IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1002370.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Samantha Cruz Rivera
  • Derek G Kyte
  • Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi
  • Thomas J Keeley
  • Melanie J Calvert

Abstract

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. Derek Kyte and colleagues systematically review approaches to the evaluation of health research.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Samantha Cruz Rivera & Derek G Kyte & Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi & Thomas J Keeley & Melanie J Calvert, 2017. "Assessing the impact of healthcare research: A systematic review of methodological frameworks," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-24, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002370
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002370?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joel B E Smith & Keith Channon & Vasiliki Kiparoglou & John F Forbes & Alastair M Gray, 2019. "A macroeconomic assessment of the impact of medical research expenditure: A case study of NIHR Biomedical Research Centres," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-10, April.
    2. Helka Kalliomäki & Sampo Ruoppila & Jenni Airaksinen, 2021. "It takes two to tango: Examining productive interactions in urban research collaboration [Generating Research Questions through Problematization]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 529-539.
    3. Gemma E Derrick & Julie Bayley, 2022. "The Corona-Eye: Exploring the risks of COVID-19 on fair assessments of impact for REF2021," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 93-103.
    4. Heyeres, Marion & Tsey, Komla & Yang, Yinghong & Yan, Li & Jiang, Hua, 2019. "The characteristics and reporting quality of research impact case studies: A systematic review," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 10-23.
    5. Dotti, Nicola Francesco & Walczyk, Julia, 2022. "What is the societal impact of university research? A policy-oriented review to map approaches, identify monitoring methods and success factors," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    6. Ayenew, Lisa G. & Hoelscher, Mary A. & Emshoff, James G. & Kidder, Daniel P. & Ellis, Barbara A., 2021. "Evaluation of the public health achievements made by projects supported by a federal contract mechanism at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), USA," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1002370. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.