A.C. Bonham is immediate past chief scientific officer, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC. P.M. Alberti is senior director, Health Equity Research and Policy, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC.
Acad Med. 2017 Oct;92(10):1375-1377. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001639.
Assessing and communicating the full value of biomedical research is essential to answer calls from the government and the public demanding accountability for the spending of public funds. In academic settings, however, research success is measured largely in terms of grant funding received or the number of peer-reviewed publications produced. These credible and time-tested metrics miss the full picture of the scientific process, which continues to confer benefits to patients, communities, and the health care system well after an article is published. In this context, in 2012, the Association of American Medical Colleges, in collaboration with RAND Europe, initiated a program to provide resources and guidance for leaders of medical schools and teaching hospitals interested in evaluating-in novel ways complementary to traditional methods-the outcomes and impacts of the research that emanates from their institutions. This Perspective provides context for this initiative and delineates the process through which researchers, evaluation experts, and other stakeholders-including legislators, health system leaders, and community members-identified and vetted novel "metrics that matter" in advance of a pilot test at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which sought to assess and communicate its community-engaged science and scholarship.
评估和传播生物医学研究的全部价值对于回应政府和公众的呼吁至关重要，这些呼吁要求对公共资金的使用负责。然而，在学术环境中，研究成功主要以获得的资助资金或发表的同行评审出版物数量来衡量。这些可靠且经过时间考验的指标并未全面反映科学过程，因为在文章发表后，科学过程仍在持续为患者、社区和医疗保健系统带来益处。有鉴于此，2012 年，美国医学院协会与 RAND 欧洲合作，启动了一项计划，为有兴趣以新颖方式（与传统方法相辅相成）评估其机构产生的研究成果和影响的医学院和教学医院的领导提供资源和指导。本观点为这一举措提供了背景，并阐述了研究人员、评估专家和其他利益相关者（包括立法者、医疗系统领导者和社区成员）确定和审查新颖的“重要指标”的过程，这些指标在威斯康星大学麦迪逊分校的试点测试之前进行了预先筛选，该测试旨在评估和传播其社区参与的科学和学术。
