Guthrie Susan, Cochrane Gavin, Deshpande Advait, Macaluso Benoit, Larivière Vincent
RAND Europe, Westbrook Centre, Milton Road, Cambridge , CB4 1YG , UK.
Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, University of Quebec at Montreal, 1205 St. Denis Street, Montréal, Québec, H2X 3R9, Canada.
F1000Res. 2019 Jul 15;8:1093. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.18757.1. eCollection 2019.
There is an increasing need to understand the wider impacts of research on society and the economy. For health research, a key focus is understanding the impact of research on practice and ultimately on patient outcomes. This can be challenging to measure, but one useful proxy for changes in practice is impact on guidelines. The aim of this study is to map the contribution of UK research and UK research funders to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) public health guidelines, understanding areas of strengths and weakness and the level of collaboration and coordination across countries and between funders. The work consisted of two main elements: analysis of the references cited on NICE guidelines and interviews with experts in public health. Across the papers cited on 62 NICE public health guidelines, we find that 28% of the papers matched include at least one UK affiliation, which is relatively high when compared to other health fields. In total, 165 unique funders were identified with more than three acknowledgements, based in 20 countries. 68% of papers which acknowledge funding cite at least one UK funder, and NIHR is the most highly cited funder in the sample. The UK makes an important contribution to public health research cited on NICE PH guidelines, although the research does not appear to be bibliometrically distinct from other research sectors, other than having a relatively low level of international collaboration. However, the extent to which NICE public health guidelines reflect practice at the local authority level is less clear. More research is needed to understand the sources of evidence to support public health decision making at the local level and how NICE guidance can be made more applicable, timely and accessible in this new context.
人们越来越需要了解研究对社会和经济更广泛的影响。对于健康研究而言，一个关键重点是理解研究对实践以及最终对患者结局的影响。这可能难以衡量，但实践变化的一个有用替代指标是对指南的影响。本研究的目的是梳理英国研究及英国研究资助者对国家卫生与临床优化研究所（NICE）公共卫生指南的贡献，了解优势和劣势领域以及各国之间和资助者之间的合作与协调水平。这项工作包括两个主要部分：对NICE指南中引用的参考文献进行分析以及对公共卫生专家进行访谈。在62项NICE公共卫生指南引用的论文中，我们发现匹配的论文中有28%至少有一个英国机构参与，与其他健康领域相比这一比例相对较高。总共识别出165个有超过三次致谢的独特资助者，分布在20个国家。在致谢有资助的论文中，68%至少引用了一个英国资助者，在样本中英国国家卫生研究院（NIHR）是被引用最多的资助者。英国对NICE公共卫生指南中引用的公共卫生研究做出了重要贡献，尽管除了国际合作水平相对较低外，该研究在文献计量学上似乎与其他研究领域没有明显区别。然而，NICE公共卫生指南在地方当局层面反映实践的程度尚不清楚。需要更多研究来了解支持地方层面公共卫生决策的证据来源，以及如何使NICE指南在这一新背景下更具适用性、及时性和可获取性。
