Understanding the Gap: A Cross-Sectional Survey of ELSI Scholars' Dissemination Practices and Translation Goals.

Q1 Arts and Humanities AJOB Empirical Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-28 DOI:10.1080/23294515.2024.2355898
Deanne Dunbar Dolan, Rachel H Lee, Mildred K Cho, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee
{"title":"Understanding the Gap: A Cross-Sectional Survey of ELSI Scholars' Dissemination Practices and Translation Goals.","authors":"Deanne Dunbar Dolan, Rachel H Lee, Mildred K Cho, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2355898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Researchers engaged in the study of the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genetics and genomics are often publicly funded and intend their work to be in the public interest. These features of U.S. ELSI research create an imperative for these scholars to demonstrate the public utility of their work and the expectation that they engage in research that has potential to inform policy or practice outcomes. In support of the fulfillment of this \"translational mandate,\" the Center for ELSI Resources and Analysis (CERA), funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), aims to facilitate community-informed, ELSI research results synthesis and dissemination. However, little is known about how ELSI research scholars define the goals of translation and imagine the intended users of their research findings.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We distributed a Qualtrics survey to ELSI scholars that aimed to determine: (1) researchers' expectations for their research findings in relation to policy or practice outcomes, (2) the stakeholder groups researchers believe could benefit from their research findings, and (3) the methods researchers use to foster the uptake of their findings by those stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most ELSI researchers surveyed thought there were stakeholders that could benefit from their research findings, including health care professionals, at-risk individuals, patients, and their family members, policy-makers, and researchers/scientists, and expected their research findings to inform the creation or revision of laws, policies, or practice guidelines. Most researchers planned to disseminate findings directly to relevant stakeholders, with fewer expecting dissemination support from research funders, universities, or other entities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The broad range of research topics, disciplines, and set of potential end users represented in ELSI reseach complicate the work of a knowledge broker. Nonetheless, the CERA can play an important role in disseminating ELSI results to relevant stakeholders. Further research should explore outreach mechanisms.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"147-153"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11180497/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2024.2355898","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Researchers engaged in the study of the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genetics and genomics are often publicly funded and intend their work to be in the public interest. These features of U.S. ELSI research create an imperative for these scholars to demonstrate the public utility of their work and the expectation that they engage in research that has potential to inform policy or practice outcomes. In support of the fulfillment of this "translational mandate," the Center for ELSI Resources and Analysis (CERA), funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), aims to facilitate community-informed, ELSI research results synthesis and dissemination. However, little is known about how ELSI research scholars define the goals of translation and imagine the intended users of their research findings.

Methodology: We distributed a Qualtrics survey to ELSI scholars that aimed to determine: (1) researchers' expectations for their research findings in relation to policy or practice outcomes, (2) the stakeholder groups researchers believe could benefit from their research findings, and (3) the methods researchers use to foster the uptake of their findings by those stakeholders.

Results: Most ELSI researchers surveyed thought there were stakeholders that could benefit from their research findings, including health care professionals, at-risk individuals, patients, and their family members, policy-makers, and researchers/scientists, and expected their research findings to inform the creation or revision of laws, policies, or practice guidelines. Most researchers planned to disseminate findings directly to relevant stakeholders, with fewer expecting dissemination support from research funders, universities, or other entities.

Conclusion: The broad range of research topics, disciplines, and set of potential end users represented in ELSI reseach complicate the work of a knowledge broker. Nonetheless, the CERA can play an important role in disseminating ELSI results to relevant stakeholders. Further research should explore outreach mechanisms.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
了解差距:对 ELSI 学者的传播实践和翻译目标的横向调查。
背景:从事遗传学和基因组学伦理、法律和社会影响(ELSI)研究的研究人员通常由政府资助,并希望他们的工作符合公众利益。美国 ELSI 研究的这些特点使这些学者必须证明其工作的公共效用,并期望他们从事的研究有可能为政策或实践成果提供信息。为支持完成这一 "转化任务",由美国国家人类基因组研究所(NHGRI)资助的ELSI资源与分析中心(CERA)旨在促进社区知情的ELSI研究成果的综合与传播。然而,人们对 ELSI 研究学者如何定义翻译目标以及如何想象其研究成果的预期用户知之甚少:我们向 ELSI 学者发放了一份 Qualtrics 调查问卷,旨在确定:(1) 研究人员对其研究成果在政策或实践成果方面的期望;(2) 研究人员认为可以从其研究成果中受益的利益相关者群体;(3) 研究人员用于促进这些利益相关者吸收其研究成果的方法:大多数接受调查的ELSI研究人员认为,有一些利益相关者可以从他们的研究成果中受益,其中包括医护专业人员、高危人群、患者及其家属、政策制定者和研究人员/科学家,并希望他们的研究成果能够为法律、政策或实践指南的制定或修订提供参考。大多数研究人员计划将研究结果直接传播给相关利益方,较少研究人员希望得到研究资助者、大学或其他实体的传播支持:结论:ELSI研究涉及广泛的研究课题、学科和潜在最终用户,这使得知识经纪人的工作变得更加复杂。尽管如此,CERA 仍可在向相关利益方传播 ELSI 成果方面发挥重要作用。进一步的研究应探讨推广机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Animals is "Still Genetics": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement. Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States. Ethics Consultation in U.S. Pediatric Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards. Monitored and Cared for at Home? Privacy Concerns When Using Smart Home Health Technologies to Care for Older Persons. Advance Medical Decision-Making Differs Across First- and Third-Person Perspectives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1