ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Leveraging the translational science benefits model to enhance planning and evaluation of impact in CTSA hub-supported research.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- The Road from Science to Health: The Importance of Designing For, Measuring, and Communicating Impact in Public Health.Annual review of public health · 2026Review
- Taking the Translational Science Benefits Model from concept to operationalization: opportunities and challenges in defining impact using the Translational Science Benefits Model.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Introduction: Increasingly, the public, policymakers, and funders expect clinical research to show tangible effects on public health. However, assessing research impact is challenging. Most researchers are not trained to consider the broad-ranging impacts of their work. The TSBM is a conceptual framework that includes four domains of impact: clinical, community, economic, and policy. We assess the utility and acceptability of using a survey based on the TSBM as a means to help researchers identify their potential research impacts. Methods: CTSA program-supported investigators self-reported the potential benefits of their research projects in an electronic survey based on the TSBM. Responses were reviewed and scored by program evaluators. Survey acceptability was measured by response and completion rates; utility was measured by comparing benefits identified in the survey but not described in the researcher's grant application; and quality was measured by the degree of congruence between investigators' responses and evaluators' determinations regarding the potential benefits of the research. Results: Of the investigators invited to participate, 67% completed the survey. Half of the investigators identified at least one benefit from their research not described in their research proposals. The rate of agreement across all responses between the investigators and the evaluators was 60%. Discussion: Our study showed that a survey based on the framework of the TSBM was an acceptable and useful tool to help investigators identify research impact. However, our work also suggested that there are opportunities to educate investigators especially about the long-term, broad-reaching effects of their work. Ultimately, this work may help researchers conceptualize and realize the public health impact of their research.
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.