College of Science and Engineering, University of Derby, Derby, DE22 1GB, UK.
Evaluation and Analysis Team, Medical Research Council, Swindon, SN2 1FL, UK.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Oct 29;24(1):1305. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11664-y.
Documentation of research outcomes using impact case studies (ICS) is increasingly required to demonstrate the wider societal benefits of research. However, there is limited evidence of the best way to communicate research outcomes using ICS, especially when highlighting research impact that is not part of a research assessment programme. This study aims, for the first time, to analyse expectations, and methods of communicating impact from medical research across a varied set of stakeholders relevant to the Medical Research Council (MRC).
Impact narratives about outcomes and impact from MRC research were evaluated using an online survey and in depth semi-structured interviews. Participants were recruited from internal MRC databases and included early career and senior management academics as well as representatives from industry, healthcare, charities, and the government. Informed consent was gained prior to data collection and the study was approved by the university's research ethics committee. Qualitative and quantitative analysis determined stakeholder preferences for ICS content, language and presentation as well as capturing themes and perspectives on the concept of research impact.
193 participants responded to the online survey exploring definitions of impact and methods of communicating medical research outcomes. The work uncovered expectations of improved health and wellbeing as well as knowledge generation via publications and citations. In depth interviews with sixteen participants demonstrated preferences for clear, easy to read content that focused on facts and evidence and avoided both academic and hyperbolic language. Emergent themes from this work revealed that ICS need to quickly capture imagination and grab attention, while the views and expectations are quite different to press releases and are audience specific.
The content of ICS often focuses on non-academic impacts; however this work highlighted that evidence of academic impacts were outcomes highly valued by stakeholders relevant to the MRC. This work examined a new typology of ICS attributes, which emphasised that the language and presentation of impact narratives can influence the perception of research outcomes, providing useful information for individuals and organisations using ICS to showcase their research. It also shows that if ICS attempt to communicate challenges and issues around achieving impact from research, they may be more credible and useful to their intended audience.
越来越多的人需要使用影响案例研究（ICS）来记录研究成果，以展示研究对社会的广泛益处。然而，关于如何使用 ICS 来交流研究成果，尤其是在突出研究评估计划之外的研究影响方面，证据有限。本研究首次旨在分析在涉及医学研究理事会（MRC）的各种利益相关者中，对来自医学研究的结果和影响的期望以及沟通方式。
使用在线调查和深入的半结构化访谈评估 MRC 研究的影响叙述。参与者从 MRC 的内部数据库中招募，包括早期职业和高级管理人员以及来自工业、医疗保健、慈善机构和政府的代表。在收集数据之前获得了知情同意，并且该研究得到了大学研究伦理委员会的批准。定性和定量分析确定了利益相关者对 ICS 内容、语言和表达的偏好，以及对研究影响概念的主题和观点的捕捉。
有 193 名参与者对在线调查做出了回应，该调查探讨了影响的定义和交流医学研究成果的方法。这项工作揭示了对通过出版物和引文改善健康和福祉以及知识生成的期望。对 16 名参与者的深入访谈表明，他们更倾向于清晰、易于阅读的内容，这些内容侧重于事实和证据，避免使用学术和夸张的语言。这项工作的新兴主题表明，ICS 需要迅速引起人们的兴趣并吸引注意力，同时观点和期望与新闻稿大不相同，并且针对特定受众。
ICS 的内容通常侧重于非学术影响；然而，这项工作强调，MRC 相关利益相关者高度重视学术影响的证据。这项工作研究了 ICS 属性的一种新类型，该类型强调了影响叙述的语言和表达可以影响对研究成果的看法，为使用 ICS 展示研究成果的个人和组织提供了有用的信息。它还表明，如果 ICS 试图传达研究实现影响的挑战和问题，那么它们可能对目标受众更具可信度和实用性。
