Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

How long does biomedical research take? Studying the time taken between biomedical and health research and its translation into products, policy, and practice

Authors: Stephen R Hanney, Sophie Castle-Clarke, Jonathan Grant, Susan Guthrie, Chris Henshall, Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz, Michele Pistollato, Alexandra Pollitt, Jon Sussex, Steven Wooding

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The time taken, or ‘time lags’, between biomedical/health research and its translation into health improvements is receiving growing attention. Reducing time lags should increase rates of return to such research. However, ways to measure time lags are under-developed, with little attention on where time lags arise within overall timelines. The process marker model has been proposed as a better way forward than the current focus on an increasingly complex series of translation ‘gaps’. Starting from that model, we aimed to develop better methods to measure and understand time lags and develop ways to identify policy options and produce recommendations for future studies.

Methods

Following reviews of the literature on time lags and of relevant policy documents, we developed a new approach to conduct case studies of time lags. We built on the process marker model, including developing a matrix with a series of overlapping tracks to allow us to present and measure elements within any overall time lag. We identified a reduced number of key markers or calibration points and tested our new approach in seven case studies of research leading to interventions in cardiovascular disease and mental health. Finally, we analysed the data to address our study’s key aims.

Results

The literature review illustrated the lack of agreement on starting points for measuring time lags. We mapped points from policy documents onto our matrix and thus highlighted key areas of concern, for example around delays before new therapies become widely available. Our seven completed case studies demonstrate we have made considerable progress in developing methods to measure and understand time lags. The matrix of overlapping tracks of activity in the research and implementation processes facilitated analysis of time lags along each track, and at the cross-over points where the next track started. We identified some factors that speed up translation through the actions of companies, researchers, funders, policymakers, and regulators. Recommendations for further work are built on progress made, limitations identified and revised terminology.

Conclusions

Our advances identify complexities, provide a firm basis for further methodological work along and between tracks, and begin to indicate potential ways of reducing lags.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Cooksey D: A Review of UK Health Research Funding. Norwich: HMSO; 2006. Cooksey D: A Review of UK Health Research Funding. Norwich: HMSO; 2006.
2.
go back to reference Westfall J, Mold J, Fagnan L: Practice-based research – “Blue Highways” on the NIH roadmap.JAMA 2007, 297:403–406. 10.1001/jama.297.4.403CrossRefPubMed Westfall J, Mold J, Fagnan L: Practice-based research – “Blue Highways” on the NIH roadmap.JAMA 2007, 297:403–406. 10.1001/jama.297.4.403CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Buxton M, Hanney S, Morris S, Sundmacher L, Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Garau M, Sussex J, Grant J, Ismail S, Nason E, Wooding S: Medical Research: What’s it Worth?. London: Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust and Academy of Medical Sciences; 2008. Buxton M, Hanney S, Morris S, Sundmacher L, Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Garau M, Sussex J, Grant J, Ismail S, Nason E, Wooding S: Medical Research: What’s it Worth?. London: Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust and Academy of Medical Sciences; 2008.
4.
go back to reference Rogers E: Diffusion of Innovations. 4th edition. New York, NY: The Free Press; 1995. Rogers E: Diffusion of Innovations. 4th edition. New York, NY: The Free Press; 1995.
5.
go back to reference Davis D, Evans M, Jadad A, Perrier L, Rath D, Ryan D, Sibbald G, Straus S, Rappolt S, Wowk M, Zwarenstein M: The case for knowledge translation: shortening the journey from evidence to effect.BMJ 2003, 33:33–35.CrossRef Davis D, Evans M, Jadad A, Perrier L, Rath D, Ryan D, Sibbald G, Straus S, Rappolt S, Wowk M, Zwarenstein M: The case for knowledge translation: shortening the journey from evidence to effect.BMJ 2003, 33:33–35.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Packer C, Simpson S, Stevens A: International diffusion of new health technologies: a ten-country analysis of six health technologies.Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006, 22:419–428.CrossRefPubMed Packer C, Simpson S, Stevens A: International diffusion of new health technologies: a ten-country analysis of six health technologies.Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006, 22:419–428.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Graham I, Tetroe J, Group KTR: Some theoretical underpinnings of knowledge translation.Acad Emerg Med 2007, 14:936–941. 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2007.tb02369.xCrossRefPubMed Graham I, Tetroe J, Group KTR: Some theoretical underpinnings of knowledge translation.Acad Emerg Med 2007, 14:936–941. 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2007.tb02369.xCrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Lang ES, Wyer PC, Haynes RB: Knowledge translation: closing the evidence-to-practice gap.Ann Emerg Med 2007, 49:355–363. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.08.022CrossRefPubMed Lang ES, Wyer PC, Haynes RB: Knowledge translation: closing the evidence-to-practice gap.Ann Emerg Med 2007, 49:355–363. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.08.022CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Baumbusch J, Kirkham S, Khan K, McDonald H, Semeniuk P, Tan E, Anderson JM: Pursuing common agendas: a collaborative model for knowledge translation between research and practice in clinical settings.Res Nurs Health 2008, 31:130–140. 10.1002/nur.20242CrossRefPubMed Baumbusch J, Kirkham S, Khan K, McDonald H, Semeniuk P, Tan E, Anderson JM: Pursuing common agendas: a collaborative model for knowledge translation between research and practice in clinical settings.Res Nurs Health 2008, 31:130–140. 10.1002/nur.20242CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Trochim W 3rd Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation. In Translation Won’t Happen Without Dissemination and Implementation: Some Measurement and Evaluation Issues. Bethesda, MD: NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research; 2010. Trochim W 3rd Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation. In Translation Won’t Happen Without Dissemination and Implementation: Some Measurement and Evaluation Issues. Bethesda, MD: NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research; 2010.
11.
go back to reference Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations.Milbank Q 2004, 82:581–629. 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations.Milbank Q 2004, 82:581–629. 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Balas E, Boren S: Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. In Yearbook of Medical Informatics. Edited by: van Bemmel JH, McCray AT. Stuttgart: Schattauer Verlagsgesellschaft mbH; 2000:65–70. Balas E, Boren S: Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. In Yearbook of Medical Informatics. Edited by: van Bemmel JH, McCray AT. Stuttgart: Schattauer Verlagsgesellschaft mbH; 2000:65–70.
13.
go back to reference Grant J, Green L, Mason B: Basic research and health: a reassessment of the scientific basis for the support of biomedical science.Res Eval 2003, 12:217–224. 10.3152/147154403781776618CrossRef Grant J, Green L, Mason B: Basic research and health: a reassessment of the scientific basis for the support of biomedical science.Res Eval 2003, 12:217–224. 10.3152/147154403781776618CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Wratschko K: Empirical Setting: The Pharmaceutical Industry. Strategic Orientation and Alliance Portfolio Configuration. New York, NY: Springer; 2009.CrossRef Wratschko K: Empirical Setting: The Pharmaceutical Industry. Strategic Orientation and Alliance Portfolio Configuration. New York, NY: Springer; 2009.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J: The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research.J R Soc Med 2011, 104:510–520. 10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J: The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research.J R Soc Med 2011, 104:510–520. 10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Trochim W, Kane C, Graham M, Pincus HA: Evaluating translational research: a process marker model.Clin Transl Sci 2011, 4:153–162. 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00291.xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Trochim W, Kane C, Graham M, Pincus HA: Evaluating translational research: a process marker model.Clin Transl Sci 2011, 4:153–162. 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00291.xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Sussex J, Towse A: The R&D Cost of a New Medicine. London: Office of Health Economics; 2012. Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Sussex J, Towse A: The R&D Cost of a New Medicine. London: Office of Health Economics; 2012.
18.
go back to reference DiMasi JA: Success rates for new drugs entering clinical testing in the US.Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995,58(1):1–14. 10.1016/0009-9236(95)90066-7CrossRefPubMed DiMasi JA: Success rates for new drugs entering clinical testing in the US.Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995,58(1):1–14. 10.1016/0009-9236(95)90066-7CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Adams CP, Brantner VV: Estimating the cost of new drug development: is it really $802million?Health Aff 2006,25(2):420–428. 10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.420CrossRef Adams CP, Brantner VV: Estimating the cost of new drug development: is it really $802million?Health Aff 2006,25(2):420–428. 10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.420CrossRef
20.
go back to reference DiMasi JA, Grabowsk HG: Economics of new oncology drug development.J Clin Oncol 2007,25(2):209–216. 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.0803CrossRefPubMed DiMasi JA, Grabowsk HG: Economics of new oncology drug development.J Clin Oncol 2007,25(2):209–216. 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.0803CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Kaitin KI, DiMasi JA: Pharmaceutical innovation on the 21st century: new drug approvals in the first decade, 2000–2009.Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011, 89:183–188. 10.1038/clpt.2010.286CrossRefPubMed Kaitin KI, DiMasi JA: Pharmaceutical innovation on the 21st century: new drug approvals in the first decade, 2000–2009.Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011, 89:183–188. 10.1038/clpt.2010.286CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference O’Neill P: Shedding the Pounds: Obesity Management, NICE Guidance and Bariatric Surgery in England. London: Office of Health Economics; 2010. O’Neill P: Shedding the Pounds: Obesity Management, NICE Guidance and Bariatric Surgery in England. London: Office of Health Economics; 2010.
23.
go back to reference Wooding S, Hanney S, Buxton M, Grant J: Payback arising from research funding: evaluation of the Arthritis Research Campaign.Rheumatology 2005, 44:1145–1156. 10.1093/rheumatology/keh708CrossRefPubMed Wooding S, Hanney S, Buxton M, Grant J: Payback arising from research funding: evaluation of the Arthritis Research Campaign.Rheumatology 2005, 44:1145–1156. 10.1093/rheumatology/keh708CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Hanney S, Buxton M, Green C, Coulson D, Raftery JL: An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme.Health Technol Assess 2007, 11:53.CrossRef Hanney S, Buxton M, Green C, Coulson D, Raftery JL: An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme.Health Technol Assess 2007, 11:53.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Hanney SR, Watt A, Jones TH, Metcalf L: Conducting retrospective impact analysis to inform a medical research charity’s funding strategies: the case of Asthma UK.All Asth Clin Immun 2013, 9:17. 10.1186/1710-1492-9-17CrossRef Hanney SR, Watt A, Jones TH, Metcalf L: Conducting retrospective impact analysis to inform a medical research charity’s funding strategies: the case of Asthma UK.All Asth Clin Immun 2013, 9:17. 10.1186/1710-1492-9-17CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Downing NS, Aminawung JA, Shah ND, Braunstein JB, Krumholz HM, Ross JS: Regulatory review of novel therapeutics – comparison of three regulatory agencies.N Engl J Med 2012, 366:2284–2293. 10.1056/NEJMsa1200223CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Downing NS, Aminawung JA, Shah ND, Braunstein JB, Krumholz HM, Ross JS: Regulatory review of novel therapeutics – comparison of three regulatory agencies.N Engl J Med 2012, 366:2284–2293. 10.1056/NEJMsa1200223CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
go back to reference Hanney S, Mugford M, Grant J, Buxton M: Assessing the benefits of health research: lessons from research into the use of antenatal corticosteroids for the prevention of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome.Soc Sci Med 2005, 60:937–947. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.038CrossRefPubMed Hanney S, Mugford M, Grant J, Buxton M: Assessing the benefits of health research: lessons from research into the use of antenatal corticosteroids for the prevention of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome.Soc Sci Med 2005, 60:937–947. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.038CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Paul SM, Mytelka DS, Dunwiddie CT, Persinger CC, Munos BH, Lindborg SR, Schacht AL: How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge.Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010, 9:203–214.PubMed Paul SM, Mytelka DS, Dunwiddie CT, Persinger CC, Munos BH, Lindborg SR, Schacht AL: How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge.Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010, 9:203–214.PubMed
29.
go back to reference Salimi Y, Shahandeh K, Malekafzali H, Loori N, Kheiltash A, Jamshidi E, Frouzan AS, Majdzadeh R: Is community-based participatory research (CBPR) useful? A systematic review on papers in a decade.Int J Prev Med 2012, 3:386–393.PubMedPubMedCentral Salimi Y, Shahandeh K, Malekafzali H, Loori N, Kheiltash A, Jamshidi E, Frouzan AS, Majdzadeh R: Is community-based participatory research (CBPR) useful? A systematic review on papers in a decade.Int J Prev Med 2012, 3:386–393.PubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Wooding S, Hanney SR, Pollitt A, Grant J, Buxton MJ: Understanding factors associated with the translation of cardiovascular research: a multinational case study approach.Implement Sci 2014, 9:47. 10.1186/1748-5908-9-47CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wooding S, Hanney SR, Pollitt A, Grant J, Buxton MJ: Understanding factors associated with the translation of cardiovascular research: a multinational case study approach.Implement Sci 2014, 9:47. 10.1186/1748-5908-9-47CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Wooding S, Pollitt A, Castle-Clarke S, Cochrane G, Diepeveen S, Guthrie S, Horvitz-Lennon M, Larivière V, Morgan Jones M, Chonaill SN, O’Brien C, Olmsted SS, Schultz D, Winpenny E, Pincus HA, Grant J: Mental Health Retrosight: Understanding the Returns from Research (Lessons from Schizophrenia): Policy Report. Cambridge, UK: RAND Europe; 2013. Wooding S, Pollitt A, Castle-Clarke S, Cochrane G, Diepeveen S, Guthrie S, Horvitz-Lennon M, Larivière V, Morgan Jones M, Chonaill SN, O’Brien C, Olmsted SS, Schultz D, Winpenny E, Pincus HA, Grant J: Mental Health Retrosight: Understanding the Returns from Research (Lessons from Schizophrenia): Policy Report. Cambridge, UK: RAND Europe; 2013.
32.
go back to reference Chandy R, Hopstaken B, Narasimhan O, Prabhu J: From invention to innovation: conversion ability in product development.J Marketing Research 2006, 43:494–508. 10.1509/jmkr.43.3.494CrossRef Chandy R, Hopstaken B, Narasimhan O, Prabhu J: From invention to innovation: conversion ability in product development.J Marketing Research 2006, 43:494–508. 10.1509/jmkr.43.3.494CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Bioscience Innovation and Growth Team (BIGT): BioScience 2015: Improving National Health, Increasing National Wealth. A Report to Government by the Bioscience Innovation and Growth Team. London: Department of Trade and Industry; 2003. Bioscience Innovation and Growth Team (BIGT): BioScience 2015: Improving National Health, Increasing National Wealth. A Report to Government by the Bioscience Innovation and Growth Team. London: Department of Trade and Industry; 2003.
34.
go back to reference National Audit Office (NAO): Getting the Evidence: Using Research in Policy Making. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. London: NAO; 2003. National Audit Office (NAO): Getting the Evidence: Using Research in Policy Making. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. London: NAO; 2003.
35.
go back to reference Academy of Medical Sciences: Strengthening Clinical Research. A Report from the Academy of Medical Sciences. London: AMS; 2003. Academy of Medical Sciences: Strengthening Clinical Research. A Report from the Academy of Medical Sciences. London: AMS; 2003.
36.
go back to reference UK Clinical Research Collaboration: Clinical Research in the UK: Towards a Single System that Reliably Delivers Distinctive Quality and Rapid Access at Reasonable Cost (McKinsey Report). London: UK Clinical Research Collaboration; 2005. UK Clinical Research Collaboration: Clinical Research in the UK: Towards a Single System that Reliably Delivers Distinctive Quality and Rapid Access at Reasonable Cost (McKinsey Report). London: UK Clinical Research Collaboration; 2005.
37.
go back to reference Institute of Medicine: Evidence-Based Medicine and the Changing Nature of Healthcare: Meeting Summary (IOM Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine). Washington DC: IOM; 2008. Institute of Medicine: Evidence-Based Medicine and the Changing Nature of Healthcare: Meeting Summary (IOM Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine). Washington DC: IOM; 2008.
38.
go back to reference Department of Health: High Quality Care for All: NHS Next Stage Review Final Report by Lord Darzi. London: DH; 2008. Department of Health: High Quality Care for All: NHS Next Stage Review Final Report by Lord Darzi. London: DH; 2008.
39.
go back to reference National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts: Total Innovation: Why Harnessing the Hidden Innovation in High-Technology Sectors is Crucial to Retaining the UK’s Innovation Edge. London: NESTA; 2008. National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts: Total Innovation: Why Harnessing the Hidden Innovation in High-Technology Sectors is Crucial to Retaining the UK’s Innovation Edge. London: NESTA; 2008.
40.
go back to reference UK Clinical Research Collaboration: UK Clinical Research Collaboration: Progress Report 2006–2008. London: UKCRC; 2008. UK Clinical Research Collaboration: UK Clinical Research Collaboration: Progress Report 2006–2008. London: UKCRC; 2008.
41.
go back to reference Pharmaceutical Industry Competitiveness Task Force: Ministerial Industry Strategy Group Pharmaceutical Industry: Competitiveness and Performance Indicators 2009. London: PICTF; 2009. Pharmaceutical Industry Competitiveness Task Force: Ministerial Industry Strategy Group Pharmaceutical Industry: Competitiveness and Performance Indicators 2009. London: PICTF; 2009.
42.
go back to reference Institute of Medicine: Transforming Clinical Research in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: IOM; 2009. Institute of Medicine: Transforming Clinical Research in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: IOM; 2009.
43.
go back to reference Department for Business Innovation and Skills and Department of Health: Life Sciences in the UK – Economic Analysis and Evidence for ‘Life Sciences 2010: Delivering the Blueprint’. London: BIS/DH; 2010. Department for Business Innovation and Skills and Department of Health: Life Sciences in the UK – Economic Analysis and Evidence for ‘Life Sciences 2010: Delivering the Blueprint’. London: BIS/DH; 2010.
44.
go back to reference Office for Life Sciences: Life Sciences 2010: Delivering the Blueprint. London: Office for Life Sciences; 2010. Office for Life Sciences: Life Sciences 2010: Delivering the Blueprint. London: Office for Life Sciences; 2010.
45.
go back to reference Scott RAP, Ashton HA, Kay DN: Abdominal aortic aneurysm in 4327 screened patients: prevalence, development and management over 6 years.Br J Surg 1991, 78:1122–1125. 10.1002/bjs.1800780929CrossRefPubMed Scott RAP, Ashton HA, Kay DN: Abdominal aortic aneurysm in 4327 screened patients: prevalence, development and management over 6 years.Br J Surg 1991, 78:1122–1125. 10.1002/bjs.1800780929CrossRefPubMed
46.
go back to reference Dahlöf B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, Wedel H, Beevers DG, Caulfield M, Collins R, Kjeldsen SE, Kristinsson A, McInnes GT, Mehlsen J, Nieminen M, O’Brien E, Ostergren J, ASCOT Investigators: Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.Lancet 2005, 366:895–906. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67185-1CrossRefPubMed Dahlöf B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, Wedel H, Beevers DG, Caulfield M, Collins R, Kjeldsen SE, Kristinsson A, McInnes GT, Mehlsen J, Nieminen M, O’Brien E, Ostergren J, ASCOT Investigators: Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.Lancet 2005, 366:895–906. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67185-1CrossRefPubMed
47.
go back to reference National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions: Hypertension: Management in Primary Care: Pharmacological Update. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2006. National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions: Hypertension: Management in Primary Care: Pharmacological Update. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2006.
49.
go back to reference Blei DM: Probabilistic topic models.Commun ACM 2012, 55:77–84. 10.1145/2133806.2133826CrossRef Blei DM: Probabilistic topic models.Commun ACM 2012, 55:77–84. 10.1145/2133806.2133826CrossRef
Metadata
Title
How long does biomedical research take? Studying the time taken between biomedical and health research and its translation into products, policy, and practice
Authors
Stephen R Hanney
Sophie Castle-Clarke
Jonathan Grant
Susan Guthrie
Chris Henshall
Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz
Michele Pistollato
Alexandra Pollitt
Jon Sussex
Steven Wooding
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-13-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2015 Go to the issue