The impact generated by publicly and charity-funded research in the United Kingdom: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE: To identify, synthesise and critically assess the empirical evidence of the impact generated by publicly and charity-funded health research in the United Kingdom. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of the empirical evidence published in English in peer-reviewed journals between 2006 and 2017. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected and their findings were analysed using the Payback Framework and categorised into five main dimensions, namely knowledge, benefits to future research and research use, benefits from informing policy and product development, health and health sector benefits, and broader economic benefits. We assessed the studies for risk of selection, reporting and funding bias. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies (10 out of 13) assessed impact at multiple domains including the main five key themes of the Payback Framework. All of them showed a positive impact of funded research on outcomes. Of those studies, one (8%), six (46%) and six (46%) presented a low, moderate and high risk of bias, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Empirical evidence on the impact of publicly and charity-funded research is still limited and subject to funding and selection bias. More work is needed to establish the causal effects of funded research on academic outcomes, policy, practice and the broader economy. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-019-0425-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.