The Experts below are selected from a list of 83619 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ulrika Winblad - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Research funders’ roles and perceived responsibilities in relation to the implementation of clinical research results: a multiple case study of Swedish research funders
Implementation Science, 2015Co-Authors: Anders Brantnell, Enrico Baraldi, Theo Van Achterberg, Ulrika WinbladAbstract:Implementation of clinical research results is challenging, yet the responsibility for implementation is seldom addressed. The process from research to the use of clinical research results in health care can be facilitated by research funders. In this paper, we report the roles of ten Swedish research funders in relation to implementation and their views on responsibilities in implementation. Ten cases were studied and compared using semi-structured interviews. In addition, websites and key documents were reviewed. Eight facilitative roles for research funders in relation to the implementation of clinical research results were identified. Three of them were common for several funders: “Advocacy work,” “Monitoring implementation outcomes,” and “Dissemination of Knowledge.” Moreover, the research funders identified six different actors responsible for implementation, five of which belonged to the healthcare setting. Collective and organizational responsibilities were the most common forms of responsibilities among the identified actors responsible for implementation. The roles commonly identified by the Swedish funders, “Advocacy work,” “Monitoring implementation outcomes,” and “Dissemination of Knowledge,” seem feasible facilitative roles in relation to the implementation of clinical research results. However, many actors identified as responsible for implementation together with the fact that collective and organizational responsibilities were the most common forms of responsibilities entail a risk of implementation becoming no one’s responsibility.
Anders Brantnell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Research funders’ roles and perceived responsibilities in relation to the implementation of clinical research results: a multiple case study of Swedish research funders
Implementation Science, 2015Co-Authors: Anders Brantnell, Enrico Baraldi, Theo Van Achterberg, Ulrika WinbladAbstract:Implementation of clinical research results is challenging, yet the responsibility for implementation is seldom addressed. The process from research to the use of clinical research results in health care can be facilitated by research funders. In this paper, we report the roles of ten Swedish research funders in relation to implementation and their views on responsibilities in implementation. Ten cases were studied and compared using semi-structured interviews. In addition, websites and key documents were reviewed. Eight facilitative roles for research funders in relation to the implementation of clinical research results were identified. Three of them were common for several funders: “Advocacy work,” “Monitoring implementation outcomes,” and “Dissemination of Knowledge.” Moreover, the research funders identified six different actors responsible for implementation, five of which belonged to the healthcare setting. Collective and organizational responsibilities were the most common forms of responsibilities among the identified actors responsible for implementation. The roles commonly identified by the Swedish funders, “Advocacy work,” “Monitoring implementation outcomes,” and “Dissemination of Knowledge,” seem feasible facilitative roles in relation to the implementation of clinical research results. However, many actors identified as responsible for implementation together with the fact that collective and organizational responsibilities were the most common forms of responsibilities entail a risk of implementation becoming no one’s responsibility.
Nigam H Shah - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Selected papers from the 15th Annual Bio-Ontologies Special Interest Group Meeting
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 2013Co-Authors: Larisa N Soldatova, Susanna-assunta Sansone, Michel Dumontier, Nigam H ShahAbstract:Over the 15 years, the Bio-Ontologies SIG at ISMB has provided a forum for discussion of the latest and most innovative research in the bio-ontologies development, its applications to biomedicine and more generally the organisation, presentation and Dissemination of Knowledge in biomedicine and the life sciences. The seven papers and the commentary selected for this supplement span a wide range of topics including: web-based querying over multiple ontologies, integration of data, annotating patent records, NCBO Web services, ontology developments for probabilistic reasoning and for physiological processes, and analysis of the progress of annotation and structural GO changes.
-
Selected papers from the 14th Annual Bio-Ontologies Special Interest Group Meeting
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 2012Co-Authors: Larisa N Soldatova, Susanna-assunta Sansone, Michel Dumontier, Nigam H ShahAbstract:Over the 14 years, the Bio-Ontologies SIG at ISMB has provided a forum for discussion of the latest and most innovative research in the bio-ontologies development, its applications to biomedicine and more generally the organisation, presentation and Dissemination of Knowledge in biomedicine and the life sciences. The seven papers selected for this supplement span a wide range of topics including: web-based querying over multiple ontologies, integration of data from wikis, innovative methods of annotating and mining electronic health records, advances in annotating web documents and biomedical literature, quality control of ontology alignments, and the ontology support for predictive models about toxicity and open access to the toxicity data.
Yike Guo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Web services in the life sciences
Drug discovery today, 2005Co-Authors: Vasa Curcin, Moustafa Ghanem, Yike GuoAbstract:Web services provide a standard way of publishing applications and data sources over the internet, enabling mass Dissemination of Knowledge. In the life sciences, the web-service approach is seen as being a road to standardizing the multitude of tools available from different providers. In this article, we present an overview of the technology (focusing on life-science applications), we list the currently available service providers and we discuss advanced issues raised by the concept.
Enrico Baraldi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Research funders’ roles and perceived responsibilities in relation to the implementation of clinical research results: a multiple case study of Swedish research funders
Implementation Science, 2015Co-Authors: Anders Brantnell, Enrico Baraldi, Theo Van Achterberg, Ulrika WinbladAbstract:Implementation of clinical research results is challenging, yet the responsibility for implementation is seldom addressed. The process from research to the use of clinical research results in health care can be facilitated by research funders. In this paper, we report the roles of ten Swedish research funders in relation to implementation and their views on responsibilities in implementation. Ten cases were studied and compared using semi-structured interviews. In addition, websites and key documents were reviewed. Eight facilitative roles for research funders in relation to the implementation of clinical research results were identified. Three of them were common for several funders: “Advocacy work,” “Monitoring implementation outcomes,” and “Dissemination of Knowledge.” Moreover, the research funders identified six different actors responsible for implementation, five of which belonged to the healthcare setting. Collective and organizational responsibilities were the most common forms of responsibilities among the identified actors responsible for implementation. The roles commonly identified by the Swedish funders, “Advocacy work,” “Monitoring implementation outcomes,” and “Dissemination of Knowledge,” seem feasible facilitative roles in relation to the implementation of clinical research results. However, many actors identified as responsible for implementation together with the fact that collective and organizational responsibilities were the most common forms of responsibilities entail a risk of implementation becoming no one’s responsibility.