Literature DB >> 23425982

Do canadian researchers and the lay public prioritize biomedical research outcomes equally? A choice experiment.

Fiona A Miller1, Emmanouil Mentzakis, Renata Axler, Pascale Lehoux, Martin French, Jean-Eric Tarride, Walter P Wodchis, Brenda J Wilson, Christopher Longo, Jessica P Bytautas, Barbara Slater.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To quantify and compare the preferences of researchers and laypeople in Canada regarding the outcomes of basic biomedical research.
METHOD: In autumn 2010, the authors conducted a cross-sectional, national survey of basic biomedical researchers funded by Canada's national health research agency and a representative sample of Canadian citizens to assess preferences for research outcomes across five attributes using a discrete choice experiment. Attributes included advancing scientific knowledge (assessed by published papers); building research capacity (assessed by trainees); informing decisions in the health products industry (assessed by patents); targeting economic, health, or scientific priorities; and cost. The authors reduced a fractional factorial design (18 pairwise choices plus an opt-out option) to three blocks of six. They also computed part worth utilities, differences in predicted probabilities, and willingness-to-pay values using nested logit models.
RESULTS: Of 3,260 potential researchers, 1,749 (53.65% response rate) completed the questionnaire, along with 1,002 citizens. Researchers and citizens prioritized high-quality scientific outcomes (papers, trainees) over other attributes. Both groups disvalued research targeted at economic priorities relative to health priorities. Researchers granted a premium to proposals targeting scientific priorities.
CONCLUSIONS: Citizens and researchers fundamentally prioritized the same outcomes for basic biomedical research. Notably, they prioritized traditional scientific outcomes and disvalued the pursuit of economic returns. These findings have implications for how academic medicine assigns incentives and value to basic health research and how biomedical researchers and the public may jointly contribute to setting the future research agenda.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23425982     DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828577fe

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  7 in total

1.  Public views on participating in newborn screening using genome sequencing.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Fiona A Miller; Robin Z Hayeems; Carolyn Barg; Celine Cressman; June C Carroll; Brenda J Wilson; Julian Little; Denise Avard; Michael Painter-Main; Judith Allanson; Yves Giguere; Pranesh Chakraborty
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Citizen expectations of 'academic entrepreneurship' in health research: public science, practical benefit.

Authors:  Fiona A Miller; Michael Painter-Main; Renata Axler; Pascale Lehoux; Mita Giacomini; Barbara Slater
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 3.  Current practice of public involvement activities in biomedical research and innovation: a systematic qualitative review.

Authors:  Jonas Lander; Tobias Hainz; Irene Hirschberg; Daniel Strech
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  What's Involved with Wanting to Be Involved? Comparing Expectations for Public Engagement in Health Policy across Research and Care Contexts.

Authors:  Carolyn J Barg; Fiona A Miller; Robin Z Hayeems; Yvonne Bombard; Céline Cressman; Michael Painter-Main
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2017-11

5.  Understanding the relative valuation of research impact: a best-worst scaling experiment of the general public and biomedical and health researchers.

Authors:  Alexandra Pollitt; Dimitris Potoglou; Sunil Patil; Peter Burge; Susan Guthrie; Suzanne King; Steven Wooding; Steven Wooding; Jonathan Grant
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Global priorities for research and the relative importance of different research outcomes: an international Delphi survey of malaria research experts.

Authors:  Jo-Ann Mulligan; Lesong Conteh
Journal:  Malar J       Date:  2016-12-06       Impact factor: 2.979

7.  The institutional workers of biomedical science: Legitimizing academic entrepreneurship and obscuring conflicts of interest.

Authors:  Renata E Axler; Fiona A Miller; Pascale Lehoux; Trudo Lemmens
Journal:  Sci Public Policy       Date:  2017-11-06
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.