ArticleHealth research policy and systems2017
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.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 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
- How do organisations implement research impact assessment (RIA) principles and good practice? A narrative review and exploratory study of four international research funding and administrative organisations.Health research policy and systems · 2020Pooled it
- Impact of surgical intervention trials on healthcare: A systematic review of assessment methods, healthcare outcomes, and determinants.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- The National Health and Medical Research Council Research Impact Indicators: Unveiling Omissions and Blind Spots, and Positioning for Change.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026Article
- Impact assessment of a national research collaboration improving health outcomes for working-age Australians with disability.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- A taxonomy of the process in implementation science: the Global Impact Analytics Framework (GIAF).Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Building evidence for prevention: case studies on research impacts and influences on health policy, practice, and research capacity.Translational behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- So what? Elevating the impact of implementation science.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- Impact assessment of the ophthalmology discipline construction project at Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Article
- Mixed Methods Evaluation of the Impact of Allied Health - Translating Research into Practice (AH-TRIP) Program on the Knowledge Translation Capacity of the Allied Health Workforce.International journal of health policy and management · 2025Article
- Prioritising and incentivising productivity within indicator-based approaches to Research Impact Assessment: a commentary.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Impact assessment of the Centre for Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Retrospective Impact Evaluation Continuing to Prove Challenging Irrespective of Setting: A Study of Research Impact Enablers and Challenges Cloaked as an Impact Evaluation? Comment on "'We're Not Providing the Best Care If We Are Not on the Cutting Edge of Research': A Research Impact Evaluation at a Regional Australian Hospital and Health Service".International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
- "We're Not Providing the Best Care If We Are Not on the Cutting Edge of Research": A Research Impact Evaluation at a Regional Australian Hospital and Health Service.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Research culture: science from bench to society.Biology open · 2021Article
- Evidence-based research impact praxis: Integrating scholarship and practice to ensure research benefits society.Open research Europe · 2021Article
- Reporting health research translation and impact in the curriculum vitae: a survey.Implementation science communications · 2020Article
- Economic returns to medical research funding.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Implementing a protocol for a research impact assessment of the Centre for Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRealising the economic potential of research institutions, including medical research institutes, represents a policy imperative for many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations. The assessment of research impact has consequently drawn increasing attention. Research impact assessment frameworks (RIAFs) provide a structure to assess research translation, but minimal research has examined whether alternative RIAFs realise the intended policy outcomes. This paper examines the objectives presented for RIAFs in light of economic imperatives to justify ongoing support for health and medical research investment, leverage productivity via commercialisation and outcome-efficiency gains in health systems, and ensure that translation and impact considerations are embedded into the research process. This paper sought to list the stated objectives for RIAFs, to identify existing frameworks and to evaluate whether the identified frameworks possessed the capabilities necessary to address the specified objectives.
methodsA scoping review of the literature to identify objectives specified for RIAFs, inform upon descriptive criteria for each objective and identify existing RIAFs. Criteria were derived for each objective. The capability for the existing RIAFs to realise the alternative objectives was evaluated based upon these criteria.
resultsThe collated objectives for RIAFs included accountability (top-down), transparency/accountability (bottom-up), advocacy, steering, value for money, management/learning and feedback/allocation, prospective orientation, and speed of translation. Of the 25 RIAFs identified, most satisfied objectives such as accountability and advocacy, which are largely sufficient for the first economic imperative to justify research investment. The frameworks primarily designed to optimise the speed of translation or enable the prospective orientation of research possessed qualities most likely to optimise the productive outcomes from research. However, the results show that few frameworks met the criteria for these objectives.
conclusionIt is imperative that the objective(s) for an assessment framework are explicit and that RIAFs are designed to realise these objectives. If the objectives include the capability to pro-actively drive productive research impacts, the potential for prospective orientation and a focus upon the speed of translation merits prioritisation. Frameworks designed to optimise research translation and impact, rather than simply assess impact, offer greater promise to contribute to the economic imperatives compelling their implementation.
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.