Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Framing Effects03:26

Framing Effects

7.4K
Information is everywhere and its presentation—such as how and when items are presented—can impact our perceptions and decisions surrounding the info. This broad concept umbrellas framing effects—influences that occur due to the way information is framed in its appearance, whether it’s purely the order or the specific wording of a message. Let’s take a look at numerous ways in which two versions of something can objectively say the same thing, yet we respond in...
7.4K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

How microrobots should be translated: A clinical and value-centered readiness framework.

Bioengineering & translational medicine·2026
Same author

High intra- and inter-observer reliability of the PJI-TNM classification in acute and chronic periprosthetic hip joint infection.

Journal of bone and joint infection·2026
Same author

Multimodal diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection after total ankle arthroplasty.

Foot and ankle surgery : official journal of the European Society of Foot and Ankle Surgeons·2026
Same author

Water status of photocurable decellularised extracellular matrix hydrogels using DSC and NMR relaxometry.

Journal of materials chemistry. B·2026
Same author

Diagnostic performance and reader confidence of MRI-derived CT-like images in patients with femoral head necrosis.

European radiology experimental·2026
Same author

Effect of Gamma Irradiation and Simulated Physiological Conditions on the Physicochemical Properties of a 3D-Printed βTCP Composite.

Polymers·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 26, 2025

Distinctive Capillary Action by Micro-channels in Bone-like Templates can Enhance Recruitment of Cells for Restoration of Large Bony Defect
09:35

Distinctive Capillary Action by Micro-channels in Bone-like Templates can Enhance Recruitment of Cells for Restoration of Large Bony Defect

Published on: September 11, 2015

9.7K

How Framing Bias Impacts Preferences for Innovation in Bone Tissue Engineering.

Markus Laubach1,2, Stephen Whyte3,4,5,6, Ho Fai Chan3,4

  • 1Australian Research Council (ARC) Training Centre for Multiscale 3D Imaging, Modelling, and Manufacturing (M3D Innovation), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Tissue Engineering. Part A
|May 17, 2024
PubMed
Summary

Surgeons and biomaterial scientists/tissue engineers show similar cognitive framing biases in bone defect treatment decisions. Understanding these biases is key for translating innovations from research to clinical practice.

Keywords:
behavioural economicsbiomaterials scientisttissue engineer

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: Insights into the Use of Apple-Derived Cellulose Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering
09:49

Author Spotlight: Insights into the Use of Apple-Derived Cellulose Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering

Published on: February 23, 2024

1.7K
Author Spotlight: Advanced Techniques for Characterizing Tissue Mineralization in Bone Regeneration Research
07:29

Author Spotlight: Advanced Techniques for Characterizing Tissue Mineralization in Bone Regeneration Research

Published on: September 27, 2024

722

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 26, 2025

Distinctive Capillary Action by Micro-channels in Bone-like Templates can Enhance Recruitment of Cells for Restoration of Large Bony Defect
09:35

Distinctive Capillary Action by Micro-channels in Bone-like Templates can Enhance Recruitment of Cells for Restoration of Large Bony Defect

Published on: September 11, 2015

9.7K
Author Spotlight: Insights into the Use of Apple-Derived Cellulose Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering
09:49

Author Spotlight: Insights into the Use of Apple-Derived Cellulose Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering

Published on: February 23, 2024

1.7K
Author Spotlight: Advanced Techniques for Characterizing Tissue Mineralization in Bone Regeneration Research
07:29

Author Spotlight: Advanced Techniques for Characterizing Tissue Mineralization in Bone Regeneration Research

Published on: September 27, 2024

722

Area of Science:

  • Biomaterials Science
  • Tissue Engineering
  • Surgical Innovation
  • Behavioral Economics

Background:

  • Translating biomaterial and tissue engineering innovations to clinical practice remains a challenge, with few successes reaching the bedside.
  • A potential disconnect exists between the perspectives of surgeons and biomaterial scientists/tissue engineers (BS&orTE), hindering clinical translation.
  • Bone tissue engineering is a high-priority research area, yet clinical translation for bone defect treatments faces obstacles.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate whether surgeons and BS&orTE exhibit similar or different cognitive biases when processing information related to bone defect treatment options.
  • To explore the psychological underpinnings that may contribute to the limited translation of tissue engineering innovations.
  • To analyze decision-making biases in bone defect treatment by comparing surgeon and BS&orTE perspectives using a cognitive framing experiment.

Main Methods:

  • An online survey incorporating a behavioral economics cognitive framing experiment was employed for data collection.
  • Participants included 208 surgeons and 59 BS&orTE, recruited via convenience sampling at a conference (October 2022 - March 2023).
  • The study analyzed cognitive framing effects on the evaluation of bone defect treatment options, such as autologous bone graft transplantation and Ilizarov bone transport.

Main Results:

  • No significant differences in positive-negative cognitive framing biases were found between the surgeon and BS&orTE groups.
  • Framing bias in surgical decision-making for bone defects does not appear to differ substantially based on occupation.
  • Within the surgeon group, significant differences emerged: positive framing led to lower ranking of autologous bone grafts and higher ranking of Ilizarov bone transport compared to negative framing (p < 0.05).

Conclusions:

  • Cognitive framing biases in the context of bone defect treatment decision-making are comparable between surgeons and BS&orTE.
  • The findings suggest that psychological factors related to framing may not be the primary barrier to clinical translation in bone tissue engineering.
  • Further research is needed to understand the nuanced differences in decision-making within professional groups to facilitate the 'bench to bedside' transition.