Cargando…

Assessing the impact of healthcare research: A systematic review of methodological frameworks

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, researchers need to demonstrate the impact of their research to their sponsors, funders, and fellow academics. However, the most appropriate way of measuring the impact of healthcare research is subject to debate. We aimed to identify the existing methodological frameworks...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cruz Rivera, Samantha, Kyte, Derek G., Aiyegbusi, Olalekan Lee, Keeley, Thomas J., Calvert, Melanie J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549933/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28792957
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370
_version_ 1783256049315217408
author Cruz Rivera, Samantha
Kyte, Derek G.
Aiyegbusi, Olalekan Lee
Keeley, Thomas J.
Calvert, Melanie J.
author_facet Cruz Rivera, Samantha
Kyte, Derek G.
Aiyegbusi, Olalekan Lee
Keeley, Thomas J.
Calvert, Melanie J.
author_sort Cruz Rivera, Samantha
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Increasingly, researchers need to demonstrate the impact of their research to their sponsors, funders, and fellow academics. However, the most appropriate way of measuring the impact of healthcare research is subject to debate. We aimed to identify the existing methodological frameworks used to measure healthcare research impact and to summarise the common themes and metrics in an impact matrix. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Two independent investigators systematically searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL+), the Health Management Information Consortium, and the Journal of Research Evaluation from inception until May 2017 for publications that presented a methodological framework for research impact. We then summarised the common concepts and themes across methodological frameworks and identified the metrics used to evaluate differing forms of impact. Twenty-four unique methodological frameworks were identified, addressing 5 broad categories of impact: (1) ‘primary research-related impact’, (2) ‘influence on policy making’, (3) ‘health and health systems impact’, (4) ‘health-related and societal impact’, and (5) ‘broader economic impact’. These categories were subdivided into 16 common impact subgroups. Authors of the included publications proposed 80 different metrics aimed at measuring impact in these areas. The main limitation of the study was the potential exclusion of relevant articles, as a consequence of the poor indexing of the databases searched. CONCLUSIONS: The measurement of research impact is an essential exercise to help direct the allocation of limited research resources, to maximise research benefit, and to help minimise research waste. This review provides a collective summary of existing methodological frameworks for research impact, which funders may use to inform the measurement of research impact and researchers may use to inform study design decisions aimed at maximising the short-, medium-, and long-term impact of their research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5549933
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55499332017-08-15 Assessing the impact of healthcare research: A systematic review of methodological frameworks Cruz Rivera, Samantha Kyte, Derek G. Aiyegbusi, Olalekan Lee Keeley, Thomas J. Calvert, Melanie J. PLoS Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Increasingly, researchers need to demonstrate the impact of their research to their sponsors, funders, and fellow academics. However, the most appropriate way of measuring the impact of healthcare research is subject to debate. We aimed to identify the existing methodological frameworks used to measure healthcare research impact and to summarise the common themes and metrics in an impact matrix. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Two independent investigators systematically searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL+), the Health Management Information Consortium, and the Journal of Research Evaluation from inception until May 2017 for publications that presented a methodological framework for research impact. We then summarised the common concepts and themes across methodological frameworks and identified the metrics used to evaluate differing forms of impact. Twenty-four unique methodological frameworks were identified, addressing 5 broad categories of impact: (1) ‘primary research-related impact’, (2) ‘influence on policy making’, (3) ‘health and health systems impact’, (4) ‘health-related and societal impact’, and (5) ‘broader economic impact’. These categories were subdivided into 16 common impact subgroups. Authors of the included publications proposed 80 different metrics aimed at measuring impact in these areas. The main limitation of the study was the potential exclusion of relevant articles, as a consequence of the poor indexing of the databases searched. CONCLUSIONS: The measurement of research impact is an essential exercise to help direct the allocation of limited research resources, to maximise research benefit, and to help minimise research waste. This review provides a collective summary of existing methodological frameworks for research impact, which funders may use to inform the measurement of research impact and researchers may use to inform study design decisions aimed at maximising the short-, medium-, and long-term impact of their research. Public Library of Science 2017-08-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5549933/ /pubmed/28792957 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370 Text en © 2017 Cruz Rivera et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Cruz Rivera, Samantha
Kyte, Derek G.
Aiyegbusi, Olalekan Lee
Keeley, Thomas J.
Calvert, Melanie J.
Assessing the impact of healthcare research: A systematic review of methodological frameworks
title Assessing the impact of healthcare research: A systematic review of methodological frameworks
title_full Assessing the impact of healthcare research: A systematic review of methodological frameworks
title_fullStr Assessing the impact of healthcare research: A systematic review of methodological frameworks
title_full_unstemmed Assessing the impact of healthcare research: A systematic review of methodological frameworks
title_short Assessing the impact of healthcare research: A systematic review of methodological frameworks
title_sort assessing the impact of healthcare research: a systematic review of methodological frameworks
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549933/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28792957
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370
work_keys_str_mv AT cruzriverasamantha assessingtheimpactofhealthcareresearchasystematicreviewofmethodologicalframeworks
AT kytederekg assessingtheimpactofhealthcareresearchasystematicreviewofmethodologicalframeworks
AT aiyegbusiolalekanlee assessingtheimpactofhealthcareresearchasystematicreviewofmethodologicalframeworks
AT keeleythomasj assessingtheimpactofhealthcareresearchasystematicreviewofmethodologicalframeworks
AT calvertmelaniej assessingtheimpactofhealthcareresearchasystematicreviewofmethodologicalframeworks