Hanney S R, Home P D, Frame I, Grant J, Green P, Buxton M J
Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK.
Diabet Med. 2006 Feb;23(2):176-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01753.x.
Assessment of the impact of health research is a growing but problematic field. We examined how a combination of approaches might together inform assessment of the impact of a body of diabetes research published in 1981 and help identify factors behind success.
Three broad approaches were applied to the work of one team leader of acknowledged influence. Standard bibliographic analysis was complemented by a second approach which categorized the importance of the primary publications to the papers citing them, in four domains. In parallel, a third approach involved qualitative assessment using surveys, critical pathway analysis by, and interviews of, co-authors and external experts. Extending the approach incorporated key additional publications from other years.
In 1981, the team leader published 29 papers. Citations to these 29 first generation papers varied from 1 to 76 and resulted in 799 second generation papers. Citations to these produced 12 891 third generation papers. Analysis of second generation papers suggested the cited first generation paper was thought to be of considerable or essential significance in only 9% of cases. While much research made little impact, qualitative analysis included a wealth of information, sometimes missed by standard bibliographic techniques, on where the identified research influenced important streams of clinical development. Analysis covered major research studies (such as the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial), insulin pump therapy, and career development of co-authors.
Understanding the impact of research requires multiple approaches. With refinement, these techniques could be employed more widely and potentially could inform research policy.
评估健康研究的影响是一个不断发展但存在问题的领域。我们研究了多种方法如何共同为评估1981年发表的一批糖尿病研究的影响提供信息,并帮助确定成功背后的因素。
对一位具有公认影响力的团队负责人的工作采用了三种广泛的方法。标准文献分析辅以第二种方法,该方法在四个领域将主要出版物对引用它们的论文的重要性进行了分类。同时,第三种方法涉及使用调查进行定性评估、共同作者和外部专家的关键路径分析以及访谈。扩展该方法纳入了其他年份的关键补充出版物。
1981年,该团队负责人发表了29篇论文。对这29篇第一代论文的引用次数从1到76不等,产生了799篇第二代论文。对这些第二代论文的引用产生了12891篇第三代论文。对第二代论文的分析表明,在仅9%的案例中,被引用的第一代论文被认为具有相当大或至关重要的意义。虽然许多研究影响甚微,但定性分析包含了大量标准文献技术有时会遗漏的信息,涉及已确定的研究在何处影响了临床发展的重要方向。分析涵盖了主要研究(如糖尿病控制与并发症试验)、胰岛素泵治疗以及共同作者的职业发展。
理解研究的影响需要多种方法。经过完善,这些技术可以更广泛地应用,并有可能为研究政策提供信息。