Quantifying complexity in translational research: an integrated approach

Abstract

Purpose This article quantifies complexity in translational research. The impact of major operational steps and technical requirements (TR) is calculated with respect to their ability to accelerate moving new discoveries into clinical practice. Design/Methodology/Approach A three-phase integrated Quality Function Deployment (QFD) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was used to quantify complexity in translational research. A case study in obesity was used to usability. Findings Generally, the evidence generated was valuable for understanding various components in translational research. Particularly, we found that collaboration networks, multidisciplinary team capacity and community engagement are crucial for translating new discoveries into practice. Research limitations/implications As the method is mainly based on subjective opinion, some argue that the results may be biased. However, a consistency ratio is calculated and used as a guide to subjectivity. Alternatively, a larger sample may be incorporated to reduce bias. Practical implications The integrated QFD-AHP framework provides evidence that could be helpful to generate agreement, develop guidelines, allocate resources wisely, identify benchmarks and enhance collaboration among similar projects. Originality/value Current conceptual models in translational research provide little or no clue to assess complexity. The proposed method aimed to fill this gap. Additionally, the literature review includes various features that have not been explored in translational research.

Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting

“…Some authors defined the criteria according to standards or established guidelines [ 25 , 50 , 52 , 59 , 80 , 84 , 92 , 93 , 104 – 108 ] or even from previous study results [ 25 , 47 , 62 , 68 , 69 , 71 , 72 , 81 ]. Still other authors relied on their own expertise [ 64 , 73 , 107 , 109 , 110 ].…”

“…The sample sizes varied between one author who judged the AHP for himself [ 73 , 107 – 109 ] to 1,283 participants [ 55 ]. In total, 50 of the 69 articles reported the number of participants in their AHP studies.…”

“…Next, we considered whether the AHP was applied at individual or group level. Most of the studies questioned their participants individually [ 20 , 25 , 26 , 47 , 55 , 56 , 59 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 66 , 69 – 71 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 79 – 83 , 87 – 90 , 94 , 97 – 99 , 103 , 104 , 109 – 111 ]. On the other hand, only six articles mentioned group decisions [ 46 , 49 , 72 , 84 , 92 , 96 ].…”

“…As explained in Subsection 1.1, the original scale implemented by Saaty ranges from nine (or 1/9) to one to nine. This scale was adopted by 37 of the articles in our sample [ 25 , 45 , 46 , 50 – 52 , 54 – 57 , 60 – 62 , 66 , 71 – 73 , 75 , 79 , 80 , 83 , 84 , 86 – 89 , 91 , 92 , 94 , 95 , 97 , 98 , 102 , 103 , 107 – 109 , 111 ]. Other studies used ranges between 1 and 4 [ 20 , 59 ], 1 and 5 [ 67 , 70 , 106 ], 5 and 1 and 5 [ 26 , 81 , 90 , 110 ], 6 and 1 and 6 [ 99 ],1 and 7 [ 47 ],1 and 9 [ 58 , 77 , 96 ], and 1 and 11 [ 74 ].…”

“…The detailed analysis showed that 22 out of the 69 studies did not state a CR. However, 31 studies used a CR of 0.1 [ 20 , 26 , 45 , 46 , 49 – 51 , 56 , 57 , 60 – 62 , 67 , 71 – 74 , 76 , 77 , 83 , 87 , 89 , 91 , 98 – 102 , 107 – 109 ], five studies widened the range to a CR of 0.15 [ 25 , 59 , 64 , 75 , 111 ], and three studies accepted a CR of 0.2 or less [ 70 , 81 , 97 ]. The remaining studies did not establish a threshold prior to measuring average CRs [ 55 , 80 ].…”