ArticleHealth research policy and systems2025
Research impact assessment of a Canadian digital health funding program: a case study.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital innovations have the potential to enhance equitable access to health systems, improve care integration and support learning health systems. Research funders make substantial investments in digital health research to advance the uptake of evidence-informed digital solutions within health systems, yet their impacts on health and health system outcomes, health equity, policy and practice remain poorly understood. Research impact assessments (RIAs) serve as a vital tool for funders to examine the links between research investments and real-world change. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research commissioned an RIA on its largest digital health program, the eHealth Innovations Partnership Program (eHIPP), to understand the program's outputs and impacts.
methodsThis study applied two complementary frameworks, the Canadian Academy of Heath Science's (CAHS) Making an Impact Framework and the Canadian Health Services and Policy Research Alliance's (CHSPRA) Informing Decision-Making Framework, to assess the research impact of the eHIPP program, funded from 2015 to 2021. A mixed-methods approach was taken to collect and analyse data from eHIPP grant recipients and their partners.
resultsThe eHIPP program supported 22 research teams through a total investment of CAD$ 42M. The RIA revealed impacts in the areas of capacity development, knowledge creation, informing decision-making and health outcomes. The teams generated 36 co-designed, evidenced-informed solutions, 79 publications, 194 presentations and 38 media interviews or articles. Solutions were reported to influence health system practice (52%) and policy (33%), improve health outcomes (62%), enhance equitable access to care (62%), improve patient (62%) and provider experience (52%), increase cost-effectiveness (52%), enhance population health (48%) and improve health equity (43%).
conclusionsThis RIA study highlights the importance of stakeholder collaboration, robust partnerships and co-design approaches in effectively integrating patient-centred digital health solutions into health systems. These elements are key to advancing the Quintuple Aim (improved cost, population health and equity and experience of patients and providers) and supporting evidence-informed decisions. This paper presents a first case study applying the CAHS and CHSPRA frameworks to assess the impacts of a large digital health funding program. Further, it explores the program's outcomes and impacts and highlights considerations, successes and challenges for funders when applying RIA.
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.