Guthrie Susan, Krapels Joachim, Adams Alexandra, Alberti Philip, Bonham Ann, Garrod Bryn, Esmond Sarah, Scott Caitlin, Cochrane Gavin, Wooding Steven
S. Guthrie is research leader, RAND Europe, Cambridge, United Kingdom. J. Krapels is senior analyst, RAND Europe, Cambridge, United Kingdom; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0891-6083. A. Adams is director, Center for American Indian and Rural Health Equity, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana. At the time of the research presented here, she served as director, Collaborative Center for Health Equity, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. P. Alberti is senior director, Health Equity Research and Policy, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC. A. Bonham is former chief scientific officer, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC. B. Garrod is senior analyst, RAND Europe, Cambridge, United Kingdom; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7634-2590. S. Esmond is administrative director, Collaborative Center for Health Equity, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. C. Scott is health equity outreach specialist, Collaborative Center for Health Equity, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. G. Cochrane is senior analyst, RAND Europe, Cambridge, United Kingdom. S. Wooding is lead for research and analysis, Centre for Science and Policy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8036-1054.
Acad Med. 2017 Oct;92(10):1456-1463. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001769.
Assessing the impact of research requires an approach that is sensitive both to the context of the research and the perspective of the stakeholders trying to understand its benefits. Here, the authors report on a pilot that applied such an approach to research conducted at the Collaborative Center for Health Equity (CCHE) of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health.
The pilot assessed the academic impact of CCHE's work; the networks between CCHE and community partners; and the reach of CCHE's programs, including an attempt to estimate return on investment (ROI). Data included bibliometrics, findings from a stakeholder survey and in-depth interviews, and financial figures.
The pilot illustrated how CCHE programs increase the capacity of community partners to advocate for their communities and engage with researchers to ensure that research benefits the community. The results illustrate the reach of CCHE's programs into the community. The authors produced an estimate of the ROI for one CCHE program targeting childhood obesity, and values ranged from negative to positive.
The authors experienced challenges using novel assessment techniques at a small scale including the lack of comparator groups and the scarcity of cost data for estimating ROI. This pilot demonstrated the value of research from a variety of perspectives-from academic to community. It illustrates how metrics beyond grant income and publications can capture the outputs of an academic health center in a way that may better align with the aims of the center and stakeholders.
评估研究的影响需要一种既对研究背景敏感，又对试图理解其益处的利益相关者观点敏感的方法。在此，作者报告了一项试点项目，该项目将这种方法应用于威斯康星大学医学院和公共卫生学院健康公平协作中心（CCHE）开展的研究。
该试点评估了CCHE工作的学术影响；CCHE与社区伙伴之间的网络；以及CCHE项目的覆盖范围，包括尝试估算投资回报率（ROI）。数据包括文献计量学、利益相关者调查和深入访谈的结果以及财务数据。
该试点说明了CCHE项目如何提高社区伙伴为其社区发声并与研究人员合作以确保研究造福社区的能力。结果展示了CCHE项目在社区中的覆盖范围。作者对CCHE一个针对儿童肥胖的项目的投资回报率进行了估算，数值范围从负到正。
作者在小规模使用新颖评估技术时遇到了挑战，包括缺乏对照组以及估算投资回报率的成本数据稀缺。该试点从学术到社区等各种角度展示了研究的价值。它说明了除资助收入和出版物之外的指标如何能够以一种可能更好地与中心及利益相关者目标相一致的方式来体现学术健康中心的产出。
