ArticleBMC health services research2012
Assessing research impact in academic clinical medicine: a study using Research Excellence Framework pilot impact indicators.
Article in BMC health services research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled 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
- A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods.Health research policy and systems · 2015Pooled it
- From trials to communities: implementation and scale-up of health behaviour interventions.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Output-orientated policy engagement: a model for advancing the use of epidemiological evidence in health policy.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Collective health research assessment: developing a tool to measure the impact of multistakeholder research initiatives.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Increased use of knowledge translation strategies is associated with greater research impact on public health policy and practice: an analysis of trials of nutrition, physical activity, sexual health, tobacco, alcohol and substance use interventions.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Flipping the grant application review process.Studies in higher education · 2020Article
- Measuring the academic value of academic medical centers: describing a methodology for developing an evaluation model at one Academic Medical Center.Israel journal of health policy research · 2019Article
- New indicators and indexes for benchmarking university-industry-government innovation in medical and life science clusters: results from the European FP7 Regions of Knowledge HealthTIES project.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- Indicators of Evaluating Research at Article Level: Recommendation for Effective Evaluation of APJCP’ Scientific PerformancesAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018Article
- ISRIA statement: ten-point guidelines for an effective process of research impact assessment.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- Collaborative partnership and the social value of clinical research: a qualitative secondary analysis.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
- Maximising value from a United Kingdom Biomedical Research Centre: study protocol.Health research policy and systems · 2017Article
- Measuring research impact in Australia's medical research institutes: a scoping literature review of the objectives for and an assessment of the capabilities of research impact assessment frameworks.Health research policy and systems · 2017Article
- The cost of scientific excellence - could it be expensive and out of reach?Croatian medical journal · 2016Article
- A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment.Health research policy and systems · 2016Article
- Tackling the "so what" problem in scientific research: a systems-based approach to resource and publication tracking.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFunders of medical research the world over are increasingly seeking, in research assessment, to complement traditional output measures of scientific publications with more outcome-based indicators of societal and economic impact. In the United Kingdom, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) developed proposals for the Research Excellence Framework (REF) to allocate public research funding to higher education institutions, inter alia, on the basis of the social and economic impact of their research. In 2010, it conducted a pilot exercise to test these proposals and refine impact indicators and criteria.
methodsThe impact indicators proposed in the 2010 REF impact pilot exercise are critically reviewed and appraised using insights from the relevant literature and empirical data collected for the University of Oxford's REF pilot submission in clinical medicine. The empirical data were gathered from existing administrative sources and an online administrative survey carried out by the university's Medical Sciences Division among 289 clinical medicine faculty members (48.1% response rate).
resultsThe feasibility and scope of measuring research impact in clinical medicine in a given university are assessed. Twenty impact indicators from seven categories proposed by HEFCE are presented; their strengths and limitations are discussed using insights from the relevant biomedical and research policy literature.
conclusionsWhile the 2010 pilot exercise has confirmed that the majority of the proposed indicators have some validity, there are significant challenges in operationalising and measuring these indicators reliably, as well as in comparing evidence of research impact across different cases in a standardised manner. It is suggested that the public funding agencies, medical research charities, universities, and the wider medical research community work together to develop more robust methodologies for capturing and describing impact, including more valid and reliable impact indicators.
Indexed as
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.