What funders are doing to assess the impact of their investments in health and biomedical research

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.

Impacto das pesquisas do Programa de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Institucional do Sistema Único de Saúde

RESUMO Mensurar o impacto do investimento em pesquisas contribui para a compreensão do alcance dos resultados nos sistemas de saúde e para o direcionamento de recursos para áreas prioritárias. Este estudo avaliou o impacto na dimensão ‘avanços no conhecimento’ produzido pelas pesquisas em saúde financiadas pelo Programa de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Institucional do Sistema Único de Saúde (Proadi-SUS), no período de 2009 a 2014, no Brasil. Trata-se de pesquisa avaliativa, que utilizou o modelo adaptado de avaliação de pesquisas em saúde da Canadian Academy of Health Sciences (CAHS), a partir de análise documental dos registros de acompanhamento de projetos e relatórios de prestação de contas apresentados pelas instituições executoras das pesquisas. Foram investidos R$ 66,49 milhões em 46 pesquisas, em 12 áreas temáticas, distribuídas em cinco tipos de estudos, principalmente em cardiologia. Foram identificados produtos de 28 projetos (60,8%). Observou-se potencial avanço do conhecimento no campo das doenças crônicas. A transferência dos conhecimentos gerados por essas pesquisas e o impacto do investimento nas categorias tomada de decisão informada e benefícios ao setor saúde não foram mensurados e permanecem como desafios para a efetiva avaliação do programa. Estudos que avaliem a aplicação das evidências produzidas na prática clínica e na gestão podem contribuir para a compreensão da medida do impacto das pesquisas financiadas pelo Proadi-SUS em outras dimensões.

ISRIA statement: ten-point guidelines for an effective process of research impact assessment

As governments, funding agencies and research organisations worldwide seek to maximise both the financial and non-financial returns on investment in research, the way the research process is organised and funded is becoming increasingly under scrutiny. There are growing demands and aspirations to measure research impact (beyond academic publications), to understand how science works, and to optimise its societal and economic impact. In response, a multidisciplinary practice called research impact assessment is rapidly developing. Given that the practice is still in its formative stage, systematised recommendations or accepted standards for practitioners (such as funders and those responsible for managing research projects) across countries or disciplines to guide research impact assessment are not yet available.In this statement, we propose initial guidelines for a rigorous and effective process of research impact assessment applicable to all research disciplines and oriented towards practice. This statement systematises expert knowledge and practitioner experience from designing and delivering the International School on Research Impact Assessment (ISRIA). It brings together insights from over 450 experts and practitioners from 34 countries, who participated in the school during its 5-year run (from 2013 to 2017) and shares a set of core values from the school's learning programme. These insights are distilled into ten-point guidelines, which relate to (1) context, (2) purpose, (3) stakeholders' needs, (4) stakeholder engagement, (5) conceptual frameworks, (6) methods and data sources, (7) indicators and metrics, (8) ethics and conflicts of interest, (9) communication, and (10) community of practice.The guidelines can help practitioners improve and standardise the process of research impact assessment, but they are by no means exhaustive and require evaluation and continuous improvement. The prima facie effectiveness of the guidelines is based on the systematised expert and practitioner knowledge of the school's faculty and participants derived from their practical experience and research evidence. The current knowledge base has gaps in terms of the geographical and scientific discipline as well as stakeholder coverage and representation. The guidelines can be further strengthened through evaluation and continuous improvement by the global research impact assessment community.

Processos e desafios da interação entre pesquisa e política na perspectiva dos pesquisadores

Resumo As políticas informadas por evidências podem produzir impactos sociais e econômicos e benefícios na equidade e na saúde. A interação dos pesquisadores na política depende de interesses dos atores sociais e de ambientes políticos favoráveis. Este artigo busca compreender os significados e as perspectivas de pesquisadores sobre os processos de interação entre cientistas e tomadores de decisão que influenciam o impacto da pesquisa na política de saúde. Trata-se de estudo qualitativo, realizado em 2014, de análise de conteúdo para identificar os núcleos de sentido e as relações entre a pesquisa e a política. Baseou-se na abordagem do programa RAPID da Overseas Development Institute. Foram entrevistados 14 pesquisadores de projetos sobre morbimortalidade materna e neonatal financiados pelo Ministério da Saúde. Os pesquisadores orientaram-se para a produção de conhecimentos, o fortalecimento de capacidades de pesquisa e a divulgação dos resultados. Participaram, em algumas ocasiões, da definição de políticas de cuidado clínico e desempenho dos serviços de saúde. Apontaram barreiras para interatuar e produzir impactos na política devido às tensões do contexto político, econômico e social, às mudanças institucionais e organizacionais no setor saúde, e ao sistema de avaliação acadêmica.

The impact on healthcare, policy and practice from 36 multi-project research programmes: findings from two reviews

BACKGROUND

We sought to analyse the impacts found, and the methods used, in a series of assessments of programmes and portfolios of health research consisting of multiple projects.

METHODS

We analysed a sample of 36 impact studies of multi-project research programmes, selected from a wider sample of impact studies included in two narrative systematic reviews published in 2007 and 2016. We included impact studies in which the individual projects in a programme had been assessed for wider impact, especially on policy or practice, and where findings had been described in such a way that allowed them to be collated and compared.

RESULTS

Included programmes were highly diverse in terms of location (11 different countries plus two multi-country ones), number of component projects (8 to 178), nature of the programme, research field, mode of funding, time between completion and impact assessment, methods used to assess impact, and level of impact identified. Thirty-one studies reported on policy impact, 17 on clinician behaviour or informing clinical practice, three on a combined category such as policy and clinician impact, and 12 on wider elements of impact (health gain, patient benefit, improved care or other benefits to the healthcare system). In those multi-programme projects that assessed the respective categories, the percentage of projects that reported some impact was policy 35% (range 5-100%), practice 32% (10-69%), combined category 64% (60-67%), and health gain/health services 27% (6-48%). Variations in levels of impact achieved partly reflected differences in the types of programme, levels of collaboration with users, and methods and timing of impact assessment. Most commonly, principal investigators were surveyed; some studies involved desk research and some interviews with investigators and/or stakeholders. Most studies used a conceptual framework such as the Payback Framework. One study attempted to assess the monetary value of a research programme's health gain.

CONCLUSION

The widespread impact reported for some multi-project programmes, including needs-led and collaborative ones, could potentially be used to promote further research funding. Moves towards greater standardisation of assessment methods could address existing inconsistencies and better inform strategic decisions about research investment; however, unresolved issues about such moves remain.