Defining success for translational research organizations

Science Translational Medicine

Volumn 3, Issue 94, 2011, Pages

  Pozen, Robert ^a,b,c   Kline, Heather ^a  

^a HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United States)

^b BROOKINGS INSTITUTION   (United States)

^c The Harvard Center for Neurodegeneration & Repair   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BASIC RESEARCH; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CREATIVITY; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NONHUMAN; NOTE; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH PRIORITY; STRATEGIC PLANNING; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH; VALIDATION PROCESS; ARTICLE; COOPERATION; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT;

ACADEMIES AND INSTITUTES; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC;

EID: 79961242544     PISSN: 19466234     EISSN: 19466242     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002085     Document Type: Note

References (26)

1. J. M. Westfall, J. Mold, L. Fagnan, Practice-based research-"Blue Highways" on the NIH roadmap. JAMA 297, 403-406 (2007).
2. E. A. Balas, S. A. Boren, Yearbook of Medical Informatics: Managing Clinical Knowledge for Health Care Improvement (Schattauer Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Stuttgart, Germany, 2000).
3. D. Butler, Translational research: Crossing the valley of death. Nature 453, 840-842 (2008).
4. G. A. FitzGerald, NCATS purrs: Emerging signs of form and function. Sci. Transl. Med. 3, 83ed2 (2011).
5. G. Harris, Federal research center will help develop medicines. The New York Times (22 January 2011); www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/health/policy/23drug. html.
6. B. Perks, UK plans 30% funding bump for translational research. Nat. Med. 17, 394 (2011).
7. D. Levy, Due diligence: Performance metrics for biomedical research groups. Student project, Harvard Business School, March 2010.
8. T1 research eff orts focus specifi cally on the timely and effi cient translation of basic research fi ndings into technologies and therapies that can be used in a clinical setting. T2 research seeks to address the problem of accessibility and focuses on "improving access to, reorganizing and coordinating systems of care, helping clinicians and patients change behaviors and make informed choices, and providing reminders and POC decision-support tools" (24). T3 eff orts revolve around determining best practices for dissemination, delivery, and diff usion of new treatments and technologies into the medical community and the public at large (1). All three types of translational research are characterized by an emphasis on multidisciplinary collaboration.
9. Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation, The ISOA/ADDF Pipeline Project Report & Findings, September 2008; www.alzdiscovery.org/pdf/Pipeline-Report- .pdf.
10. FasterCures, Giving Smarter: Building a High-Impact Medical Philanthropy Portfolio, December 2010; www. fastercures.org/documents/fi le/FINAL%20Giving- Smarter.pdf.
11. Our approach - defining several dimensions for performance assessment and urging organizations to develop their own KPIs and metrics - is similar to the Balanced Scorecard created by R. Kaplan and D. Norton. However, our framework is distinct from the traditional Balanced Scorecard in both performance dimension number (our seven versus their four) and substance (our dimensions are focused on translational research versus overall organizational eff ectiveness); www.balancedscorecard.org/BSCResources/AbouttheBalancedScorecard/tabid/55/ Default.aspx.
12. A possible eighth would be "idea fl ux," as suggested by T. Krontiris and D. Rubenson (25). However, we believe that this dimension is too vague and difficult to measure. Instead, we believe that it is more useful to include, in the creation dimension, KPIs for the number of projects entered into the pipeline.
13. J. A. Bluestone, A. M. Krensky, L. A. Turka, D. Rotrosen, J. B. Matthews, Ten years of the Immune Tolerance Network: An integrated clinical research organization. Sci. Transl. Med. 2, 19cm7 (2010).
14. J. E. Hirsch, An index to quantify an individual's scientifi c research output. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 16569-16572 (2005).
15. L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, H. Daniel, Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 830-837 (2008).
16. T. C. Norman, C. Bountra, A. M. Edwards, K. R. Yamamoto, S. H. Friend, Leveraging crowdsourcing to facilitate the discovery of new medicines. Sci. Transl. Med. 3, 88mr1 (2011).
17. J. S. Altshuler, E. Balogh, A. D. Barker, S. L. Eck, S. H. Friend, G. S. Ginsburg, R. S. Herbst, S. J. Nass, C. M. Streeter, J. A. Wagner, Opening up to precompetitive collaboration. Sci. Transl. Med. 2, 52m26 (2010).
18. A. M. Feldman, Does academic culture support translational research? Clin. Transl. Sci. 1, 87-88 (2008).
19. K. M. Emmons, K. Viswanath, G. A. Colditz, The role of transdisciplinary collaboration in translating and disseminating health research: Lessons learned and exemplars of success. Am. J. Prev. Med. 35 (suppl.), S204-S210 (2008).
20. L. Alkaersig, Cognitive diversity and research performance: Effects of individuals and team level distance in biomedical sciences, Paper presented at the Druid-Dime Academy Winter 2009 PhD Conference; www2.druid.dk/conferences/ viewpaper.php?id=4496&cf=33.
21. D. Cressey, Counting collaboration, Can metrics be designed to measure researchers' collegiality? Nature, published online 13 October 2010 (10.1038/news.2010.538).
22. T. Norman, A. Edwards, C. Bountra, S. Friend, The precompetitive space: Time to move the yardsticks. Sci. Transl. Med. 3, 76cm10 (2011).
23. KPIs and metrics above are suggestions/illustrations and do not represent an exhaustive list.
24. S. H. Woolf, The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA 299, 211-213 (2008).
25. T. G. Krontiris, D. Rubenson, Matchmaking, metrics and money: A pathway to progress in translational research. Bioessays 30, 1025-1029 (2008).
26. Acknowledgments: R. P. is on the governing council of the Harvard NeuroDiscovery Center and is an outside director of Medtronic. Special thanks to D. Levy (7), Harvard Business School, who contributed essential insights through his interviews of leading TROs, reviews of their performance assessment systems, and literature reviews on performance assessment and the drug development process.