ArticleBMJ open2017
Encouraging translation and assessing impact of the Centre for Research Excellence in Integrated Quality Improvement: rationale and protocol for a research impact assessment.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Applying a framework to assess the impact of cardiovascular outcomes improvement research.Health research policy and systems · 2021Pooled it
- Impact assessment of a national research collaboration improving health outcomes for working-age Australians with disability.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Reflecting on the quality of a methodologically pluralist evaluation of a large-scale Indigenous health research collaboration in Australia.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Article
- Network evaluation of an innovation platform in continuous quality improvement in Australian Indigenous primary healthcare.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Research protocol for impact assessment of a project to scale up food policies in the Pacific.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Methodological pluralism for better evaluations of complex interventions: lessons from evaluating an innovation platform in Australia.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Review
- Using developmental evaluation to enhance continuous reflection, learning and adaptation of an innovation platform in Australian Indigenous primary healthcare.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- Strengthening and measuring research impact in global health: lessons from applying the FAIT framework.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- An "All Teach, All Learn" Approach to Research Capacity Strengthening in Indigenous Primary Health Care Continuous Quality Improvement.Frontiers in public health · 2018Article
- Comparing and contrasting 'innovation platforms' with other forms of professional networks for strengthening primary healthcare systems for Indigenous Australians.BMJ global health · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is growing recognition among health researchers and funders that the wider benefits of research such as economic, social and health impacts ought to be assessed and valued alongside academic outputs such as peer-reviewed papers. Research translation needs to increase and the pathways to impact ought to be more transparent. These processes are particularly pertinent to the Indigenous health sector given continued concerns that Indigenous communities are over-researched with little corresponding improvement in health outcomes. This paper describes the research protocol of a mixed methods study to apply FAIT (Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research) to the Centre for Research Excellence in Integrated Quality Improvement (CRE-IQI). FAIT will be applied to five selected CRE-IQI Flagship projects to encourage research translation and assess the wider impact of that research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Phase I will develop a modified programme logic model for each Flagship project including identifying process, output and impact metrics so progress can be monitored. A scoping review will inform potential benefits. In phase II, programme logic models will be updated to account for changes in the research pathways over time. Audit and feedback will be used to encourage research translation and collect evidence of achievement of any process, output and interim impacts. In phase III, three proven methodologies for measuring research impact-Payback, economic assessment and narratives-will be applied. Data on the application of FAIT will be collected and analysed to inform and improve FAIT's performance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is funded by a nationally competitive grant (ID 1078927) from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Newcastle's Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: H-2017-0026). The results from the study will be presented in several peer-reviewed publications, through conference presentations and via social media.
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.