Deeming Simon, Searles Andrew, Reeves Penny, Nilsson Michael
Hunter Medical Research Institute, Lot 1, Kookaburra Circuit, New Lambton Heights, Newcastle, 2305, NSW, Australia.
School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, Newcastle, 2308, NSW, Australia.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Mar 21;15(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0180-1.
Realising the economic potential of research institutions, including medical research institutes, represents a policy imperative for many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations. The assessment of research impact has consequently drawn increasing attention. Research impact assessment frameworks (RIAFs) provide a structure to assess research translation, but minimal research has examined whether alternative RIAFs realise the intended policy outcomes. This paper examines the objectives presented for RIAFs in light of economic imperatives to justify ongoing support for health and medical research investment, leverage productivity via commercialisation and outcome-efficiency gains in health systems, and ensure that translation and impact considerations are embedded into the research process. This paper sought to list the stated objectives for RIAFs, to identify existing frameworks and to evaluate whether the identified frameworks possessed the capabilities necessary to address the specified objectives.
A scoping review of the literature to identify objectives specified for RIAFs, inform upon descriptive criteria for each objective and identify existing RIAFs. Criteria were derived for each objective. The capability for the existing RIAFs to realise the alternative objectives was evaluated based upon these criteria.
The collated objectives for RIAFs included accountability (top-down), transparency/accountability (bottom-up), advocacy, steering, value for money, management/learning and feedback/allocation, prospective orientation, and speed of translation. Of the 25 RIAFs identified, most satisfied objectives such as accountability and advocacy, which are largely sufficient for the first economic imperative to justify research investment. The frameworks primarily designed to optimise the speed of translation or enable the prospective orientation of research possessed qualities most likely to optimise the productive outcomes from research. However, the results show that few frameworks met the criteria for these objectives.
It is imperative that the objective(s) for an assessment framework are explicit and that RIAFs are designed to realise these objectives. If the objectives include the capability to pro-actively drive productive research impacts, the potential for prospective orientation and a focus upon the speed of translation merits prioritisation. Frameworks designed to optimise research translation and impact, rather than simply assess impact, offer greater promise to contribute to the economic imperatives compelling their implementation.
挖掘包括医学研究机构在内的研究机构的经济潜力，是许多经济合作与发展组织国家的一项政策要务。因此，研究影响评估越来越受到关注。研究影响评估框架（RIAFs）为评估研究转化提供了一个结构，但极少有研究探讨替代的RIAFs是否能实现预期的政策成果。本文根据经济要务审视了RIAFs提出的目标，以证明持续支持健康和医学研究投资的合理性，通过商业化提高生产力以及在卫生系统中实现成果效率提升，并确保将转化和影响因素纳入研究过程。本文旨在列出RIAFs的既定目标，识别现有的框架，并评估所识别的框架是否具备实现特定目标所需的能力。
对文献进行范围综述，以确定为RIAFs规定的目标，为每个目标提供描述性标准，并识别现有的RIAFs。为每个目标制定了标准。根据这些标准评估现有RIAFs实现替代目标的能力。
整理出的RIAFs目标包括问责制（自上而下）、透明度/问责制（自下而上）、宣传、指导、资金价值、管理/学习与反馈/分配、前瞻性导向以及转化速度。在所识别的25个RIAFs中，大多数满足问责制和宣传等目标，这些目标在很大程度上足以满足证明研究投资合理性的首要经济要务。主要旨在优化转化速度或实现研究前瞻性导向的框架具备最有可能优化研究生产性成果的特质。然而，结果表明，很少有框架符合这些目标的标准。
评估框架的目标必须明确，并且RIAFs应设计为实现这些目标。如果目标包括积极推动生产性研究影响的能力，那么前瞻性导向的潜力以及对转化速度的关注值得优先考虑。旨在优化研究转化和影响而非仅仅评估影响的框架，更有希望为促使其实施的经济要务做出贡献。
