ArticleHealth research policy and systems2018
ISRIA statement: ten-point guidelines for an effective process of research impact assessment.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 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
- 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
- An analysis of the contributions of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care to the impact of research in the UK Research Excellence Framework 2014 and 2021.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- A systemic, multistakeholder participatory approach to research, innovation and action agenda setting for more integrated and effective prevention of HIV and other STIs: the case of Catalonia, Spain.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Developing health research impact assessment in Italy: the case of the Piedmont Region.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Impact upfront: novel format for Novo Nordisk Foundation funding.Health research policy and systems · 2025Review
- Research impact assessment of a Canadian digital health funding program: a case study.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Assessing the quality of studies funded by the Israel National Institute for Health Policy Research, 2010-2020.Israel journal of health policy research · 2025Article
- Establishing research impact assessment in Iran: The first report from a non-high-income country.Journal of global health · 2024Article
- Designing an Impact-Oriented Model of Research and Technology Evaluation: An Experience of I.R.Iran.International journal of preventive medicine · 2024Article
- Prioritising and incentivising productivity within indicator-based approaches to Research Impact Assessment: a commentary.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Investigating the research capacity and productivity of Canadian sports chiropractors.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2023Article
- The post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research: a scoping review.F1000Research · 2023Article
- The impact of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery research grant scheme-a mixed qualitative quantitative methodology study protocol.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- What funders are doing to assess the impact of their investments in health and biomedical research.Health research policy and systems · 2022Review
- Metrics to evaluate implementation scientists in the USA: what matters most?Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Research can be integrated into public health policy-making: global lessons for and from Spanish economic evaluations.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- The association of hospital research publications and clinical quality.Health services research · 2022Article
- Collective health research assessment: developing a tool to measure the impact of multistakeholder research initiatives.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As governments, funding agencies and research organisations worldwide seek to maximise both the financial and non-financial returns on investment in research, the way the research process is organised and funded is becoming increasingly under scrutiny. There are growing demands and aspirations to measure research impact (beyond academic publications), to understand how science works, and to optimise its societal and economic impact. In response, a multidisciplinary practice called research impact assessment is rapidly developing. Given that the practice is still in its formative stage, systematised recommendations or accepted standards for practitioners (such as funders and those responsible for managing research projects) across countries or disciplines to guide research impact assessment are not yet available.In this statement, we propose initial guidelines for a rigorous and effective process of research impact assessment applicable to all research disciplines and oriented towards practice. This statement systematises expert knowledge and practitioner experience from designing and delivering the International School on Research Impact Assessment (ISRIA). It brings together insights from over 450 experts and practitioners from 34 countries, who participated in the school during its 5-year run (from 2013 to 2017) and shares a set of core values from the school's learning programme. These insights are distilled into ten-point guidelines, which relate to (1) context, (2) purpose, (3) stakeholders' needs, (4) stakeholder engagement, (5) conceptual frameworks, (6) methods and data sources, (7) indicators and metrics, (8) ethics and conflicts of interest, (9) communication, and (10) community of practice.The guidelines can help practitioners improve and standardise the process of research impact assessment, but they are by no means exhaustive and require evaluation and continuous improvement. The prima facie effectiveness of the guidelines is based on the systematised expert and practitioner knowledge of the school's faculty and participants derived from their practical experience and research evidence. The current knowledge base has gaps in terms of the geographical and scientific discipline as well as stakeholder coverage and representation. The guidelines can be further strengthened through evaluation and continuous improvement by the global research impact assessment community.
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.