the translation of research

• Your Stories

Evidence Based Living

Bridging the gap between research and real life

• In The Media
• The Learning Center
• Cornell Cooperative Extension
• Youth Development
• Health and Wellness

What is translational research?

Cornell’s College of Human Ecology is pursuing a translational research model to better link social and behavioral science research to extension and outreach, creating a more seamless link between science and service. But the question arises: What is “translational research?”

Evidence-Based Living sat down with Wethington to talk about the growing field of translational research.

To start off, what exactly is translational research?

Many definitions have been given for translational research, but the definition I like best is that it is a systematic effort to convert basic research knowledge into practical applications to enhance human health and well being. 

Translational research was designed for the medical world.  It emerged in response to concern over the long time lag between scientific discoveries and changes in treatments, practices, and health policies that incorporate the new discoveries.

What is applied research, and how does it differ?

Translational research is broader than the traditional term “applied research.”  Applied research is any research that may possibly be useful for enhancing health or well-being. It does not necessarily have to have any effort connected with it to take the research to a practical level. 

For example, an applied research study might analyze longitudinal data that tracks participants’ health and social relationships.  The researchers would report their findings in an academic journal.

But in translational research, the same study would include some “action steps.”  The researchers would partner with a community and ask for ideas about how their findings might apply there.  Together, they would come up with an intervention plan that would also include scientific evaluation of its effectiveness. 

Why are social science researchers slower to adopt these models compared to the medical community?

I think the answer to this question is that researchers have followed where the money has been allocated. The opportunities for social and behavioral scientists have not been established as rapidly.

More recently, three major government institutions have been funding projects that emphasize public health outreach using translational research – the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging.  All three have been establishing translational research centers across the country, primarily focused on underserved communities and health disparities.

Thus, social scientists are only now being encouraged to take part.  More recently economic stimulus funds dispersed the National Institute of Health funded a number of translational research projects headed by social scientists, including three funded at Cornell.  I predict that soon there will be social scientists engaged in translational research across the country, not just at funded centers.

What are the benefits of moving toward translational research?

For researchers, there is benefit to being affiliated with a center that provides seed funding for projects, methodological assistance, advice on developing proposals and experience in getting community input into research projects.

For universities, translational research centers provide a tactical advantage for attracting more funding.  Translational research centers also provide a way for universities to meet public service goals in their strategic plans.

For communities, translational research provides opportunities to make a difference in their own communities.  As part of one of the Cornell centers, we engaged public service agency directors in events where they could contribute to our research agenda.  With a stake in the research, communities feel that they are making a valued and important contribution.  We heard over and over from the community members that this was a real source of pride and accomplishment for them.

How can extension programs participate?

One way local extension programs can participate in translational research is to take part in community stakeholder groups that meet with researchers who are designing intervention and prevention research programs.  Typically, a wide variety of stakeholders need to be engaged.  County Cooperative Extension offices have many collaborative relationships in their counties and can work with researchers to make contacts.

Typically, local extension professionals do not have time to engage in research themselves.  Yet they have valuable experience that can be shared.  This makes Cooperative Extension an ideal contributor for implementing programs.

Nice reading! Thank you

A remarkable extraordinary read, ideally other huge schools can take an interest in something like this.

Quite the great read, hopefully other large schools are able to participate in something like this.

Speak Your Mind Cancel reply

A project at…, evidence-based blogs.

• Bandolier Evidence-Based Health Care
• British Psychological Society Research Digest
• Economics in Cooperative Extension
• EPB Exchange
• New Voices for Research
• Research Blogging
• Trust the Evidence

Subscribe by e-mail

Please, insert a valid email.

Thank you, your email will be added to the mailing list once you click on the link in the confirmation email.

Spam protection has stopped this request. Please contact site owner for help.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2024 · Magazine Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Featured Clinical Reviews

• Screening for Atrial Fibrillation: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement JAMA Recommendation Statement January 25, 2022
• Evaluating the Patient With a Pulmonary Nodule: A Review JAMA Review January 18, 2022
• Download PDF
• Share X Facebook Email LinkedIn
• Permissions

The Meaning of Translational Research and Why It Matters

Author Affiliation: Departments of Family Medicine and Epidemiology and Community Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

Translational research means different things to different people, but it seems important to almost everyone. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has made translational research a priority, forming centers of translational research at its institutes and launching the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program in 2006. With 24 CTSA-funded academic centers already established, other universities are transforming themselves to compete for upcoming CTSA grants. By 2012, the NIH expects to fund 60 such centers with a budget of $500 million per year. 1 Besides academic centers, foundations, industry, disease-related organizations, and individual hospitals and health systems have also established translational research programs and at least 2 journals ( Translational Medicine and the Journal of Translational Medicine ) are devoted to the topic. By some accounts, translational research has become a centerpiece of the European Commission's €6 billion budget for health-related research, and the United Kingdom has invested £450 million over 5 years to establish translational research centers. 2

Read More About

Woolf SH. The Meaning of Translational Research and Why It Matters. JAMA. 2008;299(2):211–213. doi:10.1001/jama.2007.26

Manage citations:

© 2024

Artificial Intelligence Resource Center

Cardiology in JAMA : Read the Latest

Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!

Others Also Liked

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing
• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Translational research articles from across Nature Portfolio

Translational research involves the application of knowledge gained through basic research to studies that could support the development of new products. For example, translational research in the field of medicine may involve using knowledge of the biology of a disease to identify and evaluate chemical compounds in disease models, with a view to selecting potential candidate drugs to advance into clinical trials.

Functional precision medicine for pediatric cancers

A small, prospective clinical study shows that ex vivo drug screening of pediatric cancer samples can identify effective therapeutic options. If validated, these findings could herald a new approach to precision medicine in this setting.

• M. Emmy M. Dolman
• Paul G. Ekert

Latest Research and Reviews

Open access EEG dataset of repeated measurements from a single subject for microstate analysis

• Shuyong Jia
• Guangjun Wang

FBXL8 inhibits post-myocardial infarction cardiac fibrosis by targeting Snail1 for ubiquitin-proteasome degradation

• Caojian Zuo

AI and narrative embeddings detect PTSD following childbirth via birth stories

• Alon Bartal
• Kathleen M. Jagodnik
• Sharon Dekel

Interpretable detection of epiretinal membrane from optical coherence tomography with deep neural networks

• Murat Seçkin Ayhan
• Jonas Neubauer
• Philipp Berens

Effects of decongestion on nasal cavity air conditioning efficiency: a CFD cohort study

• Alister J. Bates
• Denis J. Doorly

brainlife.io: a decentralized and open-source cloud platform to support neuroscience research

brainlife.io is a one-stop cloud platform for data management, visualization and analysis in human neuroscience. It is web-based and provides access to a variety of tools in a reproducible and reliable manner.

• Soichi Hayashi
• Bradley A. Caron
• Franco Pestilli

News and Comment

CD56 expression predicts response to Daratumumab-based regimens

• Allen J. Robinette
• Laila Huric
• Francesca Cottini

A phase 1 dose-escalation study of low-dose lenalidomide maintenance post-allogeneic stem cell transplantation for high-risk acute myeloid leukaemia or myelodysplastic syndrome

• Ray Mun Koo
• David S. Ritchie

Robots learning to imitate surgeons — challenges and possibilities

Autonomous surgical robots have the potential to transform surgery and increase access to quality health care. Advances in artificial intelligence have produced robots mimicking human demonstrations. This application might be feasible for surgical robots but is associated with obstacles in creating robots that emulate surgeon demonstrations.

• Samuel Schmidgall
• Ji Woong Kim
• Axel Krieger

Large differencies in age-specific survival in multiple myeloma in the nordic countries

• Kari Hemminki
• Frantisek Zitricky
• Markus Hansson

Developing a conceptual framework for the early adoption of healthcare technologies in hospitals

• Sheena Visram
• Yvonne Rogers
• Neil J. Sebire

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Translation Research

Translation research explores how scientific work moves into practice and benefits society. Although this new field of research has not received much attention in occupational safety and health, it can have a valuable impact on workers everywhere. Today’s workplaces need research findings and products that can improve the quality of life, health, and work. Through translation research, NIOSH studies the process, drivers, and barriers for turning knowledge into practical applications that create these improvements for the safety and health of workers.

Translation researchers apply scientific investigative approaches to study how the outputs of basic and applied research can be effectively translated into practice and have an impact. This includes studying how knowledge and interventions are spread, accepted, applied, and institutionalized.

Activities in translation research range across the basic-to-applied continuum, and studies referred to as intervention research and translation research often overlap. NIOSH delineates the two in this way: intervention research involves improving an intervention or designing a new one, whereas translation research involves studying processes for putting research outputs into practice or use. These processes can include activities such as efficacy research (testing interventions in a realistic setting) and effectiveness research (testing interventions in a wide range of settings). Translation research also includes limited proof-of-concept testing and large-scale studies of research outputs and their impact.

Translation research has four stages (Table 1):

• Stage 1, development translation research , studies how a discovery made in a laboratory, field or pilot study or findings of risks, can move into a potential health and safety application to be tested.
•  Stage 2, testing translation research , assesses the value of a new finding, invention, process, training program, or intervention. It looks for larger-scale workplace safety and health practices aimed at a specific work sector or across two or more work sectors.
• Stage 3, institutionalization translation research , studies how evidence-based technology and recommendations become well-accepted workplace safety and health practices that are communicated and used on a large scale.
• Stage 4, evaluation translation research , explores the “real world” health benefits and effects of moving these discoveries and interventions into large-scale practice. This phase examines impact over time through ongoing surveillance and evaluation.

Table 1. Examples of Translation Research for Different Types of Hazards

* Stage 0 is the basic or applied research finding that becomes the focus for study in Stages 1–4 of the translation research framework.  It is not part of that framework.

The translation research process should be a never-ending loop of research and translation, allowing for ongoing integration of effective approaches. This focus on improving the implementation of science shows NIOSH’s value as the nation’s primary occupational safety and health research institute. Translation research findings add great value to occupational safety and health research by helping us understand how science can better achieve practical benefits and what factors stand in the way of scientific work leading to useful outcomes. Translation research reveals how discoveries and guidance improve the lives of workers.

The phrases translation research , translational research , and translational science have been used to describe the systematic effort to convert basic research outputs into practical applications to enhance human health and well-being. Generally, these uses of the phrase translational research refer to harnessing knowledge from basic medical science and bringing it into clinical practice (so-called bench-to-bedside models). In contrast, NIOSH defines the phrase translation research to refer to the study of the process of moving “research-to-practice-to-impact” and the methods, barriers and facilitators, context, and issues encountered in this process. However, in the scientific literature, the two descriptors of research—translation versus translational—overlap.

Source: Schulte et al. [2017]

In 2016 NIOSH developed a framework for a wide-ranging plan for translation research. The plan will help NIOSH study how to move research findings into practice as quickly as possible, to improve worker safety.

NIOSH created its Translation Research Program to nurture, promote, and coordinate translation research and to more effectively transform science into useful actions and products. Translation research explores the processes by which research findings are successfully implemented in the workplace.

Compared with other workplace safety and health efforts, translation research is a new field without a large base of scientific papers. The program builds on previous NIOSH health communication work and research into effective interventions. It also includes research on social and behavioral science topics and on how scientific innovations spread and become practical benefits to society.

The research-to-practice process starts with research and ends with useful innovations. The Translation Research Program’s efforts focus on the research-to-practice continuum to learn how to make any given step better and how to improve its impact. The goal is to develop relevant, widely applied knowledge that creates a safer and healthier work environment.

This work faces challenges, however:

• Identifying translation research priorities, to focus limited resources yet achieve maximum impact
• Focusing on how decision-makers get and use workplace safety and health information, as well as barriers that prevent such information from reaching those who need it
• Finding which approaches work best in making safety and health research products that will have the most effective benefits.

NIOSH continues to gather translation research, promote goals for internal research competitions, and develop the skills of staff. Its work outside the institute may include offering dedicated funding opportunities and developing and promoting training for translation research.

Publications which have guided the development of the NIOSH Translation Research Program include the following:

• Schulte PA; Cunningham TR; Nickels L; Felknor S; Guerin R; Blosser F; Chang C-C; Check P; Eggerth D; Flynn M; Forrester C; Hard D; Hudson H; Lincoln J; McKernan LT; Pratap P; Stephenson CM; Van Bogaert D; Menger-Ogle L [2017].  Translation research in occupational safety and health: a proposed framework . Am J Ind Med 2017 Dec; 60(12):1011-1022.
• Dugan, A.G. & Punnett, L. Dissemination and Implementation Research for Occupational Safety and Health. Occup Health Sci (2017) 1: 29.
• Tinc PJ, Gadomski A, Sorensen JA, Weinehall L, Jenkins P, Lindvall K.  Adapting the T0-T4 implementation science model to occupational health and safety in agriculture, forestry, and fishing: A scoping review.  Am J Ind Med. 2018;61:51–62.
• Khoury MJ, Gwinn M, Ioannidis JPA [2010]. The emergence of translational epidemiology: from scientific discovery to population health impact. American Journal Epidemiology 172: 517-524.
• Lucas DL, Kincl LD, Bovbjerg VE and Lincoln JM [2014]. Application of a translational research model to assess the progress of occupational safety research in the international commercial fishing industry. Safety Science 64:71-81.
• Ogilvie D, Craig P, Griffin S, Macintyre S and Wareham NJ [2009]. A translational framework for public health research. BMC Public Health 9(1):116.
• NIOSH Translation Research Roadmap and Implementation presentation to the Board of Scientific Counselors Meeting, March 2016
• Hager LD. BLS occupational hearing loss report for 2007.  CAOHC Update.  2009; 21: 7-9.
• Berger EH, Franks JR, Behar A, et al. Development of a new standard laboratory protocol for estimating field attenuation of hearing protection devices. Part III. The validity of using subject-fit data.  J Acoust Soc Am.  1998; 103: 665-672.
• Murphy WJ, Davis RR, Byrne DC, Franks JR. Advanced hearing protector study. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH EPHB Report No. 312-11a; 2007.  https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB2008113769.xhtml
• Stephenson CM, Stephenson MR. Hearing loss prevention for carpenters. Part 1-using health communication and health promotion models to develop training that works.  Noise Health. 2011; 13: 113-121.
• Davies H, Marion S, Teschke K. The impact of hearing conservation programs on incidence of noise-induced hearing loss in Canadian workers.  Am J Ind Med. 2008; 51: 923-931.
• Masterson EA, Deddens JA, Themann CL, Bertke S, Calvert GM. Trends in worker hearing loss by industry sector, 1981-2010.  Am J Ind Med.  2015; 58: 392-401.
• Wagner GR. The inexcusable persistence of silicosis.  Am J Public Health.  2005; 85: 1346-1347.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615617/
• Cecala AB, O’Brien AD. Here comes the Helmet-CAM: A recent advance in technology can improve how mine operators investigate and assess respirable dust.  Rock Prod.  2014; 117: 26-30.
• Haas EJ, Willmer D., Cecala AB. Formative research to reduce mine worker respirable silica dust exposure: A feasibility study to integrate technology into behavioral interventions.  Pilot Feasibility Study.  2016; 2: 6.
• Reed WR, Kwitowski AJ, Helfrich WJ, Cecala AB, Joy GJ. Guidelines for performing a helmet-CAM respirable dust survey and conducting subsequent analysis with the Enhanced Video Analysis of Dust Exposures (EVADE) software. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS, (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-133; 2014.  https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/UserFiles/works/pdfs/2014-133.pdf
• Bourbonnais R, Comeau M, Vézina M. Job strain and evolution of mental health among nurses.  J Occup Health Psychol.  1999; 4: 92-107.
• Bourbonnais R, Brisson C, Vinet A, Vézina M, Lower A. Development and implementation of a participative intervention to improve the psychosocial work environment and mental health in an acute care hospital.  Occup Environ Med.  2006; 63: 326-334.
• Jimmieson NL, Hobman EV, Tucker MK, Bordia P. Change in psychosocial work factors predicts follow-up employee strain: An examination of Australian employees.  J Occup Environ Med.  2016; 58: 1002-1013.
• Ruotsalainen JH, Verbeek JH, Mariné A, Serra C. Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev.  2015; 4: D002892.
• Dollard M, Skinner N, Tuckey MR, Bailey T. National surveillance of psychosocial risk factors in the workplace: An international overview.  Work Stress.  2997; 21: 1-29.
• NIOSH. Commercial fishing vessel shipper dies after being pulled into a deck winch-Alaska. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) Program, State FACE Reports-Alaska: Report No. FACE AK-95-23; 1995.  https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/face/stateface/ak/95ak023.html
• Lincoln JM, Lucas DL, McKibbin RW, Woodward CC, Bevan JE. Reducing commercial fishing deck hazards with engineering solutions for winch design.  J Safety Res.  2008; 39: 231-235.
• Lincoln JM, Woodward CC, King GW, Case SL, Lucas DL, Teske TD. Preventing fatal winch entanglements in the US southern shrimp fleet: A research to practice approach.  J Safety Res.  2017; 60: 119-123.
• Levin JL, Gilmore K, Wickman A, et al. Workplace safety interventions for commercial fishermen of the gulf.  J Agromedicine.  2016; 21: 178-189.
• Teske TD, Victoroff T. Increasing adoption of safety technologies in commercial fishing. Study in progress. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); 2017.
• CDC. Fatal and nonfatal injuries involving fishing vessel winches- Southern shrimp fleet, United States, 2000-2011. MMWR.  2013; 62: 157-160.  https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6209a1.htm

Follow NIOSH

Niosh homepage.

• Workplace Safety & Health Topics
• Publications and Products
• Contact NIOSH

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Optimising Translational Research Opportunities: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Basic and Clinician Scientists' Perspectives of Factors Which Enable or Hinder Translational Research

1 Division of Health and Social Care Research, Faculty of Life Science and Medicine, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom

2 National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, United Kingdom

Euan Sadler

3 Centre for Implementation Science, Department of Health Service and Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom

Helen R. Fisher

4 Department of Research Oncology, King’s College London and Guy’s Hospital, London, United Kingdom

5 Department of Clinical Immunology and Allergy, King’s College Hospital, London, United Kingdom

Charles D. A. Wolfe

Christopher mckevitt.

• Conceptualization: NF HRF CM.
• Formal analysis: NF ES HRF CM JM CDAW.
• Funding acquisition: CDAW.
• Investigation: NF HRF ES CM.
• Project administration: NF.
• Supervision: CM.
• Validation: NF ES CM.
• Visualization: NF.
• Writing - original draft: NF ES.
• Writing - review & editing: NF ES CM HRF JM CDAW.

Associated Data

Data used in this systematic review are available from the journal sources or from author depository if the journal does not operate an open access policy.

Introduction

Translational research is central to international health policy, research and funding initiatives. Despite increasing use of the term, the translation of basic science discoveries into clinical practice is not straightforward. This systematic search and narrative synthesis aimed to examine factors enabling or hindering translational research from the perspective of basic and clinician scientists, a key stakeholder group in translational research, and to draw policy-relevant implications for organisations seeking to optimise translational research opportunities.

Methods and Results

We searched SCOPUS and Web of Science from inception until April 2015 for papers reporting scientists’ views of the factors they perceive as enabling or hindering the conduct of translational research. We screened 8,295 papers from electronic database searches and 20 papers from hand searches and citation tracking, identifying 26 studies of qualitative, quantitative or mixed method designs. We used a narrative synthesis approach and identified the following themes: 1) differing concepts of translational research 2) research processes as a barrier to translational research; 3) perceived cultural divide between research and clinical care; 4) interdisciplinary collaboration as enabling translation research, but dependent on the quality of prior and current social relationships; 5) translational research as entrepreneurial science. Across all five themes, factors enabling or hindering translational research were largely shaped by wider social, organisational, and structural factors.

To optimise translational research, policy could consider refining translational research models to better reflect scientists’ experiences, fostering greater collaboration and buy in from all types of scientists. Organisations could foster cultural change, ensuring that organisational practices and systems keep pace with the change in knowledge production brought about by the translational research agenda.

The term translational research has been in use for over 30 years, but has really come into focus in the health field in the last ten years and is now central to international health policy, research and funding initiatives [ 1 ]. Translational research has been characterised as harnessing the use of discoveries from basic science to develop new diagnostic tests, therapies and prevention devices (sometimes referred to as T1 type translation), as well as the implementation of research findings into practice to improve care for patients (T2 type translation) [ 2 ]. The need for translational research is based on the premise that much research in the life sciences has failed to advance human health, and it offers itself up as a solution to tackle intractable health problems [ 3 ].

Although accorded much prominence internationally, the translation of basic science findings into clinical practice is not straightforward. A substantial number of editorials, opinion pieces and policy documents make reference to barriers to translational research. These barriers include: a lack of a ‘culture of translation’ within institutions [ 4 , 5 ]; inadequate infrastructure, including a lack of facilities to conduct clinical research [ 2 , 5 ]; and an inadequately trained workforce and difficulties retaining those who do possess the necessary skills [ 4 , 6 , 7 ]. Collaboration is proposed as a key requirement for translational research with suggestions that it is inhibited by the compartmentalisation of departments within universities and hospitals, a cultural divide between scientists and clinicians, and a university system that rewards individual achievement rather than joint working practices [ 4 – 6 , 8 ]. At the policy level, a number of initiatives have been established with the aim to reduce perceived bottle necks in translational research in order to accelerate the translation of scientific knowledge into effective health measures with health benefits for patients and wealth benefits for the nation [ 9 – 12 ]. For example, in the US, Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) fund the development of innovative solutions to improve the efficiency, quality and impact of the translational research processes. In England, the creation of biomedical research centres brings together those working in a hospital setting with those in a university setting. However, less is known about the challenges and enablers of translational research from the perspective of those largely held responsible for conducting translational research: basic and clinician scientists. A growing body of empirical research has begun to address this gap.

To date, translational research has been positioned as bridging two seemingly disparate worlds: basic science and clinical medicine, with the former assumed to inform and feed into the latter. However, a number of commentators have challenged this view, affirming the huge diversity of activities within translational research, and pointing out that, although often framed as a singular ‘bench to bedside’ concept, translational research actually consists of multiple forms and processes which vary by discipline, institution and country [ 3 , 13 – 15 ]. This also underscores the importance of studies informed by the social sciences which until recently have paid only limited attention to translational research [ 13 ]. Scholars have begun to theorise how translational research is defined, what the organisation of health research into translational research models can tell us about biomedicine today, and how institutional practices shape visions for translational research [ 3 , 16 ]. These authors point to a number of factors shaping translational research, including the increased bureaucratisation of the university, the influence of an audit culture on structuring research, and the increased capitalisation of the life sciences.

The review team consisted of social scientists and clinician scientists, affiliated to a translational research organisation, charged with understanding methods to improve translational research processes. We argue that synthesising the growing body of empirical research on the views of basic and clinician scientists can shed light on how to optimise current policy agendas of translational research, but also provides empirical evidence to address broader questions about translational research as a concept. The aim of our investigation is first, to systematically review and synthesise studies examining factors enabling or hindering translational research from the perspective of basic and clinician scientists; and second, to use these findings to inform policy at the institutional level to better realise the potential for translational research.

Synthesis approach

We conducted a narrative synthesis of available papers that examined scientists’ perspectives of the factors which enable or hinder translational research. Narrative synthesis is an established method providing a rigorous framework for systematically reviewing and synthesising emerging conceptual themes from studies, which can be of qualitative, quantitative or mixed designs [ 17 ]. The approach aims to produce a textual, narrative understanding of findings from included studies conducted in different settings and contexts. It is suited to a field of enquiry where little is known, and aims to synthesise findings from studies in order to generate new knowledge, and critique existing concepts. This approach was considered particularly useful to examine themes related to factors perceived to inhibit or enable translational research from the perspective of scientists.

Selection criteria

We included primary research studies published in peer reviewed English language journals that used qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods to examine factors which hinder or enable translational research, from the perspective of clinician and basic scientists. We excluded editorial sources as these are essentially opinion or commentary from one individual. Our intention was to review the growing empirical research in this field which not only reports views of scientists but subjects them to conceptually and contextually based critical analysis. For the purposes of this review, our definition of translational research focused on research at the interface of laboratory and clinical research, although authors and their research participants did not have to explicitly use the term ‘translational research’. Studies were excluded if they: defined translational research as the implementation of research findings into practice as this area is conceptually different from T1 type translational research [ 2 ] and has been the focus of numerous reviews and meta-reviews to date [ 18 – 22 ]; did not discuss factors enabling or hindering translational research; only considered patients’ perspectives of translational research; or solely explored difficulties with recruiting participants to trials, as this topic has been the focus of several reviews already [ 23 , 24 ].

Search strategy

The search strategy utilised a range of systematic and serendipitous methods to identify relevant studies [ 25 ]. First, we searched two electronic database platforms–SCOPUS and Web of Knowledge–from inception until April 2015. These were searched in the title, abstract and keywords using key terms for translational research combined with thesaurus and free text terms for the subject areas of health and medicine (see Table 1 ). The titles and abstracts of returned articles were scrutinised and full text articles obtained for papers likely to meet the inclusion criteria. Each potentially relevant article was retrieved and read in full by two authors to determine whether it met the inclusion criteria. After identifying relevant papers through database searching, the reference lists of retrieved articles were searched for other studies which might meet the inclusion criteria. We searched personal biographies of experts in the field. Finally, we undertook citation tracking in Google Scholar of all included papers, to identify any additional studies. Fig 1 illustrates the flow of studies through the stages according to PRISMA [ 26 ].

Quality appraisal

Two authors (NF, ES) independently appraised the quality of each study using a five-point checklist comparing quality scores given to each paper to reach a consensus [ 27 ]. This checklist assesses the methodological quality of studies and can be applied to empirical papers regardless of study design. Quality appraisal involved scoring each paper out of five according to how well the following criteria were met:

• Are the aims and objectives of the research clearly stated?
• Is the research design clearly specified and appropriate for the aims and objectives of the research?
• Do the researchers provide a clear account of the process by which their findings were produced?
• Do the researchers display enough data to support their interpretations and conclusions?
• Is the method of analysis appropriate and adequately explicated?

Papers scoring four or five were considered to be of high quality. Papers scoring 1 to 3 only partially met the five criteria and were judged to be of low quality. Given the lack of consensus surrounding the use of quality appraisal in qualitative research, with suggestions that appraisal scores can be more reflective of the written report rather than the actual study and that there is a risk of discounting important studies for the sake of ‘surface mistakes’ [ 28 , 29 ], we did not exclude studies with low quality scores. Instead we used this quality appraisal to assess the robustness of the synthesis.

Data extraction and method of synthesis

Following the guidance developed by Popay et al., we first used tabulation and thematic analysis to systematically extract and synthesise data from included studies [ 17 ]. NF and ES constructed tables, adding relevant information from each included paper under the following column headings: country, field of translational research, methods, definition and model of translational research, theoretical approach and main findings. Once tabulation was complete NF and ES used thematic analysis, guided by the principles of the constant comparative method [ 30 ], to inductively look for similarities and differences across the studies, grouping these patterns and relationships into conceptual themes. We used the ‘one sheet of paper method’ to visually map out themes and subthemes [ 31 ]. Themes and subthemes identified through the synthesis were then reviewed by the remaining authors in order to check for consistency in the data brought together under a theme.

Our search generated a total of 9427 articles, of which 1132 duplicates were removed. The papers were then screened based on title and abstract, with 8236 papers excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies were mainly excluded because they did not focus on T1 type translational research or because they discussed translational research from an editorial or opinion piece perspective rather than being based on empirical research. Full text articles of 59 studies were retrieved and read in full. Thirty-nine papers were excluded primarily because they were not empirical studies, with other reasons for exclusion listed in Fig 1 . Six additional papers were identified through: hand searching reference lists of included studies (n = 2), personal biographies of experts in the field (n = 1), and citation tracking of included studies (n = 3) (see Fig 1 ).

Overview of included studies

The 26 papers included in the synthesis focused on studies investigating enablers and barriers to translational research from the perspectives of basic and clinician scientists undertaking translational research across nine countries (see Table 2 for a summary of the included papers). The majority of papers reported on translational research from the USA (n = 10), with papers also from Canada (n = 4), UK (n = 4), Australia (n = 1) and China (n = 3). In addition, four papers compared translational research across a number of countries: Austria, Finland and Germany; Germany and USA; UK and USA; UK and Germany. The dominance of western countries covered by studies included in our review is perhaps not surprising given our inclusion requirement that papers were published in the English language and the importance of translational research in the Anglo-American biomedical audit and funding cultures [ 3 ]. The earliest paper was published in 1998 and the most recent in 2014, with the majority (n = 21) being published in the six years between 2009 and 2014. This is indicative of the increased interest in translational research and policy concerns with improving the process of translating biomedical knowledge and innovation into clinical benefit [ 13 , 14 ]. The majority of papers (n = 17) were concerned with translational research undertaken in university or hospital settings or as part of institutions which combined university and clinical facilities, such as academic health science centres, translational research organisations or research networks. The papers used a range of quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate scientists’ views of translational research, with six using a survey and eight using semi-structured interviews. Other methodological approaches were case studies (n = 6), ethnographic (n = 4) and documentary analysis (n = 2). Of the 20 papers which adopted a qualitative approach to data collection and analysis, 14 studies explicitly incorporated a theoretical approach through which to collect, analyse and interpret the data. Incorporating a theoretical perspective enhances the quality of qualitative research; allowing understanding and contextualisation of translational research as a dynamic, negotiated, and situated entity or construct. Authors of these 14 studies either situated their approach in a sub-field of a social science discipline or specifically indicated their theoretical perspective. The following theories and concepts were drawn on: symbolic interactionism (n = 1), argumentative policy analysis (n = 1), Bourdieu’s logic of practice (n = 1), Gieyrn’s boundary work and the concept of therapeutic misconception (n = 1), Wittgenstein’s rules for the interpretation of a rule (n = 1), the sociology of professions (n = 1), the sociology of expectations (n = 2), entrepreneurial science (n = 2), and theoretical concepts on innovation (n = 4). Two studies using quantitative survey methods also located their data within theoretical frameworks related to the concept of team science and theoretical concepts from the management field.

We identified five main conceptual themes representing factors which enabled or hindered the practice of translational research. The thematic categories and how they interrelate are discussed in detail in the sections below and are visually summarised in Fig 2 . Within each thematic category illustrative supporting quotations are provided.

Theme 1: Concepts of translational research

Only one study in our sample explicitly looked at how scientists defined and understood the concept of translational research [ 44 ]. Morgan et al. conducted interviews with basic and clinician scientists in 2008 at a time when the ‘ requirements of translational research were only beginning to emerge ’ [ 44 , p.948]. Both types of scientists reported awareness of the concept and its current policy emphasis, describing it as the ‘ mantra of the moment ’, but were unclear as to its meaning, and were able to give only a minimal definition such as ‘ to try to move stuff from the lab to the clinic ’ [ 44 , p.948]. The other included studies, particularly those which utilised survey methods for data collection, did not report explicitly asking respondents to define translational research.

The type of translational research model adopted by an organisation or institution was perceived by scientists in a number of studies in our sample to influence the practice of translational research, with a linear model seen as an impediment to successful practice [ 33 , 34 , 40 , 45 , 53 ]. Institutional representation of translational research as a ‘pipeline’, and a process which requires acceleration, was articulated by basic and clinician scientists as problematic for a number of reasons: that science was seen as being reduced to solving problems and producing cures rather than discovering new knowledge [ 45 , 53 ]; a lack of recognition that good science takes time [ 40 , 45 , 53 ]; and rapid selling of biomedical innovations to the public due to pressures to translate findings quickly for patient benefit without thinking through the implications of these developments or making better use of existing policies and interventions [ 34 , 40 , 45 , 53 ]. For example, scientists working in the field of addiction research acknowledged that: ‘ translation takes time , that bodies of knowledge are built slowly over many years , and that basic science has value even in the absence of swift translation ’ [ 45 , p.4].

These views contrast with institutional and policy interpretations of translational research which assume a linear model, impeded by ‘blocks’ that act as barriers to translating laboratory discoveries into improvements in human health [for example see 7 ]. The methods adopted by researchers in our sample allowed scientists to present a more subtle and nuanced view of the problems attributed to translational research and how they should be addressed [ 40 , 51 ]. For example, basic and clinician scientists interviewed in one US study described challenges of translational research as ‘dilemmas’ as opposed to the oversimplified notion of ‘barriers’ and ‘blocks’ typically perceived by external agencies, including policy makers and research funders [ 40 ]. The preferred term ‘dilemmas’ indicates that there are sometimes very valid and important reasons why things do not unfold according to the expectations that policy makers and research funders may have.

Viewing translational research as a circular or iterative process, was seen to facilitate translational research practices by encouraging reciprocal interactions between the lab and the clinic. This was thought to promote a collaborative research environment, which in turn attracted basic and clinician scientists who wanted to collaborate (this is elaborated upon further in the theme ‘interdisciplinary collaboration’) [ 34 , 41 , 52 , 57 ]. A case study of eight translational research organisations (TRO) in China elaborates on this point. In this study, TROs were established primarily by biomedical organisations. This limited the potential for TROs to address intractable problems because key disciplines required for successful translation, such as public health, health policy, social sciences, community engagement, had not been included [ 57 ].

Theme 2: Research processes

Research processes were perceived by basic and clinician scientists across a number of studies to enable or hinder translational research practices. Research processes included: regulatory and ethics processes [ 32 , 33 , 38 , 49 , 52 , 54 , 56 ]; patient recruitment to research [ 32 , 35 , 38 , 52 ]; and informatics and information technology [ 38 – 40 , 46 , 47 ].

Several studies identified complex regulatory processes, such as ethics and research governance, as barriers to translational research, in effect slowing it down [ 32 , 38 , 49 , 52 , 54 , 56 ]. Two surveys of senior researchers working in US medical schools and academic health science centres, found that 38% and 54% of those surveyed identified complex regulatory requirements as particularly challenging for translational research, thus limiting the success of biomedical innovation being translated into benefits for patients [ 32 , 54 ]. Four qualitative studies, from the field of stem cell research, explain why regulatory processes are particularly challenging for translational research [ 33 , 49 , 52 , 56 ]. The rudimentary nature of stem cell research, yet to determine whether stem cell therapy should be defined as a drug or medical technology, complicated regulation in two studies in our sample [ 33 , 49 ]. Scientists in both these studies reported that this led to confusion over which authority should oversee regulation–a human tissue authority or a food and drug authority. Scientific and technological developments and their accompanying ‘ imagined futures ’ therefore created uncertainty on the part of both scientists and regulators as both parties sought to develop and refine interpretations of rules and regulations, as this extract from a field note illustrates:

[ The representative from the regulator] noted that the views upon this were different across the EU [European Union] . He reiterated that it’s hard to know until people make medicinal products what the regulations and guidance should be . But the [regulators] are asked to give guidelines anyway even though this is not known , and he said ‘it’s circular , it goes around and around and around’ [ 49 , p.351].

In another Chinese study, also investigating stem cell research, regulation was complicated by numerous, overlapping regulatory jurisdictions inadvertently promoting inconsistency and minimal conformity with the law, resulting in scientists feeling powerless to change the system [ 56 ]. Ethical and social implications of scientific breakthroughs were perceived to add an additional layer of complexity to translational research. Scientists working on stem cells as a potential therapy for leukaemia [ 33 ] and diabetes [ 52 ] reported making a deliberate effort to follow strict regulatory processes to ensure acceptance and legitimacy of their research [ 33 ]. They argued that public attention to the ethical and social implications of stem cell research breakthroughs would limit the move from bench to bedside:

That then requires a wholesale change of ethical thought as to whether you can put some genetically modified cell back into a human , and that’s going to take years and years of legislation [ 52 , p. 2061]

Basic and clinician scientists articulated mixed views about the role of patient recruitment and collection of patient samples and the implications this has for translational research [ 32 , 35 , 38 , 52 ]. In one US study of medical school research leaders, 37% of respondents identified recruitment of research subjects as challenging. When asked whether formal institutional processes and adaptations to counter these challenges had been initiated, 34% identified processes to aid recruitment of research participants, with more than half (54%) reporting that this innovation had a moderate to large effect on the amount of clinical research conducted [ 32 ].

Inherent within translational research is the assumption that animal studies will lead to human studies. However, scientists from two studies in our sample [ 33 , 52 ] commented on a tension between the ‘ relevance of ‘human studies” and the ‘ rigour of ‘animal experiments” [ 52 , p.2061]. In one study, based in the UK, basic scientists reported that experiments on animals, due to their availability, were seen as preferable and more likely to lead to outputs in the form of publications. In comparison, experiments on donated human cells were considered to carry a greater risk in terms of output due to difficulties obtaining samples from patients and their families:

To plan a proper research programme you need regular access to the tissue and you are never going to get that with [human] donor material , particularly if the primary objectives are research , because the relatives just don’t see it as important to give permission for all this to be used for research . Quite rightly I think , they don’t feel it’s going to somebody else’s benefit and research is going to be a lower priority . [ 52 , p.2061]

In the other study, based in China, drugs that had proved effective in animal studies were not effective in human clinical trials because patients’ health conditions were far more complicated than the animal models suggested, requiring scientists to constantly adjust their clinical trial protocols [ 33 ].

Solutions proposed to address the problems of recruitment to clinical trials and promote interactions between clinical researchers and potential recruits included community outreach and engagement projects and community advisory boards [ 38 ]. Results from one Canadian study suggested that state funded systems of care, such as Canadian Academic Health Science Systems, facilitated translational research due to the availability of a population of patients readily accessible to the researcher [ 35 ]. Scientists argued that it is the publicly funded system of care that has made access to patients and their data possible, contrasting this system with that of their neighbours in the United States, whereby the fragmented, privatised systems of care limits the potential for such a valuable resource:

[The population] is very special and to not take advantage of it would be a huge loss because we can do things here that other people can’t do . [ 35 , p.721]

Basic and clinician scientists in five studies identified a lack of infrastructure to develop skills in translational research as a further organisational barrier. These included acquiring research skills and access to equipment and effective information technology systems. [ 38 – 40 , 46 , 47 ]. Effectiveness of clinical and translational science, particularly with regards to accessing information technology systems, was perceived by a number of these scientists to be determined by organisational and leadership factors [ 46 , 47 ]. For example, a translational research grant awarded to a medical centre was praised by scientists for enabling the widespread provision of infrastructure such as bioinformatics, which was previously unavailable to individual scientists [ 40 ].

Theme 3: Research versus clinical care

Basic and clinician scientists in four studies identified a perceived cultural divide between basic and clinical science as a key barrier to conducting translational research [ 44 , 52 , 54 , 55 ]. In one of these studies, clinician scientists engaged in early stage clinical trials of stem cells understood that such a divide was due to differing scientific worldviews, language and needs among scientists. For example, one clinician scientist said:

[It’s] still very apparent that we do face , this massive void that exists between scientists and clinicians , that for most of the part , certainly in our area , seems to exist , with no great understanding of the needs of both . [ 55 , p.504]

For other scientists, it was no great surprise that basic and clinician scientists were divided given they were educated within different faculties, with differing foundations, management approaches, and hierarchical systems but were then expected to come together to undertake translational research [ 52 , 57 ]. In contrast, a UK study which interviewed basic and clinician scientists working in cancer genetics found no clear division between clinical practice and research [ 36 ]. While, in theory, research and clinical care may be seen as highly differentiated, in practice, as results from this study bear out, the situation may be more complex. The boundary between clinical care and research was characterised as ambiguous, fluid and flexible. This was attributed to the exploratory nature of medical practice sharing similar motivations and procedures to that of clinical research, with both seeking to further knowledge. The fluidity of the relationship was considered to benefit patients (who through research participation gained access to DNA tests not available within clinical services), as well as clinical staff, improving their clinical skills through engagement with research processes [ 36 ].

Organisational and structural factors were perceived by clinician scientists in several studies to influence the apparent separation between research and clinical care, which consequently acted as a barrier to translational research [ 32 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 51 , 55 ]. These included: a lack of training in relevant research skills and training being too time intensive [ 32 , 42 ]; a lack of time to undertake research among clinician scientists due to demanding clinical roles [ 32 , 40 , 55 ]; and the pressure of combining clinical service and research roles [ 32 , 40 ]. For clinicians working in a community setting, a perceived lower value attributed to research compared to clinical care, with its associated lack of recognition, status and career progression, deterred their participation in research [ 39 ]. Clinician scientists reported that having to compete with full-time, non-clinical researchers, perceived as having more time and being better embedded in infrastructures to secure research funding, was a barrier to conducting translational research [ 42 , 51 ]. This led to the perception among clinician scientists that research was not always considered to be an economically viable activity due to a lack of remuneration for clinical staff’s time and effort to conduct research [ 39 ]. The value of conducting translational research for clinician scientists was strongly linked to perceived patient benefit of the research; research considered likely to have low patient benefit was viewed as disruptive to clinical care [ 36 , 39 ].

In a more positive light, clinician scientists interpreted their role as enabling translational research because they played a key role in bridging the perceived cultural divide between basic and clinical science [ 33 , 39 , 41 , 44 , 52 ], or by acting as ‘ agents of change ’ due to the strength and breadth of their knowledge [ 55 , p. 503]. Clinician scientists viewed themselves as ‘ boundary-spanners ’ or ‘ important bridges ’ between the laboratory and clinic, acting as mediators and translators in collaboration with ‘ pure ’ clinicians and scientists, whom they relied upon to provide the in-depth clinical and scientific knowledge required for successful translational research [ 41 , p. 542]. In a UK study one clinical-scientist clearly articulated the benefits of adding laboratory work to clinical responsibilities as part of a dual role:

Mechanistic studies are what I do . To do the clinical work [without the lab work] you wouldn’t have learned anything about how it worked and that seemed a bit of a shame to me…you might as well do the study properly . [ 44 , p.950].

Intellectual differences between basic and clinician scientists in terms of what was considered to constitute ‘legitimate science’ shaped both positive and negative views of translational research among scientists [ 44 , 52 , 54 ]. Basic scientists articulated a greater emphasis on scientific discovery rather than translation research [ 44 , 54 ], whereas clinician scientists placed more focus on patient-related outcomes to enable translational research [ 52 ]. For example, in a US survey of research investigators at a Medical School the most common reason given by basic scientists for not pursuing translational research was because it was not considered central to their research agenda; respondents with PhD degrees were significantly less likely to report they were conducting translational research compared to those with MD or MD/PhD degrees [ 54 ].

Basic scientists in five studies tended to hold negative views about translational research as a form of legitimate science [ 44 , 45 , 51 , 54 , 55 ]. They articulated the view that translational research was not central to their research agenda [ 45 , 54 ], and perceived clinician scientists as having greater authority to conduct clinical trials to enable translational research practices [ 55 ]. Basic scientists perceived reward and career progression as more difficult to achieve in the field of translational research and shared significant concerns about how translational research as a form of science was viewed by their peers and promotion committees [ 44 , 54 ]. They questioned how they would be able to retain standing in the field if they were publishing in translational research journals, instead of their key disciplinary journals, the former not ‘ sufficiently valued by their peers to form ‘authentic’ knowledge’ [ 44 , p.949]. The downsides of engaging in translational research for non-clinician scientists’ career progression were further emphasised by the tendency for translational research policy to focus on the needs of clinician scientists rather than providing new career structures for basic scientists to work within the requirements of translational research [ 44 , 51 ]. For example, a basic scientist reported how exasperating she found it that so much attention was paid to ‘ clinician scientists when other professional trajectories might also lead to the establishment of a class of translational investigators’ [ 51 , p.8]. In comparison, most clinician scientists interviewed were more positive about the translational research drive. Translational research was viewed as aligning closer to their own research interests in answering particular health-related questions.

Theme 4: Interdisciplinary collaboration

Interdisciplinary collaboration between basic and clinician scientists, but also with other professional groups, was perceived by scientists to facilitate translational research practices [ 37 , 38 , 40 , 48 , 52 , 56 , 57 ], by providing opportunities for knowledge exchange [ 37 , 52 ], offering distinct forms of expertise [ 48 , 56 ], and creating a working environment which encouraged communication and co-operation between different scientists [ 38 ]. Collaboration was seen as being best achieved through multi-disciplinary teams, working throughout the entire research process [ 40 , 52 ], or through ‘team science’–a field of inquiry to understand and enhance processes which facilitate or inhibit collaboration of researchers across different fields and organisations [ 37 , 48 ]. For example, one basic scientist working in human embryonic stem cell research in the UK said:

This is a good place to be because you have got people who make hES cells and this group is a recognised area or centre for expertise in beta cell biology . If you put the two together then you progress quite quickly [ 52 , p.2058].

In contrast, scientists working on stem cell research in China in another study reported that the typical research team structure consisting of ‘ one professor and many students’ , with few, if any, middle ranking researchers was a hindrance to research efficiency and productivity:

In China, everybody is a professor; everybody works on their own project; there is no connection between groups. Everybody is their own team-leader. Thus it’s hard to make progress [ 56 , p. 197] .

Perceived facilitators of collaborative working in a translational research network included geographical proximity of different professionals to enable sharing of values and knowledge exchange [ 34 , 43 , 52 ], cohesive bioinformatics and clinical-informatics teams [ 46 ] and the appropriate institutional and structural arrangements to accommodate the range of professional expertise required to meet research objectives [ 56 ]. Conversely a lack of collaboration between industry and clinical science [ 50 ] and poor coordination between translational research and biomedical informatics teams [ 46 ] inhibited interdisciplinary collaboration.

The nature of relationships within interdisciplinary collaboration teams was perceived among scientists as another factor shaping collaborative working, which could either enable or hinder translational research. Specifically, translational research was considered to be facilitated by past working relationship practices [ 43 ], prior experience of collaboration among scientists across departments [ 48 ], and teams with key members who could act as knowledge brokers [ 43 ]. Institutions which portrayed themselves as places of collaboration were considered to enable translational research as this collaborative attitude would in turn attract other scientists who believed in collaborative ways of working as an integral part of conducting research [ 52 ].

In contrast, scientists identified a number of characteristics that hindered effective collaborative working relationships and practices. Such factors reflected previous professional groupings that encouraged silo-working (where departments or groups do not want to share information or knowledge beyond their group) rather than collaboration in a translational research network [ 43 , 56 , 57 ], and poor leadership or weak mentorship skills of leaders of teams [ 40 , 57 ]. Other perceived barriers pointed to a lack of experience among scientists collaborating across different departments to form effective teams [ 48 ], as well as institutional arrangements which not only inhibit collaboration between research groups within the same institution but also make collaboration between institutions harder [ 56 ]. Finally, traditional relationships between academia and industry, with universities as providers of basic research knowledge and industry as translating this knowledge into applications and profits, were viewed by scientists to discourage collaborative working and therefore hinder translational research practices [ 34 , 52 ].

Theme 5: Entrepreneurial science

From a policy perspective, translational research endeavours to improve the health of the nation through the development of effective drugs and treatments, while simultaneously increasing wealth by generating income from a nation’s research capabilities. Translational research therefore comes with health and wealth-based performance measures for those working within translational research environments. A number of papers included in our synthesis suggest that scientists’ research practices are being shaped by this policy agenda [ 33 – 35 , 41 , 44 , 51 , 53 , 57 ]. They reported a perceived shift in attitudes among scientists and organisations to become ‘entrepreneurial’, thereby facilitating translational research [ 33 – 35 , 53 ]. Scientists who considered that both the intellectual and commercial benefits of their research would facilitate translational research, and those with perceived entrepreneurial skills, saw themselves at an advantage to secure funding for translational research.

In addition to the concept of the ‘entrepreneurial scientist’, the concept of the ‘entrepreneurial hospital’ was proposed as a resource for enabling translational research [ 35 ]. Scientists in this study considered accessible patient populations, attending publicly funded hospital-university collaborations for their care, as a resource to attract partnerships with industry:

So the drug company comes in for example to develop a drug with us on a phase I study . If we were to extract information at the molecular level for individual patients both of their DNA as well as changes to their tumour , we would get a very good understanding as to who’s responding to that treatment . We would then be able to advise the drug company as to where we see the best outcomes in terms of patient populations that respond well . This , presumably would be passed on when it comes to developing their Phase II and Phase III studies and actually improve the likelihood of success [ 35 , p.721].

Accessible patient populations as a resource had value in terms of rationalising medicine and saving money as well as meeting the commercial aims of translational research. The challenge, as one scientist commented, was ensuring that the mandates of the company and the hospital are both met:

no matter how they pose the issue of what their mandate is, the company is there to safeguard shareholder value, right? And that usually means sales, how much money have you made? [Our organisation] requires access to those companies’ drugs in many cases to take care of our shareholders, right? But if you look at it as shareholder, what our shareholders are interested in is not making money but being treated appropriately [ 35 , p.722].

Results from several papers suggest the need for a broader view of translational research whereby not-for-profit institutions have an entrepreneurial role to play [ 34 , 35 , 41 , 57 ]. One study identified the need for organisations such as universities to develop the technology to enable translational research opportunities, particularly when industry had lost interest due to patent problems [ 41 ].

In two studies, scientists identified the lack of knowledge and interest concerning commercialising research as a barrier to translational research [ 34 , 44 ]. In a UK study, basic scientists highlighted organisational and structural barriers as limiting their ability to exploit the commercial potential of their research. These were: a lack of awareness of how to patent scientific discoveries or even that this is a necessary step in translational research; and academic funding systems which employ scientists on closed contracts, with institutional measures of performance (and implications for renewal of contracts) based on publication record rather than patents. For example, one basic scientist observed:

my instinct is I’m wasting my grant time doing that sort of work , I’m rewarded for publications not patents [ 44 , p.949].

However, respondents in a US study highlighted the value of technology transfer offices within a university for taking on industrial collaborations in situations where scientists were less interested in the commercial exploitation of their discoveries [ 34 ].

This article reports a systematic review and narrative synthesis of factors that enable or inhibit translational research, from a growing body of empirical studies investigating translational research from the perspective of basic and clinician scientists. To the best of our knowledge this is the only systematic review to have synthesised these factors from the point of view of scientists, a key stakeholder group in translational research. We identified 26 empirical papers from which we synthesised five themes from the perspectives of scientists conducting translational research. These point to areas where policy and practice need development to enhance policy ambitions for translational research to accelerate scientific discoveries into clinical applications with benefits for patients.

The first theme, concepts of translational research , identifies a disconnect between linear models of translational research, often adopted at the policy or organisational level, and scientists’ own experience of conducting translational research. Scientists reported that a linear model inhibited key attributes required for successful translation of biomedical innovation, such as interdisciplinary collaboration. Our findings are supported by theoretical work from social scientists who have begun to challenge assumptions underpinning contemporary translational research policy initiatives: the dominant, linear model of translational research does not reflect the reality of how research translation happens in practice [ 3 , 13 , 16 ]. Second, research processes at organisational and system levels influenced scientists’ ability to conduct translational research, with complex and lengthy ethical and regulatory research governance processes, difficulties with patient recruitment, and poor access to bioinformatics identified as key barriers limiting translation. Research settings with readily accessible patient populations, for example as part of publicly funded university-hospital collaborations, facilitated patient recruitment for trials and encouraged partnerships with industry, hence enabling translational research. Third, the theme research versus clinical care highlighted a cultural divide between science and medicine. Clinician scientists were perceived to bridge this cultural divide, to enable translational research due to their breadth of knowledge, awareness of clinical need and flexible working practices, access to patients for research and ability to run research trials. However, the policy focus on clinician scientists as sole champions for translational research with their perceived ability to bridge the gap between science and medicine was alienating for non-clinician scientists. Fourth, interdisciplinary collaboration was thought to enable translational research practices, but depended on the quality of prior and current social relationships. Finally, the theme entrepreneurial science indicated that policy drives focusing on health and wealth had encouraged entrepreneurial activity amongst scientists and organisations such as hospitals, although a key challenge was to increase basic scientists’ awareness of the commercial impact of their discoveries.

Social, organisational and structural factors were identified as key contexts across all five themes both enabling and hindering translational research practices. A number of papers in our sample suggest that organisational practices and systems have not kept up with the pace of change in knowledge production brought about by the translational research agenda [ 42 , 44 , 51 ]. For example, the way academic organisations reward work based on individual output from publications and research grants does not match expectations of translational research, which require team working and simultaneously seek to enhance benefits for patients through development of therapies, and to increase the wealth of organisations and nations.

The need to accelerate research as a means to ensure that the endpoints of translational research are met is a view largely articulated in policy, which views the health and medical sciences as an opportunity to increase a nation’s health and wealth. However, basic and clinician scientists in the studies we synthesised did not entirely share this view and warned of unintended consequences resulting from an overly strong focus on translational research and its associated endpoints. They emphasised the need for a broader view of translational research which acknowledges that progress and achievements in science and biomedical innovation may require a longer time frame and that science’s role is concerned with knowledge production and discovery as well as solving problems and producing cures [ 34 , 40 , 45 , 53 ].

Strengths and limitations

A strength of our review is that we used systematic and rigorous methods for searching and synthesising the existing literature on scientists’ perspectives on factors enabling and hindering translation research practices across diverse clinical fields. This included using a number of sources to search the literature and two researchers to select and appraise the literature, and extract and synthesise the data. However, a number of methodological issues could have affected the validity of our findings. The findings of the study are limited by the diversity of terms that are used to describe translational research which may have resulted in a small number of studies being overlooked. Our search strategy focused on English language papers in peer reviewed journals. There are a number of published books concerned with translational research from scientists’ perspectives which were not included due to the design of our search strategy [ 58 ]. The omission of this literature, and literature in languages other than in English, may have potentially produced bias or excluded further insights into factors enabling and hindering translational research. We did not exclude studies on the basis of quality. The quality of included studies was mainly high. Seven of the 26 included studies were rated as lower quality (scoring 3 or below). A sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of our findings, suggests that removing the seven lower quality studies does not alter the thematic categories we derived from the synthesis.

Implications for Policy and Practice

Some of the barriers we have identified in our review have been reported in opinion pieces, (for example inadequate infrastructure, the need for a research culture that facilitates collaboration [ 2 , 5 ]). This study investigated translational research practices across health domains, scientific disciplines, and countries, and included the perspectives of wide range of scientists. Our findings substantiate and add to known concerns, highlighting that new strategies are required to maximise the potential for translational research to deliver benefits to patients. The findings of our review point to a number of policy implications for those seeking to better realise the potential for translational research.

First, our findings question the usefulness of the pipeline, linear model of translational research. This does not reflect how scientists conducting translational research describe what they do. We call for policy and institutions promoting translational research to refine their conceptual models of translational research to one that is more reflective of scientists’ experiences of translational research, fostering greater buy in from all types of scientists. Our review provides evidence that scientists’ consider collaboration as a key ingredient for successful translational research and that viewing translational research as a circular or iterative process encourages collaboration. Therefore a refined model of translational research may foster greater reciprocal interaction between the laboratory and the clinic, in turn attracting further collaborations.

Second, the challenge of undertaking translational research requires change at organisational and institutional levels. This will necessitate streamlining regulatory and governance processes and facilitating access to infrastructures such as bioinformatics, in order to reduce delays to translational research. The conflicting needs of academic and hospital institutions, whose primary goals are respectively to foster academic achievement and to provide healthcare solutions, will need to be resolved. Stronger leadership and integrated institutions are required with single managerial, governance and administrative structures that afford appropriate weight to these conflicting needs in order to prioritise translational research.

Third, the end points of translational research are frequently discussed as contributing to a nation’s health and wealth, although it is not always clear from policy statements which component is being prioritised and, as stated earlier, whether these aspirations have been met through the push for translational research. A broader policy focus on translational research would facilitate the contribution to biomedical innovation from public sector institutions as well as industry to drive translational research, particularly in situations when industry cannot participate due to problems with patents or when public sector institutions can establish the market before it is viable for the commercial sector to enter. In line with other literature on the potential for translational research, findings from our synthesis suggest that translational research provides opportunities for realigning relations between citizens, patients, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies and biomedical researchers [ 16 ].

Supporting Information

S1 prisma checklist, funding statement.

This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London (award number 652300), www.nihr.ac.uk/about/biomedical-research-centres.htm ; and the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South London at King's College London NHS Foundation Trust (award number NIHR CLAHRC-2013-10022), Prof Charles DA Wolfe, http://www.nihr.ac.uk/about/collaborations-for-leadership-in-applied-health-research-and-care.htm . The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

• Research Overview
• Research Activities
• Research Resources
• Training & Education
• Collaborate With NCATS
• Funding Overview
• Open Funding Opportunities
• Small Business Programs
• Funding Policy & Operating Guidelines
• Grant Information
• Challenges and Prize Competitions
• Scientific Review
• Conference Grant Information
• Resources for You
• Resources for Researchers
• Resources for Trainees
• Resources for Rare Disease Patients and Advocates
• News & Events Overview
• Newsletters
• Scientific Publications
• Infographics & Fact Sheets
• NCATS Overview

About Translational Science

• Advisory Committees
• Careers at NCATS
• Director's Corner
• Divisions & Offices

Translational Science Spectrum

The spectrum represents the stages of research involved in bringing more treatments to all people more quickly.

About the Translational Science Spectrum

The translational science spectrum shows the stages of translational research. The stages do not happen in a straight line or in one direction. Each stage builds upon and informs the others. At all stages, our staff and grantees come up with new approaches, prove their usefulness and share the findings. Patient involvement is a key feature of all stages in translation.

Basic Research

Basic research involves scientific exploration that can reveal fundamental mechanisms of biology, disease or behavior. Every stage of the translational research spectrum builds upon and informs basic research. NCATS scientists typically do not conduct basic research; however, insights gained from the center’s studies along the translational spectrum can inform basic research.

Preclinical Research

Preclinical research connects the basic science of disease with human medicine. During this stage, scientists develop model interventions to further understand the basis of a disease or disorder and find ways to treat it. Testing is carried out using cell or animal models of disease; samples of human or animal tissues; or computer-assisted simulations of drug, device or diagnostic interactions within living systems.

Related Research

• Assay Development
• Data Science and Informatics
• Platform Technologies
• Therapeutic Discovery and Development

Clinical Research

Clinical research includes studies to better understand a disease in humans and relate this knowledge to findings in cell or animal models; testing and refinement of new technologies in people; testing of interventions for safety and effectiveness in those with or without disease; behavioral and observational studies; and outcomes and health services research. The goal of many clinical trials is to obtain data to support regulatory approval for an intervention.

• Clinical Research Network
• Patient and Community Engagement
• Rare Diseases

Clinical Implementation

Clinical implementation involves the adoption of interventions that have been demonstrated to be useful in a research environment into routine clinical care for the general population. This stage also includes implementation research to evaluate the results of clinical trials and to identify new clinical questions and gaps in care.

Public Health

Public health includes studying health outcomes at the population level to determine the effects of diseases and efforts to prevent, diagnose and treat them. Findings help guide scientists working to assess the effects of current interventions and to develop new ones.

• Emergent Diseases

Translational Science Education Resources

We offer a collection of helpful educational resources and virtual classes to advance your knowledge of translational science.

Translational Science Principles

Our [eight] translational science principals characterize effective translational science approaches.

Translational science focuses on understanding the scientific principles underlying each step of the translational process. 

Last updated on November 7, 2023

• Student Success

Identifying children’s environmental health risks, needs, misconceptions, and opportunities for research translation using social media

While traditional qualitative methods like interviews and focus groups are valuable for small populations, they are not feasible for large-scale, continuous studies due to resource constraints. Social media, however, offers a rich source of data that can provide insights into public perceptions, behaviors, and misconceptions about children's environmental health.

College of Health researcher(s)

College unit(s).

As part of the Advancing Science, Practice, Programming, and Policy in Research Translation for Children’s Environmental Health (ASP3IRE) center , machine learning, geographic information systems (GIS), and natural language processing to analyze more than 650 million posts related to children’s environmental health are being used. Using preliminary analyses as examples, this commentary discusses the potential opportunities, benefits, challenges, and limitations of children’s health social media analytics. Social media contains large volumes of contextually rich data that describe children’s health risks and needs, characteristics of homes and childcare locations important to environmental exposures, and parent and childcare provider perceptions, awareness of, and misconceptions about children’s environmental health. Twenty five million unique conversations mentioning children, with likes, views, and replies from more than 33 million X (formerly Twitter) users were identified. Many of these posts can be linked to traditional environmental and health data. However, social media analytics have several challenges and limitations. Challenges include a need for interdisciplinary collaborations, selectivity and sensitivity of analytical methods, the dynamic, evolving communication methods and platform preferences of social media users, and operational policies. Limitations include data availability, generalizability, and self-report bias. Social media analytics has significant potential to contribute to children’s environmental health research and translation.

NSF & NobleReach Emerge Choose 11 Biotechnology Projects for Research Commercialization Pilot

Eleven biotechnology projects have been selected for inclusion in a pilot program that seeks to accelerate the translation of research efforts to commercially and socially impactful applications.

The National Science Foundation said Wednesday that the pilot, a $5 million collaboration with nonprofit organization NobleReach Emerge , would be used to inform translational funding opportunities in the future.

The 11 chosen projects are already recipients of funding from the NSF. Under the pilot program, the projects would receive additional investment.

Work has also been carried out to prepare the research for the market. Advisers from NobleReach Emerge helped the researchers determine the paths that could be taken towards product development. The advisers also supported the researchers with business fundamentals.

According to NSF Division of Translational Impacts Director Barry Johnson , the pilot program “can accelerate the translation of NSF’s investments in basic research to products that positively benefit society.”

For his part, Glenn Gaffney , chief strategy officer at NobleReach Emerge’s parent organization NobleReach Foundation, said, “We are excited to collaborate with these 11 research teams to help move new technologies, capabilities and services toward commercial use in support of NSF’s vision.”

• Barry Johnson
• biotechnology
• Glenn Gaffney
• National Science Foundation
• NobleReach Emerge

Space Force Launches Weather Monitoring Satellite to LEO

SBA Introduces Digital Portal to Access Investing in America Opportunities; Isabel Casillas Guzman Quoted

Proposed Marine Amphibious Landing Ship May Cost Up to $600M Per Unit, CBO Says

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computation and Language

Title: interplay of machine translation, diacritics, and diacritization.

Abstract: We investigate two research questions: (1) how do machine translation (MT) and diacritization influence the performance of each other in a multi-task learning setting (2) the effect of keeping (vs. removing) diacritics on MT performance. We examine these two questions in both high-resource (HR) and low-resource (LR) settings across 55 different languages (36 African languages and 19 European languages). For (1), results show that diacritization significantly benefits MT in the LR scenario, doubling or even tripling performance for some languages, but harms MT in the HR scenario. We find that MT harms diacritization in LR but benefits significantly in HR for some languages. For (2), MT performance is similar regardless of diacritics being kept or removed. In addition, we propose two classes of metrics to measure the complexity of a diacritical system, finding these metrics to correlate positively with the performance of our diacritization models. Overall, our work provides insights for developing MT and diacritization systems under different data size conditions and may have implications that generalize beyond the 55 languages we investigate.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .