation?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(4), pages 561-570.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:47:y::i:4:p:561-570.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scaa035
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:47:y::i:4:p:561-570.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.