A societal outcomes map for health research and policy

Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment programme

BACKGROUND

This report reviews approaches and tools for measuring the impact of research programmes, building on, and extending, a 2007 review.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To identify the range of theoretical models and empirical approaches for measuring the impact of health research programmes; (2) to develop a taxonomy of models and approaches; (3) to summarise the evidence on the application and use of these models; and (4) to evaluate the different options for the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme.

DATA SOURCES

We searched databases including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and The Cochrane Library from January 2005 to August 2014.

REVIEW METHODS

This narrative systematic literature review comprised an update, extension and analysis/discussion. We systematically searched eight databases, supplemented by personal knowledge, in August 2014 through to March 2015.

RESULTS

The literature on impact assessment has much expanded. The Payback Framework, with adaptations, remains the most widely used approach. It draws on different philosophical traditions, enhancing an underlying logic model with an interpretative case study element and attention to context. Besides the logic model, other ideal type approaches included constructionist, realist, critical and performative. Most models in practice drew pragmatically on elements of several ideal types. Monetisation of impact, an increasingly popular approach, shows a high return from research but relies heavily on assumptions about the extent to which health gains depend on research. Despite usually requiring systematic reviews before funding trials, the HTA programme does not routinely examine the impact of those trials on subsequent systematic reviews. The York/Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation toolkits provide ways of assessing such impact, but need to be evaluated. The literature, as reviewed here, provides very few instances of a randomised trial playing a major role in stopping the use of a new technology. The few trials funded by the HTA programme that may have played such a role were outliers.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this review support the continued use of the Payback Framework by the HTA programme. Changes in the structure of the NHS, the development of NHS England and changes in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's remit pose new challenges for identifying and meeting current and future research needs. Future assessments of the impact of the HTA programme will have to take account of wider changes, especially as the Research Excellence Framework (REF), which assesses the quality of universities' research, seems likely to continue to rely on case studies to measure impact. The HTA programme should consider how the format and selection of case studies might be improved to aid more systematic assessment. The selection of case studies, such as in the REF, but also more generally, tends to be biased towards high-impact rather than low-impact stories. Experience for other industries indicate that much can be learnt from the latter. The adoption of researchfish^® (researchfish Ltd, Cambridge, UK) by most major UK research funders has implications for future assessments of impact. Although the routine capture of indexed research publications has merit, the degree to which researchfish will succeed in collecting other, non-indexed outputs and activities remains to be established.

LIMITATIONS

There were limitations in how far we could address challenges that faced us as we extended the focus beyond that of the 2007 review, and well beyond a narrow focus just on the HTA programme.

CONCLUSIONS

Research funders can benefit from continuing to monitor and evaluate the impacts of the studies they fund. They should also review the contribution of case studies and expand work on linking trials to meta-analyses and to guidelines.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.

Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention Policies in the United States: Evidence and Opportunities

Policies are an important part of public health interventions, including in the area of sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention. Similar to other tools used in public health, policies are often evaluated to determine their usefulness. Therefore, we conducted a nonsystematic review of policy evidence for STD prevention. Our review considers assessments or evaluations of STD prevention-specific policies, health care system policies, and other, broader policies that have the potential to impact STD prevention through social determinants of health. We also describe potential policy opportunity in these areas. It should be noted that we found gaps in policy evidence for some areas; thus, additional research would be useful for public health policy interventions for STD prevention.

Outcome mapping for health system integration

Health systems around the world are implementing integrated care strategies to improve quality, reduce or maintain costs, and improve the patient experience. Yet few practical tools exist to aid leaders and managers in building the prerequisites to integrated care, namely a shared vision, clear roles and responsibilities, and a common understanding of how the vision will be realized. Outcome mapping may facilitate stakeholder alignment on the vision, roles, and processes of integrated care delivery via participative and focused dialogue among diverse stakeholders on desired outcomes and enabling actions. In this paper, we describe an outcome-mapping exercise we conducted at a Local Health Integration Network in Ontario, Canada, using consensus development conferences. Our preliminary findings suggest that outcome mapping may help stakeholders make sense of a complex system and foster collaborative capital, a resource that can support information sharing, trust, and coordinated change toward integration across organizational and professional boundaries. Drawing from the theoretical perspectives of complex adaptive systems and collaborative capital, we also outline recommendations for future outcome-mapping exercises. In particular, we emphasize the potential for outcome mapping to be used as a tool not only for identifying and linking strategic outcomes and actions, but also for studying the boundaries, gaps, and ties that characterize social networks across the continuum of care.

Paths to success: optimal and equitable health outcomes for all

Abstract:U.S. health disparities are real, pervasive, and persistent, despite dramatic improvements in civil rights and economic opportunity for racial and ethnic minority and lower socioeconomic groups in the United States. Change is possible, however. Disparities vary widely from one community to another, suggesting that they are not inevitable. Some communities even show paradoxically good outcomes and relative health equity despite significant social inequities. A few communities have even improved from high disparities to more equitable and optimal health outcomes. These positive-deviance communities show that disparities can be overcome and that health equity is achievable. Research must shift from defining the problem (including causes and risk factors) to testing effective interventions, informed by the natural experiments of what has worked in communities that are already moving toward health equity. At the local level, we need multi-dimensional interventions designed in partnership with communities and continuously improved by rapid-cycle surveillance feedback loops of community-level disparities metrics. Similarly coordinated strategies are needed at state and national levels to take success to scale. We propose ten specific steps to follow on a health equity path toward optimal and equitable health outcomes for all Americans.

Systematic review of methods for evaluating healthcare research economic impact

BACKGROUND

The economic benefits of healthcare research require study so that appropriate resources can be allocated to this research, particularly in developing countries. As a first step, we performed a systematic review to identify the methods used to assess the economic impact of healthcare research, and the outcomes.

METHOD

An electronic search was conducted in relevant databases using a combination of specific keywords. In addition, 21 relevant Web sites were identified.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 8,416 articles. After studying titles, abstracts, and full texts, 18 articles were included in the analysis. Eleven other reports were found on Web sites. We found that the outcomes assessed as healthcare research payback included direct cost-savings, cost reductions in healthcare delivery systems, benefits from commercial advancement, and outcomes associated with improved health status. Two methods were used to study healthcare research payback: macro-economic studies, which examine the relationship between research studies and economic outcome at the aggregated level, and case studies, which examine specific research projects to assess economic impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that different methods and outcomes can be used to assess the economic impacts of healthcare research. There is no unique methodological approach for the economic evaluation of such research. In our systematic search we found no research that had evaluated the economic return of research in low and middle income countries. We therefore recommend a consensus on practical guidelines at international level on the basis of more comprehensive methodologies (such as Canadian Academic of Health Science and payback frameworks) in order to build capacity, arrange for necessary informative infrastructures and promote necessary skills for economic evaluation studies.