Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37798616›Full record

ReviewBMC research notes2023

Organisational benefits of undertaking research in healthcare: an approach to uncover impact.

Judith Holliday, Natalie Jones, Jo Cooke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC research notes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Co-Production and Implementation of 'Count Me In': A Bottom-Up Approach to Inclusive Research and Participation in a National Health Service in England.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    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

3 authors.

Judith HollidayResearch Department, Mid Yorkshire Teaching NHS Trust, Pinderfields Hospital, Aberford Road, Wakefield, WF1 4AL, UK. judith.holliday@nhs.net.
Natalie JonesPrimary Care Sheffield, Fifth Floor, 722 Prince of Wales Road, Sheffield, S9 4EU, UK.
Jo CookeSchool of Health Science, University of Sheffield, 30 Regent Street, Regent Court, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is increasing focus to review the societal impact of research through assessment and research excellence frameworks. These often link to financial and reputational incentives within the academic community. However, timeframes to demonstrate impact using these approaches are often long and are not designed to show benefit to service collaborators who require evidence of improvement and change to their services more immediately. Impacts that are measured this way may also miss out on unintended and positive impacts that occur as by-products of research, or through the 'ripple effect' that research may have on practice. Importantly, demonstrating how research makes a difference can improve the research culture in services, and motivations in service partners to become, and stay involved in research. This article describes, and provides access to, a tool called VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) that was developed by a community of practice involving 12 NHS organisations through blending evidence from the literature, practice and service users. We describe the types of impact that have been collected by VICTOR and explore how collecting impact in this way might help research-practice partnerships and inform research methodologies and may be useful to show impacts alongside, and shortly after the research process.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth FacilitiesHumansBy-products of researchCoproductionResearch collaborationsResearch impact

Identifiers

PMID37798616
PMCPMC10557344

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.