Communication barriers between basic scientists and clinicians in regenerative medicine: A qualitative study from Iran

Abstract

Rationale, aims, and objectives Cell‐based therapeutics are among the latest advances in health care technologies. The rapid evolution of stem cell science in Iran has necessitated the application of scientific achievements in clinical settings. However, various issues hindered their translation, in particular, impediments in the interactions of basic stem cell scientists and clinicians. We highlighted the impediments in the interactions of stem cell scientists and physicians involved in the opinion of professionals from both groups. Method This qualitative research was conducted with thematic analysis, performed by purposive sampling. Thirty‐two distinguished stem cell scientists and clinicians were interviewed to identify their perspectives on this matter. MAXQDA 2018 was used to classify the axial codes based on factors related to communications inefficiencies. The analysis of coded data recognized 18 subthemes and six major themes. Results Central themes include different registers of the two parties, counterproductive clusters hampered networking, external communication barriers, the competition to access resources, leadership conflicts, and the dissatisfaction of stakeholders with their share. Conclusions Most of the impediments were seemingly global, for example, the incoherent medical and basic science educational systems, the vulnerable career path of physician‐scientists, and an increasing tendency towards overspecialization. However, some local specific issues were also described, for example, limited funding opportunities and the negative impacts of the division of medical education from the ministry of science, research, and technology in Iran. Proposed interventions include the reinforcement of physician‐scientist programs, designing a distributed leadership model, and bringing back the scientific integrity to higher education in Iran.

A scoping review of regenerative medicine in medical education

“…Trainees are assessed on adequate completion of coursework, documented scientific progress, and future acquisition of academic positions [ 6 ] The Regenerative Medicine and Surgery Course at Mayo Clinic [ 7 ] The Regenerative Medicine and Surgery Course at Mayo Clinic was created with the goal of increasing student literacy of and interest in regenerative medicine concepts [ 7 ]. Participants in the program include 1st, 2nd, and 4th year medical students, graduate students (Ph.D and MD/Ph.D), PGY-1 and 2 internal medicine residents, and research fellows [ 11 ]. Trainees participate in a series of didactic lectures focused on regenerative medicine principles, daily briefings on clinical trials to understand regenerative approaches within the clinic, laboratory experiences in stem cell culturing and 3D bioprinting, cadaver demonstrations of surgical procedures, and a regenerative medicine career panel [ 7 ].…”

“…Studies reported that while there has been funding and efforts in the biomedical science to demonstrate the safety and clinical outcomes of cell-based therapies, there appears to be lag in the translation of these technologies into clinical care [ 2 , 6 , 8 ]. This inability to translate basic science discoveries into clinical application is in part, attributed to the lack of health professionals with the knowledge and clinical skills proficiencies to provide safe and effective care [ 8 , 11 ].…”

“…Without an official training or board certification process, a formal workforce of practitioners and surgeons does not exist to facilitate cell therapies. The lack of basic knowledge of stem cell therapeutics among practitioners also stifles their ability to investigate or participate in research around these therapeutics [ 2 , 11 , 13 ].…”

“…Almost all the published reports noted an urgent need for the development of formal training programs in regenerative and cellular medicine [ 2 , 7 – 9 , 11 , 12 ]. They noted that clinicians would require foundational knowledge and clinical skills training to ensure the provision of safe cell therapy in a clinical setting [ 2 , 7 – 9 , 12 ].…”

Higher education and science popularization: Can they achieve coordinated growth?

“…From the negative effects’ perspective, higher education can lead to several problems of science popularization. Specialists in the higher education system are able to suggest or guide which content or information of science popularization should be provided, and they may deceive the public intentionally or unintentionally by providing biased or even wrong information so that the understanding of the public may be misled and the outcomes of science popularization may be unwelcomed [ 12 , 23 ]. In addition, local higher education system occupies a certain proportion of the limited local resources such as labor resources, financial resources, land resources, etc., which squeezes the resources of science popularization and hinders the growth of science popularization [ 24 ].…”