ArticleHealth research policy and systems2011
Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
65 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating cancer research impact: lessons and examples from existing reviews on approaches to research impact assessment.Health research policy and systems · 2021Pooled it
- Impact of surgical intervention trials on healthcare: A systematic review of assessment methods, healthcare outcomes, and determinants.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- The impact generated by publicly and charity-funded research in the United Kingdom: a systematic literature review.Health research policy and systems · 2019Pooled it
- How do we define the policy impact of public health research? A systematic review.Health research policy and systems · 2017Pooled it
- Assessing the impact of healthcare research: A systematic review of methodological frameworks.PLoS medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Tools and instruments for needs assessment, monitoring and evaluation of health research capacity development activities at the individual and organizational level: a systematic review.Health research policy and systems · 2015Pooled it
- A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods.Health research policy and systems · 2015Pooled it
- Gaps between research and public health priorities in low income countries: evidence from a systematic literature review focused on Cambodia.Implementation science : IS · 2015Pooled it
- Developing health research impact assessment in Italy: the case of the Piedmont Region.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Impact upfront: novel format for Novo Nordisk Foundation funding.Health research policy and systems · 2025Review
- Impact assessment of the ophthalmology discipline construction project at Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Assessing the quality of studies funded by the Israel National Institute for Health Policy Research, 2010-2020.Israel journal of health policy research · 2025Article
- Approaches and tools to measure individual-level research experience, activities, and outcomes: A narrative review.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Review
- The development, validity, and reliability of the Researcher Investment Tool.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Leveraging the translational science benefits model to enhance planning and evaluation of impact in CTSA hub-supported research.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The Conceptualization and Measurement of Research Impact in Primary Health Care: Protocol for a Rapid Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- A scoping review of the globally available tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Prioritising and incentivising productivity within indicator-based approaches to Research Impact Assessment: a commentary.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- What funders are doing to assess the impact of their investments in health and biomedical research.Health research policy and systems · 2022Review
- The Association of Attending Physicians' Publications and Patients' Readmission Rates: Evidence from Tertiary Hospitals in China Using a Retrospective Data Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHow to assess the impact of research is of growing interest to funders, policy makers and researchers mainly to understand the value of investments and to increase accountability. Broadly speaking the term "research impact" refers to the contribution of research activities to achieve desired societal outcomes. The aim of this overview is to identify the most common approaches to research impact assessment, categories of impact and their respective indicators.
methodsWe systematically searched the relevant literature (PubMed, The Cochrane Library (1990-2009)) and funding agency websites. We included systematic reviews, theoretical and methodological papers, and empirical case-studies on how to evaluate research impact. We qualitatively summarised the included reports, as well the conceptual frameworks.
resultsWe identified twenty-two reports belonging to four systematic reviews and 14 primary studies. These publications reported several theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches (bibliometrics, econometrics, ad hoc case studies). The "payback model" emerged as the most frequently used. Five broad categories of impact were identified: a) advancing knowledge, b) capacity building, c) informing decision-making, d) health benefits, e) broad socio-economic benefits. For each proposed category of impact we summarized a set of indicators whose pros and cons are presented and briefly discussed.
conclusionsThis overview is a comprehensive, yet descriptive, contribution to summarize the conceptual framework and taxonomy of an heterogeneous and evolving area of research. A shared and comprehensive conceptual framework does not seem to be available yet and its single components (epidemiologic, economic, and social) are often valued differently in different models.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.