IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0129259.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From Research to Practice: Which Research Strategy Contributes More to Clinical Excellence? Comparing High-Volume versus High-Quality Biomedical Research

Author

Listed:
  • Anat Tchetchik
  • Amir Grinstein
  • Eran Manes
  • Daniel Shapira
  • Ronen Durst

Abstract

The question when and to what extent academic research can benefit society is of great interest to policy-makers and the academic community. Physicians in university hospitals represent a highly relevant test-group for studying the link between research and practice because they engage in biomedical academic research while also providing medical care of measurable quality. Physicians’ research contribution to medical practice can be driven by either high-volume or high-quality research productivity, as often pursuing one productivity strategy excludes the other. To empirically examine the differential contribution to medical practice of the two strategies, we collected secondary data on departments across three specializations (Cardiology, Oncology and Orthopedics) in 50 U.S.-based university hospitals served by 4,330 physicians. Data on volume and quality of biomedical research at each department was correlated with publicly available ratings of departments’ quality of care, demonstrating that high-quality research has significantly greater contribution to quality of care than high-volume research.

Suggested Citation

  • Anat Tchetchik & Amir Grinstein & Eran Manes & Daniel Shapira & Ronen Durst, 2015. "From Research to Practice: Which Research Strategy Contributes More to Clinical Excellence? Comparing High-Volume versus High-Quality Biomedical Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0129259
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129259
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0129259
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0129259&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0129259?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0129259. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.