Table 2.
Suggestions of indicators by participants of the qualitative study
| Suggestion or comment by participant | Possible indicator (according to author) | Authors’ comments |
|---|---|---|
| “Collaboration between biologists and epidemiologists is important and should be measured in terms of outputs, such as joint papers” | Number of publications co-authored by an epidemiologist and a biologist | This is the only indicator of multidisciplinarity proposed by a participant; however, it is very specific to research in molecular epidemiology |
| No similar indicator has been created; indicator added to the Delphi survey | ||
| “One interesting indicator would be the number of patients in a clinical trial benefiting from a biomarker identification” | Number of patients included in a clinical trial with a biomarker identification | That indicator would be studied by a survey of cancer centres; indicator added to the Delphi survey |
| “The point of translational research is to transfer to clinical practice. So it is supposed to generate clinical studies. Ideally it [an evaluation measure] would be how many positive studies had been generated” | Number of hypotheses generated | Literature suggests one indicator of ‘number of hypotheses generated’ [6], but no methodology is proposed; indicator added to the Delphi survey |
| “A good indicator of translational research would be its capacity to generate hypothesis to test in the clinic. […] So the protocols of clinical validation that have been generated” | ||
| “We should ensure whether the tools developed are effective enough to process data the correct way” | Measures of effectiveness of developed tools | The participant clearly specified that it was an indicator specific to their field (bioinformatics) and not applicable to whole translational research; not added to the questionnaire due to lack of clear definition |
| “The primary aim [of translational research] would be to adapt technologies to the general population. So it should be evaluated on this aspect” | Use of developed technologies in practice | No existing indicator; not added to the questionnaire due to lack of clear definition |
| “ Developing a biomarker in translational research will help to select patients that will benefit from a treatment, that is a real proxy of translational research efficacy” | Number of biomarkers developed | Literature suggests one indicator of ‘number of biomarkers identified’ [6], but no methodology is proposed; indicator already part of the Delphi survey |
| “What should be measured, for translational research, is the benefit for the patient. Not the final benefit […] but the interim benefit, such as biomarkers developed” | ||
| “The ideal for translational research, it that it modifies patient care. So that can be a long-term objective, but […] if there are interim step” | ||
| “Ideally, a translational study should lead to an application, which means, from clinical to basic research, to a fundamental research project, and in the opposite direction, to a clinical application, such as a clinical trial, the validation of a biomarker, or an imaging study” | ||
| “[translational research should be evaluated] in terms of publications and implementations in the clinics. […] Also guidelines” | Clinical guidelines generated | There are two existing indicators measuring the transfer of research in clinical guidelines: number of clinical guidelines generated and citation of research in clinical guidelines; indicators already part of the Delphi survey |
| “The development of database is also an important structural factor… an indicator” | Number of databases created | Literature suggests one indicator of ‘number of databases created’ [6], but no methodology is proposed; indicator added to the Delphi survey |