Impact Of Health Research Research Articles

Maximizing impact of health research for improving quality, safety and outcomes of health care services: The way forward

No abstract available.

Establishing research impact assessment in Iran: The first report from a non-high-income country.

This study presents the first report on research impact assessment (RIA) in non-high-income countries, undertaken as a pilot initiative in 2021. Within it, we aimed to explore the feasibility of employing the 'payback' model for evaluating the impact of health research and enhancing the accountability of universities. We focussed on three key impact domains: 'production of decision support documents and knowledge-based products,' 'implementation of research results,' and 'health and economic impact.' We adopted a case study approach to assess the impact of 5334 health research projects conducted by researchers from 18 universities from 2018 to 2020. Researchers were required to submit evidence related to at least one of the specified impact domains; six scientific committees verified and scored claimed impacts at the national level. Only 25% of the assessed projects achieved impact in at least one domain, with the production of decision support documents and knowledge products being the most reported impact. Notably, economic impact was verified in only three projects, indicating room for improvement in this area. Technology research exhibited the highest acceptance rate of claimed impact, suggesting a positive correlation between technology-focused projects and impactful outcomes. This study demonstrates the feasibility of employing a case study approach and the 'payback' model to evaluate the impact of health research, even within the constraints of a moderately equipped research infrastructure. These findings underscore the potential of integrating RIA into the governance of health research in Iran and other non-high-income countries, as well as the importance of using RIA to assess the accountability of health research systems, guide the allocation of research funding, and advocate for the advancement of health research. The study sets a precedent for future assessments in similar contexts and contributes to the ongoing global dialogue on the societal impact of health research.

Designing an Impact-Oriented Model of Research and Technology Evaluation: An Experience of I.R.Iran.

Research impact assessment is already being institutionalized in health research and innovation systems. In developing countries, there are many different research assessment models which have focused more on research output in academic levels and less on impact. The aim of this study is designing an Iranian impact-oriented model of research and technology evaluation. This is a mixed study. In the quantitative part, by reviewing the literature, a list of research impact indicators that existed were gathered, reviewed, and scored by participants on importance, relevance, and measurability via a 5-point Likert scale. All indicators with a mean score equal to or greater than 3.5 entered the qualitative part, which were discussed in depth by engaging key stakeholders regarding their validity and feasibility through focus groups, interviews, and expert panels. The Iranian research impact evaluation model was developed with four main pillars (including input and process, output, outcome, and impact), four areas (stewardship, advancing knowledge and translation, technology, and impact), and 30 indicators through key stakeholders participation in the Iranian health research system. This model has been introduced as the first model designed to evaluate the impact of health research and can be one of the most important tools for allocating limited funding resources while maximizing the desired impact of research in the community.

Theory of systems change: An initial, middle-range theory of public health research impact

Abstract There is increasing attention on evidencing research impact and applying a systems thinking perspective in public health. However, there is limited understanding of the extent to which and how public health research that applies a systems thinking perspective contributes to changes in system behaviour and improved population health outcomes. This paper addresses the theoretical limitations of research impact, theory-based evaluation and systems thinking, by drawing on their respective literature to develop an initial, middle-range Theory of Systems Change, focused on the contribution of public health research that takes a systems perspective on population health outcomes. The Theory of Systems Change was developed through four phases: (1) Preliminary activities, (2) Theory development, (3) Scripting into images, and (4) Examining against Merton’s criteria. The primary propositions are: that well-functioning systems create the conditions for improved population health outcomes; the inter-related properties of, and practices within, well-functioning systems include adaptation, alignment, collaboration and evidence-driven action and learning; and public health research contributes to population health outcomes by embedding capacity in the system. The Theory of Systems Change can guide researchers in developing project-specific theories of change and creates the theoretical architecture for the accumulation of learning. The Theory of Systems Change is necessarily incomplete and an initial attempt to develop a theory to be scrutinized and tested. Ultimately, it seeks to advance theory and provide evidence-based guidance to maximize the contribution of research. We provide examples of how we have applied the Theory of Systems Change to Pathways in Place.

Patient Engagement in Health Research: Perspectives from Patient Participants.

Over the past decade, patient engagement (PE) has emerged as an important way to help improve the relevance, quality, and impact of health research. However, there is limited consensus on how best to meaningfully engage patients in the research process. The goal of this article is to share our experiences and insights as members of a Patient Advisory Committee (PAC) on a large, multidisciplinary cancer research study that has spanned six years. We hope by sharing our reflections of the PAC experiences, we can highlight successes, challenges, and lessons learned to help guide PE in future health research. To the best of our knowledge, few publications describing PE experiences in health research teams have been written by patients, survivors, or family caregivers themselves. A qualitative approach was used to gather reflections from members of the Patient Advisory Committee regarding their experiences in participating in a research study over six years. Each member completed an online survey and engaged in a group discussion based on the emergent themes from the survey responses. Our reflections about experiences as a PAC on a large, pan-Canadian research study include three overarching topics (1) what worked well; (2) areas for improvement; and (3) reflections on our overall contribution and impact. Overall, we found the experience positive and experienced personal satisfaction but there were areas where future improvements could be made. These areas include earlier engagement and training in the research process, more frequent communication between the patient committee and the research team, and on-going monitoring regarding the nature of the patient engagement. Engaging individuals who have experienced the types of events which are the focus of a research study can contribute to the overall relevance of the project. However, intentional efforts are necessary to ensure satisfactory involvement.

Impact assessment of the medical practice assisting (MPA) program in general practice in the hunter New England and central coast regions of Australia

BackgroundA regional Australian Primary Health Network (PHN) has been subsidising administrative staff from local general practices to undertake the Medical Practice Assisting (MPA) course as part of its MPA Program. The MPA Program aimed to upskill administrative staff to undertake clinical tasks and fill in for busy or absent Practice Nurses (PNs), freeing up PNs to increase revenue-generating activity, avoiding casual replacement staff wages, and increasing patient throughput. An impact assessment was undertaken to evaluate the impact and estimate the economic costs of the MPA program to the PHN, general practices, and students to inform future uptake of the intervention.MethodsThe Framework to Assess the Impact of Translational Health Research (FAIT) was utilised. Originally designed to assess the impact of health research, this was its first application to a health services project. FAIT combines three validated methods of impact assessment—Payback, economic analysis and narratives underpinned by a program logic model. Quantified metrics describe the impacts of the program within various “domains of benefit”, the economic model costs the intervention and monetises potential consequences, and the narrative tells the story of the MPA Program and the difference it has made. Data were collected via online surveys from general practitioners (GPs), PNs, practice managers; MPA graduates and PHN staff were interviewed by phone and on Zoom.ResultsFAIT was effective in evidencing the impacts and economic viability of the MPA Program. GPs and PNs reported greater work satisfaction, PNs reported less stress and reduced workloads and MPA graduates reported higher job satisfaction and greater confidence performing a range of clinical skills. MPA Program economic costs for general practices during candidature, and 12 month post-graduation was estimated at $69,756. With effective re-integration planning, this investment was recoverable within 12 months through increased revenue for practices. Graduates paid appropriately for their new skills also recouped their investment within 24 months.ConclusionUtilisation of MPA graduates varied substantially between practices and COVID-19 impacted on their utilisation. More strategic reintegration of the MPA graduate back into the practice to most effectively utilise their new skillset could optimise potential benefits realised by participating practices.

Assessing the impact of small-research grants supported by WHO in the Eastern Mediterranean Region 2010-2018.

For decades, WHO has been providing targeted funding for health research on priority areas of public health in the Eastern Mediterranean Region through different grant schemes. This paper investigated the impact of WHO/EMRO's funding schemes and factors facilitating or hindering such impact. We assessed the impact of health research funded by WHO/EMRO during 2010-2018 from the health, economic, decision-making, and knowledge translation perspectives, emphasizing accountability and analysis, using the Payback framework, mixed-method approach (quantitative, qualitative), and triangulation. Principal investigators of 45 (45.9%) out of the 98 funded projects responded to the questionnaire. Almost all (88.0%) the 45 projects reported developing at least one decision-making document. Less than half reported producing peer-reviewed documents and conducting target group empowerment, while 24.0% said they secured research funds from other organizations. For 23 projects (51.0%), research results could have had a direct impact on health and on economy, and 25 (56.0%) projects conducted at least one active knowledge translation activity. Using multiple logistic regression, there was no significant association between the country of research and impact on decision-making and implementation of result if health or economic impact was expected. To strengthen the impact of research, WHO/EMRO should embark on a series of interventions to guide and empower countries in the use of research results. Discrepancies between health research systems in the Eastern Mediterranean Region and differences in individual and organizational capacities in the different countries require targeted interventions.

Advancing Health Research Impact through a Systemic Multi-Sectoral Approach: A Protocol for Introducing Reduced-Sodium Salts and Salty Condiments in Vietnam.

Better alignment between health research organisations with the needs (and interests) of key stakeholders in the health policy and research system is critical to improving research impact. The George Institute for Global Health’s ‘Healthier Societies’ program focuses on harnessing the power of governments, markets, and communities to improve population level health equity outcomes and maximise research impact. This protocol outlines a systemic multi-sectoral approach to advance health research impact globally applied to a project to reduce population salt intake in Vietnam by introducing reduced-sodium salts and salty condiments. We defined a systemic multi-sectoral approach to be a strategy that involves engaging with government, market and communities in a deliberate and joined-up way to solve a problem in which they all have a role to play. The project objectives are to: (i) produce reduced-sodium fish sauce products and test consumer acceptability; (ii) investigate the market feasibility of introducing reduced-sodium foods (salt, bot canh and fish sauce) into the Vietnamese market; (iii) estimate the cost-effectiveness of three different government strategies to support the implementation of reduced-sodium products; and (iv) develop an advocacy roadmap to maximise potential research impact. Methods will include standard quality and safety assessments, consumer sensory testing for the locally produced reduced-sodium fish sauces, market feasibility assessment (including collating market data and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders), cost-effectiveness modelling (Markov cohort model), multi-sector stakeholder engagement, and the development of a coordinated advocacy strategy using the Kotter Plus framework. Health research organisations are increasingly seeking ways to achieve greater impact with their research. Through the application of a systemic multi-sectoral approach with governments, markets and communities, this protocol provides an example of how health research projects can achieve such impact.

Collective health research assessment: developing a tool to measure the impact of multistakeholder research initiatives

BackgroundThe need to more collaboratively measure the impact of health research and to do so from multidimensional perspectives has been acknowledged. A scorecard was developed as part of the Collective Research Impact Framework (CRIF), to engage stakeholders in the assessment of the impacts of health research and innovations. The purpose of this study was to describe the developmental process of the MULTI-ACT Master Scorecard (MSC) and how it can be used as a workable tool for collectively assessing future responsible research and innovation measures.MethodsAn extensive review of the health research impact literature and of multistakeholder initiatives resulted in a database of 1556 impact indicators. The MSC was then cocreated by engaging key stakeholders and conducting semi-structured interviews of experts in the field.ResultsThe MSC consists of five accountability dimensions: excellence, efficacy, economic, social and patient-reported outcomes. The tool contains 125 potential indicators, classified into 53 impact measurement aspects that are considered the most relevant topics for multistakeholder research and innovation initiatives when assessing their impact on the basis of their mission and their stakeholders’ interests. The scorecard allows the strategic management of multistakeholder research initiatives to demonstrate their impact on people and society. The value of the tool is that it is comprehensive, customizable and easy to use.ConclusionsThe MSC is an example of how the views of society can be taken into account when research impacts are assessed in a more sustainable and balanced way. The engagement of patients and other stakeholders is an integral part of the CRIF, facilitating collaborative decision-making in the design of policies and research agendas. In policy making, the collective approach allows the evaluation perspective to be extended to the needs of society and towards responsible research and innovation. Multidimensionality makes research and innovations more responsive to systemic challenges, and developing more equitable and sustainable health services.

A framework for assessing the impact of health research from a broad population perspective

Abstract
 
 
 Background: research in the health sector is an activity associated with an uncertain return on investment. This study aims to outline a multidimensional framework for assessing the imact of research funded by public (or mixed public and private) sponsors. 
 Methods: a focus group representing different stakeholders was created to develop a sense of purpose that would be shared by the intended beneficiaries of the research assessment process, and others with a direct or indirect interest in a program’s implementation. 
 Results: a framework was designed that takes a holistic approach to the impact of research in which not only technical, but also economic, social and political dimensions are interrelated with the results achieved for the population and health services. 
 Conclusions: the framework reflected the views of different stakeholders, favoring the development of the positive, proactive relationships essential to orienting the process of transforming the evidence emerging from research into action for health. 

The Socioeconomic Impact of Health Research in Iranian Universities of Medical Sciences: An experiences from I.R.Iran

The Socioeconomic Impact of Health Research in Iranian Universities of Medical Sciences: An experiences from I.R.Iran

Changing Health-Related Behaviors 4: Realizing Impact of Health Research Through Knowledge Translation.

Knowledge translation (KT) is critical to realizing real-world impacts from health research by reducing the amount of time it takes for evidence to inform practice. One way this is achieved is by engaging with knowledge users throughout the process to ensure that research responds to their needs. It is also important to share the study results in a way that is useful, accessible, and relevant to knowledge user groups. KT planning involves multiple categories described in templates that are available online and referenced in the text. Common knowledge translation challenges and suggested solutions, as well as real-world KT examples, are also provided.

Enhancing Research and Development in the Health Sciences as a Strategy to Establish a Knowledge-Based Economy in the State of Kuwait: A Call for Action.

Kuwait Vision 2035 is an initiative that was launched in 2017 by His Highness the Emir of the State of Kuwait Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah. This initiative includes the implementation of a detailed development plan aimed at transforming the state of Kuwait into a regional leader in science, technology, and innovation. Health research will arguably prove to be one of the most impactful research arenas when it comes to accomplishing the goals set forth by the Kuwait Vision 2035 Development Plan. The high impact of health research is derived from its capacity to aid in the establishment of a knowledge-based health industry. The state of Kuwait lacks a system for promoting and managing national R&D efforts. At present, the research and development (R&D) expenditure in the state of Kuwait is far below the international standards that have been shown to lead to innovation and the subsequent development of a knowledge-based economy. Improvement of the weak and unstructured existing R&D apparatus in the State of Kuwait is among the most urgent challenges facing the nation as it strives toward innovation and development of a knowledge-based economy. Developing health research capacities in the State of Kuwait can significantly contribute toward improving public health, health promotion, disease prevention and treatment, and overall human welfare. Importantly, the positive impacts of such extensive benefits will not be restricted to the state of Kuwait and its citizens, but may in fact reap benefits for the global society as a whole. This article first analyzes the current status of healthcare services and health science research in the State of Kuwait, and then summarizes some essential R&D design principles that Kuwait needs to implement in order to achieve the milestones set forth in the Kuwait Vision 2035 Development Plan.

Measuring health promotion research impact - What researchers think?

The significant investment in health research has resulted in an increased focus to determine suitable approaches to measure health promotion research impact. This research was undertaken at the request of a nationally competitive research organisation that funds health promotion research, to explore how Chief Investigators (CIs) on their funded projects understood research impact, its measurement and associated challenges. Participants were required to be or have been a CI on an Australian competitive research (exploratory or intervention) grant focussed on health promotion. The qualitative study used thematic analysis from one-on-one interviews. Themes were created and descriptive quotes were selected to illustrate the main findings. The majority of participants were female (n=13) working at a university (n=13). Three themes emerged: a) defining health research impact; b) complexity and simplicity of measuring health research impact; c) challenges of measuring health research impact: i) differing language; ii) differing assessment; iii) attribution and timing; and iv) resourcing and skills. Researchers recognised that there are significant challenges in measuring the impact of health promotion research. The most significant factors identified by participants were the disciplinary background of the researchers undertaking the measurement, their skills and experience and the resources (including time) available to assess impact. SO WHAT?: Research impact assessment is complex, time consuming and requires specific skills to facilitate measurement of impact provision of funding for this activity in research grants and research impact training is required.

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review.

BackgroundAcademics in all disciplines increasingly use social media to share their publications on the internet, reaching out to different audiences. In the last few years, specific indicators of social media impact have been developed (eg, Altmetrics), to complement traditional bibliometric indicators (eg, citation count and h-index). In health research, it is unclear whether social media impact also translates into research impact.ObjectiveThe primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the impact of using social media on the dissemination of health research. The secondary aim was to assess the correlation between Altmetrics and traditional citation-based metrics.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to identify studies that evaluated the use of social media to disseminate research published in health-related journals. We specifically looked at studies that described experimental or correlational studies linking the use of social media with outcomes related to bibliometrics. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases using a predefined search strategy (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42017057709). We conducted independent and duplicate study selection and data extraction. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, we summarized the findings through a narrative synthesis.ResultsOf a total of 18,624 retrieved citations, we included 51 studies: 7 (14%) impact studies (answering the primary aim) and 44 (86%) correlational studies (answering the secondary aim). Impact studies reported mixed results with several limitations, including the use of interventions of inappropriately low intensity and short duration. The majority of correlational studies suggested a positive association between traditional bibliometrics and social media metrics (eg, number of mentions) in health research.ConclusionsWe have identified suggestive yet inconclusive evidence on the impact of using social media to increase the number of citations in health research. Further studies with better design are needed to assess the causal link between social media impact and bibliometrics.

Measuring outcomes that matter most to people with multiple sclerosis: the role of patient-reported outcomes.

Purpose of reviewPatient-reported outcome (PRO) represents a unique opportunity to measure the impact of health research, and care on outcomes that matter most to people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS).Recent findingsHow to incorporate PROs in MS clinical trials and, practice remains a matter of debate. The variety of measures available for use in MS has some benefits, but the lack of a set of standard measures has significant disadvantages. To help meeting the challenge, different PROs standard sets have been developed (PROMIS) for use across a broad range of chronic health conditions, and SymptoMScreen, specifically for MS. However, many of them were not co-created with PwMS and lacking understanding about what matters to patients. The newly proposed MS care unit model together with emerging initiatives such as iConquerMS and PROMOPROMS, are shaping new meaningful PROs. However, the uptake of PROMs in all settings can be effective only by a commonly held strategic agenda shared by all relevant stakeholders.SummaryThe newly born PRO Initiative for MS (PROMS) aims to develop a strategic agenda shared by all relevant stakeholders to help meeting the challenge of developing PRO measures that correspond to the needs of all stakeholders.

Embracing complexity and uncertainty to create impact: exploring the processes and transformative potential of co-produced research through development of a social impact model

The potential use, influence and impact of health research is seldom fully realised. This stubborn problem has caused burgeoning global interest in research aiming to address the implementation ‘gap’ and factors inhibiting the uptake of scientific evidence. Scholars and practitioners have questioned the nature of evidence used and required for healthcare, highlighting the complex ways in which knowledge is formed, shared and modified in practice and policy. This has led to rapid expansion, expertise and innovation in the field of knowledge mobilisation and funding for experimentation into the effectiveness of different knowledge mobilisation models. One approach gaining prominence involves stakeholders (e.g. researchers, practitioners, service users, policy-makers, managers and carers) in the co-production, and application, of knowledge for practice, policy and research (frequently termed integrated knowledge translation in Canada). Its popularity stems largely from its potential to address dilemmas inherent in the implementation of knowledge generated using more reductionist methods. However, despite increasing recognition, demands for co-produced research to illustrate its worth are becoming pressing while the means to do so remain challenging. This is due not only to the diversity of approaches to co-production and their application, but also to the ways through which different stakeholders conceptualise, measure, reward and use research. While research co-production can lead to demonstrable benefits such as policy or practice change, it may also have more diffuse and subtle impact on relationships, knowledge sharing, and in engendering culture shifts and research capacity-building. These relatively intangible outcomes are harder to measure and require new emphases and tools. This opinion paper uses six Canadian and United Kingdom case studies to explore the principles and practice of co-production and illustrate how it can influence interactions between research, policy and practice, and benefit diverse stakeholders. In doing so, we identify a continuum of co-production processes. We propose and illustrate the use of a new ‘social model of impact’ and framework to capture multi-layered and potentially transformative impacts of co-produced research. We make recommendations for future directions in research co-production and impact measurement.

Assessing the impact of health research on health policies: a study of the Dodowa Health Research Centre, Ghana

BackgroundThe importance of assessing research impact is increasingly recognised. Ghana has a long tradition of research dating from the 1970s. In the Ghana Health Service there are three health research centres under the Research and Development Division. Dodowa Health Research Centre (DHRC) is the youngest in the country dating from the 1990s. The objective of this study is to analyse the influence of the research conducted in DHRC on national and local health policies.MethodsThe study used the Research Impact Framework. Six projects were selected based on a set of criteria. Thirteen interviews were conducted with researchers and policy makers using a semi-structured interview guide.ResultsDHRC had numerous policy impacts in terms of researchers participating in policy networks, increasing political capital and influencing policy documents. Factors identified to be associated with policy impact included collaboration with policy makers at the design stage, addressing health priorities, and communicating results mainly through the participation in annual review meetings.ConclusionsDHRC was successful in influencing health policies. Recommendations were made that could be included in the DHRC strategic planning to improve the research process and its policy impact.

Social impact of participatory health research: collaborative non-linear processes of knowledge mobilization

Social impact, defined as an effect on society, culture, quality of life, community services, or public policy beyond academia, is widely considered as a relevant requirement for scientific research, especially in the field of health care. Traditionally, in health research, the process of knowledge transfer is rather linear and one-sided and has not recognized and integrated the expertise of practitioners and those who use services. This can lead to discrimination or disqualification of knowledge and epistemic injustice. Epistemic injustice is a situation wherein certain kinds of knowers and knowledge are not taken seriously into account to define a situation. The purpose of our article is to explore how health researchers can achieve social impact for a wide audience, involving them in a non-linear process of joint learning on urgent problems recognized by the various stakeholders in public health. In participatory health research impact is not preordained by one group of stakeholders, but the result of a process of reflection and dialog with multiple stakeholders on what counts as valuable outcomes. This knowledge mobilization and winding pathway embarked upon during such research have the potential for impact along the way as opposed to the expectation that impact will occur merely at the end of a research project. We will discuss and illustrate the merits of taking a negotiated, discursive and flexible pathway in the area of community-based health promotion.

The impact of health research on length of stay in Spanish public hospitals

Research is a key determinant of health improvement. However, there is little empirical evidence showing how the research conducted in hospitals affects healthcare outcomes. To address this issue, we used panel data of 189 Spanish public hospitals over the period 1996–2009 to estimate the causal effect of both clinical and basic research on hospitals’ efficiency, measuring their impact on the average length of stay (LOS). We considered two fixed effects econometric models; one for medical and the other for surgical specialties respectively. Our results show that increases in the quantity of research produced in medical (surgical) disciplines contribute significantly to the reduction of hospital LOS in medical (surgical) specialties. This effect is greater for hospitals with higher absorptive capacity (high R&D investment and with teaching status). There is also clear evidence that basic research produces efficiency gains in clinical outcomes. Furthermore, we have identified other important determinants of hospitals’ efficiency namely, hospitals’ characteristics, human resources, diagnostic activity, hospital investment and hospitals’ absorptive capacity. Finally, we evaluated the economic impact of increases in medical, surgical and basic research on hospitals’ cost efficiency gains by measuring the corresponding reduction in the average cost of stay in Spanish hospitals.