102 research outputs found
Assessing the impact of England's National Health Service R&D Health Technology Assessment program using the "payback" approach
No full textCopyright © Cambridge University Press 2009Objectives: This study assesses the impact of the English National Health Service (NHS) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program using the "payback" framework.Methods: A survey of lead investigators of all research projects funded by the HTA program 1993-2003 supplemented by more detailed case studies of sixteen projects.Results: Of 204 eligible projects, replies were received from 133 or 65 percent. The mean number of peer-reviewed publications per project was 2.9. Seventy-three percent of projects claimed to have had had an impact on policy and 42 percent on behavior. Technology Assessment Reports for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) had fewer than average publications but greater impact on policy. Half of all projects went on to secure further funding. The case studies confirmed the survey findings and indicated factors associated with impact.Conclusions: The HTA program performed relatively well in terms of "payback." Facilitating factors included the program's emphasis on topics that matter to the NHS, rigorous methods and the existence of "policy customers" such as NICE
Yes, research can inform health policy; but can we bridge the 'Do-Knowing It's Been Done' gap?
No full textCopyright @ 2011 Hanney and Gonzalez.Provisional Abstract: This editorial introduces a new Supplement in Health Research Policy and Systems and highlighs the importance of assessing the impact of health research by examining whether we can move from 'Know-Do' to 'Do-Knowing It's Been Done'This article is made available through the Brunel Open Access publishing fund
The “Payback Framework” explained
No full textThe Payback Framework, originally developed to examine the ‘impact ’ or ‘payback ’ of health services research, is explained. The Payback Framework is a research tool used to facilitate data collection and cross-case analysis by providing a common structure and so ensuring cognate information is recorded. It consists of a logic model representation of the complete research process, and a series of categories to classify the individual paybacks from research. Its multi-dimensional categorisation of benefits from research starts with more traditional academic benefits of knowledge production and research capacity-building, and then extends to wider benefits to society. HE PAYBACK FRAMEWORK was original-ly developed by Martin Buxton and Stephen Hanney at the Health Economics Research Group (HERG) at Brunel University, UK, to exam-ine the ‘impact ’ or ‘payback ’ of health services re-search (Buxton and Hanney, 1994; 1996). It was further developed in studies of research funded by the National Health Service (NHS) (Buxton an
The role of the research assessment in strengthening research and health systems
No full textResearch Impact Assessments are regularly regarded as a tiresome part of the research process. However, Annette Boaz and Stephen Hanney find that taking a systems approach to health research demonstrates the value of assessing impact. Drawing on examples from a new review for the WHO Health Evidence Network, they highlight the role that impact assessments play in securing research funding and strengthening the health system
Ways of assessing the economic value or impact of research: is it a step too far for nursing research?
No full textTo identify lessons that could be applied to nursing research, this paper draws on some reviews of the increasing, although apparently still relatively small, number of studies that attempt to assess economic impacts from health research. One review describes several important steps, including identifying the health and other outcomes from specific bodies of research and then valuing the outcomes. We describe major studies in fields such as cardiovascular research that show how the economic value of health research can be demonstrated. In addition, we examine various nursing studies, including ones showing the benefits (especially economic) from nursing itself (as opposed to from nursing research), and also studies describing economic evaluations of new devices and techniques used by nurses, which have the potential to be used when trying to value the research. Currently, such studies rarely go on and demonstrate how the nursing research has had a wider impact on nursing policies and practice, and hence led to outcomes that could be valued. There is, nevertheless, scope to build on these existing nursing studies. Conducting impact assessments could potentially result in a portfolio of examples of nursing research that have informed policies and practices and led to economic impacts in terms of cost savings, and possibly also in terms of health gains that could be value
Conducting retrospective impact analysis to inform a medical research charity’s funding strategies: The case of Asthma UK
No full text© 2013 Hanney et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.BACKGROUND: Debate is intensifying about how to assess the full range of impacts from medical research. Complexity increases when assessing the diverse funding streams of funders such as Asthma UK, a charitable patient organisation supporting medical research to benefit people with asthma. This paper aims to describe the various impacts identified from a range of Asthma UK research, and explore how Asthma UK utilised the characteristics of successful funding approaches to inform future research strategies. METHODS: We adapted the Payback Framework, using it both in a survey and to help structure interviews, documentary analysis, and case studies. We sent surveys to 153 lead researchers of projects, plus 10 past research fellows, and also conducted 14 detailed case studies. These covered nine projects and two fellowships, in addition to the innovative case studies on the professorial chairs (funded since 1988) and the MRC-Asthma UK Centre in Allergic Mechanisms of Asthma (the ‘Centre’) which together facilitated a comprehensive analysis of the whole funding portfolio. We organised each case study to capture whatever academic and wider societal impacts (or payback) might have arisen given the diverse timescales, size of funding involved, and extent to which Asthma UK funding contributed to the impacts. RESULTS: Projects recorded an average of four peer-reviewed journal articles. Together the chairs reported over 500 papers. All streams of funding attracted follow-on funding. Each of the various categories of societal impacts arose from only a minority of individual projects and fellowships. Some of the research portfolio is influencing asthma-related clinical guidelines, and some contributing to product development. The latter includes potentially major breakthroughs in asthma therapies (in immunotherapy, and new inhaled drugs) trialled by university spin-out companies. Such research-informed guidelines and medicines can, in turn, contribute to health improvements. The role of the chairs and the pioneering collaborative Centre is shown as being particularly important. CONCLUSIONS: We systematically demonstrate that all types of Asthma UK’s research funding assessed are making impacts at different levels, but the main societal impacts from projects and fellowships come from a minority of those funded. Asthma UK used the study’s findings, especially in relation to the Centre, to inform research funding strategies to promote the achievement of impact.This study was funded by Asthma UK
Who needs what from a national health research system: Lessons from reforms to the English Department of Health's R&D system
No full textThis article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.Health research systems consist of diverse groups who have some role in health research, but the boundaries around such a system are not clear-cut. To explore what various stakeholders need we reviewed the literature including that on the history of English health R&D reforms, and we also applied some relevant conceptual frameworks.
We first describe the needs and capabilities of the main groups of stakeholders in health research systems, and explain key features of policymaking systems within which these stakeholders operate in the UK. The five groups are policymakers (and health care managers), health professionals, patients and the general public, industry, and researchers. As individuals and as organisations they have a range of needs from the health research system, but should also develop specific capabilities in order to contribute effectively to the system and benefit from it.
Second, we discuss key phases of reform in the development of the English health research system over four decades -
especially that of the English Department of Health's R&D system - and identify how far legitimate demands of key stakeholder interests were addressed.
Third, in drawing lessons we highlight points emerging from contemporary reports, but also attempt to identify issues through application of relevant conceptual frameworks. The main lessons are: the importance of comprehensively addressing the diverse needs of various interacting institutions and stakeholders; the desirability of developing facilitating mechanisms at interfaces between the health research system and its various stakeholders; and the importance of additional money in being able to expand the scope of the health research system whilst maintaining support for basic science.
We conclude that the latest health R&D strategy in England builds on recent progress and tackles acknowledged weaknesses. The strategy goes a considerable way to identifying and more effectively meeting the needs of key groups such as medical academics, patients and industry, and has been remarkably successful in increasing the funding for health research. There are still areas that might benefit from further recognition and resourcing, but the lessons identified, and progress made by the reforms are relevant for the design and coordination of national health research systems beyond England.This article is available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund
Lessons from the evaluation of the UK's NHS R&D Implementation Methods Programme
No full textBackground: Concern about the effective use of research was a major factor behind the creation
of the NHS R&D Programme in 1991. In 1994, an advisory group was established to identify
research priorities in research implementation. The Implementation Methods Programme (IMP)
flowed from this, and its commissioning group funded 36 projects. In 2000 responsibility for the
programme passed to the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and
Organisation R&D, which asked the Health Economics Research Group (HERG), Brunel University,
to conduct an evaluation in 2002. By then most projects had been completed. This evaluation was
intended to cover: the quality of outputs, lessons to be learnt about the communication strategy
and the commissioning process, and the benefits from the projects.
Methods: We adopted a wide range of quantitative and qualitative methods. They included:
documentary analysis, interviews with key actors, questionnaires to the funded lead researchers,
questionnaires to potential users, and desk analysis.
Results: Quantitative assessment of outputs and dissemination revealed that the IMP funded useful
research projects, some of which had considerable impact against the various categories in the
HERG payback model, such as publications, further research, research training, impact on health
policy, and clinical practice.
Qualitative findings from interviews with advisory and commissioning group members indicated
that when the IMP was established, implementation research was a relatively unexplored field. This
was reflected in the understanding brought to their roles by members of the advisory and
commissioning groups, in the way priorities for research were chosen and developed, and in how
the research projects were commissioned. The ideological and methodological debates associated
with these decisions have continued among those working in this field. The need for an effective
communication strategy for the programme as a whole was particularly important. However, such
a strategy was never developed, making it difficult to establish the general influence of the IMP as a
programme.
Conclusion: Our findings about the impact of the work funded, and the difficulties faced by those
developing the IMP, have implications for the development of strategic programmes of research in
general, as well as for the development of more effective research in this field
Evidence-informed health policy: are we beginning to get there at last
No full textThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited
- …
