SynthesisHealth research policy and systems2017
How do we define the policy impact of public health research? A systematic review.
Synthesis 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 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- How are health research partnerships assessed? A systematic review of outcomes, impacts, terminology and the use of theories, models and frameworks.Health research policy and systems · 2022Pooled 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
- A systematic review of frameworks for the interrelationships of mental health evidence and policy in low- and middle-income countries.Health research policy and systems · 2018Pooled it
- So what? Elevating the impact of implementation science.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- Enhancing Impact: A Call to Action for Equitable Implementation Science.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2024Article
- Behind every good research there are data. What are they and their importance to forensic science.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024Article
- Organisational benefits of undertaking research in healthcare: an approach to uncover impact.BMC research notes · 2023Review
- Building a Methodological Foundation for Impactful Urban Planetary Health Science.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Review
- Looking both ways: a review of methods for assessing research impacts on policy and the policy utilisation of research.Health research policy and systems · 2018Review
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn order to understand and measure the policy impact of research we need a definition of research impact that is suited to the task. This article systematically reviewed both peer-reviewed and grey literature for definitions of research impact to develop a definition of research impact that can be used to investigate how public health research influences policy.
methodKeyword searches of the electronic databases Web of Science, ProQuest, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Informit, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Google Scholar were conducted between August 2015 and April 2016. Keywords included 'definition' and 'policy' and 'research impact' or 'research evidence'. The search terms 'health', public health' or 'mental health' and 'knowledge transfer' or 'research translation' were used to focus the search on relevant health discipline approaches. Studies included in the review described processes, theories or frameworks associated with public health, health services or mental health policy.
resultsWe identified 108 definitions in 83 publications. The key findings were that literature on research impact is growing, but only 23% of peer-reviewed publications on the topic explicitly defined the term and that the majority (76%) of definitions were derived from research organisations and funding institutions. We identified four main types of definition, namely (1) definitions that conceptualise research impacts in terms of positive changes or effects that evidence can bring about when transferred into policies (example Research Excellence Framework definition), (2) definitions that interpret research impacts as measurable outcomes (Research Councils UK), and (3) bibliometric and (4) use-based definitions. We identified four constructs underpinning these definitions that related to concepts of contribution, change, avenues and levels of impact.
conclusionThe dominance of bureaucratic definitions, the tendency to discuss but not define the concept of research impact, and the heterogeneity of definitions confirm the need for conceptual clarity in this area. We propose a working definition of research impact that can be used in a range of health policy contexts.
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.