Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24826905›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015

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

Fiona A Miller, Michael Painter-Main, Renata Axler, Pascale Lehoux, Mita Giacomini, Barbara Slater

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Fiona A MillerInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Michael Painter-MainDepartment of Political Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Renata AxlerInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Pascale LehouxDepartment of Health Administration, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Mita GiacominiDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Barbara SlaterToronto, ON, Canada.
University of Toronto · CAMcMaster University · CAMontreal Clinical Research Institute · CAToronto Public Health · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research 198140Canadian Institutes of Health Research FRN 81195
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResponsiveness to citizens as users of technological innovation helps motivate translational research and commercial engagement among academics. Yet, retaining citizen trust and support for research encourages caution in pursuit of commercial science.

objectivesWe explore citizen expectations of the specifically academic nature of commercial science [i.e. academic entrepreneurship (AE)] and the influence of conflict of interest concerns, hopes about practical benefits and general beliefs. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsWe conducted a cross-sectional national opinion survey of 1002 Canadians online in 2010.

resultsApproval of AE was moderate (mean 3.2/5, SD 0.84), but varied by entrepreneurial activity. Concern about conflict of interests (COI) was moderate (mean 2.9/5, SD 0.86) and varied by type of concern. An ordinary least-squares regression showed that expectations of practical benefits informed support for AE, specifically that academic-industry collaboration can better address real-world problems; conflict of interest concerns were insignificant.

conclusionsThese findings suggest that citizens support AE for its potential to produce practical benefits, but enthusiasm varies and is reduced for activities that may prioritize private over public interests. Further, support exists despite concern about COI, perhaps due to trust in the academic research context. For user engagement in research priority setting, these findings suggest the need to attend to the commercial nature of translational science. For research policy, they suggest the need for governance arrangements for responsible innovation, which can sustain public trust in academic research, and realize the practical benefits that inform public support for AE.

Indexed as

EntrepreneurshipInterinstitutional RelationsTranslational Research, BiomedicalUniversitiesCanadaConflict of InterestCross-Sectional StudiesHumansLeast-Squares AnalysisPublic OpinionTrustacademic entrepreneurbiomedical researchcommercializationconflict of interestpublic expectationsresponsible innovation

Identifiers

PMID24826905
PMCPMC5810666
OpenAlexW2062926634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.