ReviewHealth research policy and systems2022
What funders are doing to assess the impact of their investments in health and biomedical research.
Review in Health research policy and systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Structural biases in digital health intervention and health equity research: a bibliometric knowledge graph analysis (2015-2025).Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- Contextualizing Evaluation in Research Consortia: A Reflective Case Study from the Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMIs) Program.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- A maturity model framework for federated networks of trusted research environments.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- How do accessible veterinary care providers evaluate programmes and engage communities? Results of a qualitative analysis of Canadian service providers.The Veterinary record · 2025Article
- Impact of philanthropic investment on integrating social determinants of health into diabetes care at US federally qualified health centers.Dialogues in health · 2025Article
- Impact upfront: novel format for Novo Nordisk Foundation funding.Health research policy and systems · 2025Review
- On the potential value of eHTA: a commentary on "Defining Early Health Technology Assessment: Building Consensus Using Delphi Technique".International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- 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
- Paths towards commercialization: evidence from NIH proof of concept centers.The Journal of technology transfer · 2025Article
- A decade of publication trends in the Mountain West Clinical and Translational Research Infrastructure Network.Journal of translational science · 2025Article
- Outcomes of an integrated knowledge translation approach in five African countries: a mixed-methods comparative case study.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- How to strengthen societal impact of research and innovation? Lessons learned from an explanatory research-on-research study on participatory knowledge infrastructures funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Rethinking our future: Describing and enhancing the impacts of dissemination and implementation science for cancer prevention and control.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- What public health challenges and unmet medical needs would benefit from interdisciplinary collaboration in the EU? A survey and multi-stakeholder debate.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Perspectives of old-age and dementia researchers on communication with policymakers and public research funding decision-makers: an international cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Gauging innovation and health impact from biomedical research: survey results and interviews with recipients of EU-funding in the fields of Alzheimer's disease, breast cancer and prostate cancer.Health research policy and systems · 2023Review
- The post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research: a scoping review.F1000Research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As pressures to maximize research funding grow, biomedical research funders are increasingly tasked with demonstrating the long-term and real-world impacts of their funded research investments. Over the past three decades, research impact assessments (RIA) have emerged as an important tool for analysing the impacts of research by incorporating logic models, frameworks and indicators to track measures of knowledge production, capacity-building, development of research products, adoption of research into clinical guidelines and policies, and the realization of health, economic and social benefits. While there are currently several models for RIA within the literature, less attention has been paid to how funders can practically select and implement a RIA model to demonstrate the impacts of their own research portfolios. In this paper, a literature review was performed to understand (1) which research funders have performed RIAs of their research portfolios to date; (2) how funders have designed their assessments, including the models and tools they have used; (3) what challenges to and facilitators of success have funders found when adopting the RIA model to their own portfolio; and (4) who participates in the assessments. Forty-four papers from both published and grey literature were found to meet the review criteria and were examined in detail. There is a growing culture of RIA among funders, and included papers spanned a diverse set of funders from 10 countries or regions. Over half of funders (59.1%) used a framework to conduct their assessment, and a variety of methods for collecting impact data were reported. Issues of methodological rigour were observed across studies in the review, and this was related to numerous challenges funders faced in designing timely RIAs with quality impact data. Over a third of articles (36.4%) included input from stakeholders, yet only one article reported surveying patients and members of the public as part of the assessment. To advance RIA among funders, we offer several recommendations for increasing the methodological rigour of RIAs and suggestions for future research, and call for a careful reflection of the voices needed in an impact assessment to ensure that RIAs are having a meaningful impact on patients and the public.
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.