Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28327199›Full record

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.

Simon Deeming, Andrew Searles, Penny Reeves, Michael Nilsson

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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 · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. So what? Elevating the impact of implementation science.Implementation science communications · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Simon DeemingHunter Medical Research Institute, Lot 1, Kookaburra Circuit, New Lambton Heights, Newcastle, 2305, NSW, Australia. simon.deeming@hmri.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5418-3936
Andrew SearlesHunter Medical Research Institute, Lot 1, Kookaburra Circuit, New Lambton Heights, Newcastle, 2305, NSW, Australia.
Penny ReevesHunter Medical Research Institute, Lot 1, Kookaburra Circuit, New Lambton Heights, Newcastle, 2305, NSW, Australia.
Michael NilssonHunter Medical Research Institute, Lot 1, Kookaburra Circuit, New Lambton Heights, Newcastle, 2305, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Academies and InstitutesAustraliaBiomedical ResearchCosts and Cost AnalysisEfficiencyHealth Impact AssessmentHealth PolicyOrganizational ObjectivesTranslational Research, BiomedicalHealth researchMedical researchObjectivesProductivityProspective orientationResearch impact assessment frameworksSpeed of translation

Identifiers

PMID28327199
PMCPMC5361798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.