Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28969650›Full record

SynthesisHealth research policy and systems2017

How do we define the policy impact of public health research? A systematic review.

Kristel Alla, Wayne D Hall, Harvey A Whiteford, Brian W Head, Carla S Meurk

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. So what? Elevating the impact of implementation science.Implementation science communications · 2025
    Article
  5. Enhancing Impact: A Call to Action for Equitable Implementation Science.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Building a Methodological Foundation for Impactful Urban Planetary Health Science.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. 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

5 authors.

Kristel AllaSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston, QLD, 4006, Australia. kristel.alla@uq.net.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0704-9080
Wayne D HallCentre for Youth Substance Abuse Research, The University of Queensland, CYSAR K Floor, Mental Health Centre, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital Campus, Herston, QLD, 4029, Australia.
Harvey A WhitefordSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston, QLD, 4006, Australia.
Brian W HeadSchool of Political Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.
Carla S MeurkSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston, QLD, 4006, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Health PolicyPeer Review, Health CarePublic HealthHealth ServicesHumansSerial PublicationsDefinitionsEvidence-informed policiesPolicyPolicy impactResearchResearch impact

Identifiers

PMID28969650
PMCPMC5625646

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.