SynthesisPLoS medicine2017
Assessing the impact of healthcare research: A systematic review of methodological frameworks.
Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 9 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
85 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis exploring the impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine.BMC health services research · 2021Pooled it
- Applying a framework to assess the impact of cardiovascular outcomes improvement research.Health research policy and systems · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluating cancer research impact: lessons and examples from existing reviews on approaches to research impact assessment.Health research policy and systems · 2021Pooled it
- Nurses are research leaders in skin and wound care.International wound journal · 2020Pooled it
- The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled 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 impact of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: a systematic review and critical analysis.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2019Pooled 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
- Beyond intraocular pressure: introducing a novel glaucoma-specific PROM for evaluating outcomes after IStent inject implantation combined with phacoemulsification cataract surgery.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Is There Sufficient Local Evidence to Inform Biofortification Policies Against Micronutrient Deficiencies? A Global Concern for Food Security and Human Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Review
- 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
- Article
- Building evidence for prevention: case studies on research impacts and influences on health policy, practice, and research capacity.Translational behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Participatory Rapid Appraisal and Focus Groups to co-design technology-supported integrated care.PloS one · 2026Article
- The Gut Nexus: Unraveling Microbiota-Mediated Links Between Type 2 Diabetes and Colorectal Cancer.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Developing health research impact assessment in Italy: the case of the Piedmont Region.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Impact assessment of the ophthalmology discipline construction project at Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Establishing Priorities for Clinical Education Research: Exploring the Views of UK Professional and Public Stakeholders.The clinical teacher · 2025Article
25 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
Abstract
backgroundIncreasingly, researchers need to demonstrate the impact of their research to their sponsors, funders, and fellow academics. However, the most appropriate way of measuring the impact of healthcare research is subject to debate. We aimed to identify the existing methodological frameworks used to measure healthcare research impact and to summarise the common themes and metrics in an impact matrix. METHODS AND
findingsTwo independent investigators systematically searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL+), the Health Management Information Consortium, and the Journal of Research Evaluation from inception until May 2017 for publications that presented a methodological framework for research impact. We then summarised the common concepts and themes across methodological frameworks and identified the metrics used to evaluate differing forms of impact. Twenty-four unique methodological frameworks were identified, addressing 5 broad categories of impact: (1) 'primary research-related impact', (2) 'influence on policy making', (3) 'health and health systems impact', (4) 'health-related and societal impact', and (5) 'broader economic impact'. These categories were subdivided into 16 common impact subgroups. Authors of the included publications proposed 80 different metrics aimed at measuring impact in these areas. The main limitation of the study was the potential exclusion of relevant articles, as a consequence of the poor indexing of the databases searched.
conclusionsThe measurement of research impact is an essential exercise to help direct the allocation of limited research resources, to maximise research benefit, and to help minimise research waste. This review provides a collective summary of existing methodological frameworks for research impact, which funders may use to inform the measurement of research impact and researchers may use to inform study design decisions aimed at maximising the short-, medium-, and long-term impact of their research.
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.