Abinaya Rajan1, Richard Sullivan, Suzanne Bakker, Wim H van Harten. 1. The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (NKI-AVL), Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands. w.v.harten@nki.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Translational research is a complex cumulative process that takes time. However, the operating environment for cancer centers engaged in translational research is now financially insecure. Centers are challenged to improve results and reduce time from discovery to practice innovations. Performance assessment can identify improvement areas that will help reduce translational delays. Currently, no standard method exists to identify models for use in performance assessment. This study aimed to critically appraise translational research models for suitability in performance assessment of cancer centers. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify models and developed a set of criteria based on scientometrics, complex adaptive systems, research and development processes, and strategic evaluation. Models were assessed for linkage between research and care components, new knowledge, systems integration, performance assessment, and review of other models. RESULTS: Twelve models were identified; six described phases/components for translational research in different blocks (T models) and six described the process of translational research (process models). Both models view translational research as an accumulation of new knowledge. However, process models more clearly address systems integration, link research and care components, and were developed for evaluating and improving the performance of translational research. T models are more likely to review other models. CONCLUSION: Process models seem to be more suitable for performance assessment of cancer centers than T models. The most suitable process models (the Process Marker Model and Lean and Six Sigma applications) must be thoroughly tested in practice.
BACKGROUND: Translational research is a complex cumulative process that takes time. However, the operating environment for cancer centers engaged in translational research is now financially insecure. Centers are challenged to improve results and reduce time from discovery to practice innovations. Performance assessment can identify improvement areas that will help reduce translational delays. Currently, no standard method exists to identify models for use in performance assessment. This study aimed to critically appraise translational research models for suitability in performance assessment of cancer centers. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify models and developed a set of criteria based on scientometrics, complex adaptive systems, research and development processes, and strategic evaluation. Models were assessed for linkage between research and care components, new knowledge, systems integration, performance assessment, and review of other models. RESULTS: Twelve models were identified; six described phases/components for translational research in different blocks (T models) and six described the process of translational research (process models). Both models view translational research as an accumulation of new knowledge. However, process models more clearly address systems integration, link research and care components, and were developed for evaluating and improving the performance of translational research. T models are more likely to review other models. CONCLUSION: Process models seem to be more suitable for performance assessment of cancer centers than T models. The most suitable process models (the Process Marker Model and Lean and Six Sigma applications) must be thoroughly tested in practice.
Authors: Nancy S Sung; William F Crowley; Myron Genel; Patricia Salber; Lewis Sandy; Louis M Sherwood; Stephen B Johnson; Veronica Catanese; Hugh Tilson; Kenneth Getz; Elaine L Larson; David Scheinberg; E Albert Reece; Harold Slavkin; Adrian Dobs; Jack Grebb; Rick A Martinez; Allan Korn; David Rimoin Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Muin J Khoury; Marta Gwinn; Paula W Yoon; Nicole Dowling; Cynthia A Moore; Linda Bradley Journal: Genet Med Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: David Ogilvie; Peter Craig; Simon Griffin; Sally Macintyre; Nicholas J Wareham Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-04-28 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Julie A Baldwin; Heather J Williamson; Emery R Eaves; Bruce L Levin; Donna L Burton; Oliver T Massey Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Abinaya Rajan; Carlos Caldas; Henri van Luenen; Mahasti Saghatchian; Wim H van Harten Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: A Rajan; A Berns; U Ringborg; J Celis; B Ponder; C Caldas; D Livingston; R G Bristow; T T Hecht; T Tursz; H van Luenen; P Bono; T Helander; K Seamon; J F Smyth; D Louvard; A Eggermont; W H van Harten Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 6.603