Alla Kristel, Hall Wayne D, Whiteford Harvey A, Head Brian W, Meurk Carla S
School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston, QLD, 4006, Australia.
Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research, The Park Centre for Mental Health, Locked Bag, Archerfield, QLD, 4108, Australia.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Oct 2;15(1):84. doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0247-z.
In order to understand and measure the policy impact of research we need a definition of research impact that is suited to the task. This article systematically reviewed both peer-reviewed and grey literature for definitions of research impact to develop a definition of research impact that can be used to investigate how public health research influences policy.
Keyword searches of the electronic databases Web of Science, ProQuest, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Informit, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Google Scholar were conducted between August 2015 and April 2016. Keywords included 'definition' and 'policy' and 'research impact' or 'research evidence'. The search terms 'health', public health' or 'mental health' and 'knowledge transfer' or 'research translation' were used to focus the search on relevant health discipline approaches. Studies included in the review described processes, theories or frameworks associated with public health, health services or mental health policy.
We identified 108 definitions in 83 publications. The key findings were that literature on research impact is growing, but only 23% of peer-reviewed publications on the topic explicitly defined the term and that the majority (76%) of definitions were derived from research organisations and funding institutions. We identified four main types of definition, namely (1) definitions that conceptualise research impacts in terms of positive changes or effects that evidence can bring about when transferred into policies (example Research Excellence Framework definition), (2) definitions that interpret research impacts as measurable outcomes (Research Councils UK), and (3) bibliometric and (4) use-based definitions. We identified four constructs underpinning these definitions that related to concepts of contribution, change, avenues and levels of impact.
The dominance of bureaucratic definitions, the tendency to discuss but not define the concept of research impact, and the heterogeneity of definitions confirm the need for conceptual clarity in this area. We propose a working definition of research impact that can be used in a range of health policy contexts.
为了理解和衡量研究的政策影响,我们需要一个适合该任务的研究影响定义。本文系统回顾了同行评审文献和灰色文献中关于研究影响的定义,以制定一个可用于调查公共卫生研究如何影响政策的研究影响定义。
于2015年8月至2016年4月期间,在电子数据库Web of Science、ProQuest、PubMed、EMBASE、CINAHL、Informit、PsycINFO、Cochrane系统评价数据库和谷歌学术中进行关键词搜索。关键词包括“定义”、“政策”以及“研究影响”或“研究证据”。搜索词“健康”、“公共卫生”或“精神卫生”以及“知识转移”或“研究转化”用于将搜索重点放在相关卫生学科方法上。纳入综述的研究描述了与公共卫生、卫生服务或精神卫生政策相关的过程、理论或框架。
我们在83篇出版物中确定了108个定义。主要发现是,关于研究影响的文献在不断增加,但该主题的同行评审出版物中只有23%明确界定了该术语,并且大多数(76%)定义来自研究组织和资助机构。我们确定了四种主要类型的定义,即:(1)将研究影响概念化为证据在转化为政策时所能带来的积极变化或效果的定义(例如卓越研究框架定义);(2)将研究影响解释为可衡量结果的定义(英国研究理事会);(3)文献计量学定义;以及(4)基于使用的定义。我们确定了支撑这些定义的四个构建要素,它们与贡献、变化、影响途径和影响水平的概念相关。
官僚定义占主导地位、讨论但不界定研究影响概念的倾向以及定义的异质性,都证实了该领域在概念上需要清晰明确。我们提出了一个可在一系列卫生政策背景中使用的研究影响工作定义。