Hunter Medical Research Institute, Lot 1, Kookaburra Circuit, New Lambton Heights, NSW, 2305, Australia.
School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Mar 16;16(1):28. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0300-6.
The question of how to measure, assess and optimise the returns from investment in health and medical research (HMR) is a highly policy-relevant issue. Research Impact Assessment Frameworks (RIAFs) provide a conceptual measurement framework to assess the impact from HMR. The aims of this study were (1) to elicit the views of Medical Research Institutes (MRIs) regarding objectives, definitions, methods, barriers, potential scope and attitudes towards RIAFs, and (2) to investigate whether an assessment framework should represent a retrospective reflection of research impact or a prospective approach integrated into the research process. The wider objective was to inform the development of a draft RIAF for Australia's MRIs.
Purposive sampling to derive a heterogeneous sample of Australian MRIs was used alongside semi-structured interviews with senior executives responsible for research translation or senior researchers affected by research impact initiatives. Thematic analysis of the interview transcriptions using the framework approach was then performed.
Interviews were conducted with senior representatives from 15 MRIs. Participants understood the need for greater research translation/impact, but varied in their comprehension and implementation of RIAFs. Common concerns included the time lag to the generation of societal impacts from basic or discovery science, and whether impact reflected a narrow commercialisation agenda. Broad support emerged for the use of metrics, case study and economic methods. Support was also provided for the rationale of both standardised and customised metrics. Engendering cultural change in the approach to research translation was acknowledged as both a barrier to greater impact and a critical objective for the assessment process. Participants perceived that the existing research environment incentivised the generation of academic publications and track records, and often conflicted with the generation of wider impacts. The potential to improve the speed of translation through prospective implementation of impact assessment was supported, albeit that the mechanism required development.
The study found that the issues raised regarding research impact assessment are less about methods and metrics, and more about the research activities that the measurement of research translation and impact may or may not incentivise. Consequently, if impact assessment is to contribute to optimisation of the health gains from the public, corporate and philanthropic investment entrusted to the institutes, then further inquiry into how the assessment process may re-align research behaviour must be prioritised.
如何衡量、评估和优化医疗研究投资的回报是一个高度与政策相关的问题。研究影响评估框架（RIAFs）提供了一个概念性的衡量框架，用于评估 HMR 的影响。本研究的目的是：（1）了解医学研究所（MRIs）对 RIAFs 的目标、定义、方法、障碍、潜在范围和态度的看法；（2）探讨评估框架是否应代表对研究影响的回顾性反思，还是应作为前瞻性方法融入研究过程。更广泛的目标是为澳大利亚 MRI 的 RIAF 草案提供信息。
采用目的抽样，从澳大利亚的 MRI 中获得异质样本，同时对负责研究转化或受研究影响计划影响的高级研究人员进行半结构化访谈。然后使用框架方法对访谈记录进行主题分析。
对 15 家 MRI 的高级代表进行了访谈。参与者理解需要更多的研究转化/影响，但对 RIAFs 的理解和实施存在差异。共同关注的问题包括基础或发现科学产生社会影响的时间滞后，以及影响是否反映了狭隘的商业化议程。广泛支持使用指标、案例研究和经济方法。也为标准化和定制指标的基本原理提供了支持。研究翻译方法中的文化变革被认为既是更大影响的障碍，也是评估过程的关键目标。参与者认为，现有的研究环境激励了学术出版物和记录的产生，并且经常与更广泛影响的产生相冲突。尽管需要进一步开发，但通过前瞻性实施影响评估来提高转化速度的潜力得到了支持。
该研究发现，研究影响评估中提出的问题与其说是方法和指标，不如说是与衡量研究转化和影响可能激励或不激励的研究活动有关。因此，如果影响评估要有助于优化研究所受公共、企业和慈善投资的健康收益，那么必须优先考虑进一步研究评估过程如何重新调整研究行为。
