ArticleHealth research policy and systems2025
Framework development of the social impact of medical research utilization: Fuzzy Delphi approach.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical research plays an important role in increasing and improving the health of society. Utilizing the results of research will enable the provision of both material and spiritual support for research centres. It is essential to establish mechanisms for effective communication between researchers and officials. It is of great importance to pay attention to tools that facilitate the process of conducting this research. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop the framework of the social impact of medical research utilization (SIMRU).
methodsThe study is applied in purpose and qualitative in analysis, utilizing a fuzzy Delphi approach with a panel of 25 experts. A purposeful and snowball sampling method was employed. The questionnaire consisted of two rounds of Delphi assessments, divided into three sections: Demographics, Core Variables (measured on a 5-point Likert scale) and Open-Ended Responses. It was developed using a meta-synthesis approach and expert consultations, incorporating feedback for clarity. A pilot test with 13 participants confirmed the reliability (Cronbach's alpha: 0.987 and 0.974) and content validity through expert reviews.
resultsFrom the initial set of 147 basic themes identified during the meta-synthesis, the conceptual framework of the social impact of medical research utilization - comprising 6 contextual themes, 11 global themes, 20 organizing themes and 103 basic themes - represents the layers of the social impact of medical research utilization and was approved by experts. These contextual themes include knowledge governance and research, knowledge production and exchange, knowledge dissemination and transfer, knowledge mobilization, knowledge popularization and knowledge utilization.
conclusionsThe results of this research support policy-makers in higher education by improving research management and policy-making processes through consideration of the social impact of research and by informing the development of necessary strategies to enhance community health. Additionally, these finding can help universities and research centres measure research activities and knowledge popularization dissemination more effectively while strengthening the connection between researchers and their target audiences. This research fills a significant gap by introducing social impact indicators and science promotion in medical research for the first time, demonstrating innovation in both the chosen topic and research methodology.
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.