Dataset Information

Encouraging translation and assessing impact of the Centre for Research Excellence in Integrated Quality Improvement: rationale and protocol for a research impact assessment.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:There is growing recognition among health researchers and funders that the wider benefits of research such as economic, social and health impacts ought to be assessed and valued alongside academic outputs such as peer-reviewed papers. Research translation needs to increase and the pathways to impact ought to be more transparent. These processes are particularly pertinent to the Indigenous health sector given continued concerns that Indigenous communities are over-researched with little corresponding improvement in health outcomes. This paper describes the research protocol of a mixed methods study to apply FAIT (Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research) to the Centre for Research Excellence in Integrated Quality Improvement (CRE-IQI). FAIT will be applied to five selected CRE-IQI Flagship projects to encourage research translation and assess the wider impact of that research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Phase I will develop a modified programme logic model for each Flagship project including identifying process, output and impact metrics so progress can be monitored. A scoping review will inform potential benefits. In phase II, programme logic models will be updated to account for changes in the research pathways over time. Audit and feedback will be used to encourage research translation and collect evidence of achievement of any process, output and interim impacts. In phase III, three proven methodologies for measuring research impact-Payback, economic assessment and narratives-will be applied. Data on the application of FAIT will be collected and analysed to inform and improve FAIT's performance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study is funded by a nationally competitive grant (ID 1078927) from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Newcastle's Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: H-2017-0026). The results from the study will be presented in several peer-reviewed publications, through conference presentations and via social media.

SUBMITTER: Ramanathan S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5719272 | biostudies-other | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Encouraging translation and assessing impact of the Centre for Research Excellence in Integrated Quality Improvement: rationale and protocol for a research impact assessment.

Ramanathan Shanthi S Reeves Penny P Deeming Simon S Bailie Ross Stewart RS Bailie Jodie J Bainbridge Roxanne R Cunningham Frances F Doran Christopher C McPhail Bell Karen K Searles Andrew A

BMJ open 20171204 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>There is growing recognition among health researchers and funders that the wider benefits of research such as economic, social and health impacts ought to be assessed and valued alongside academic outputs such as peer-reviewed papers. Research translation needs to increase and the pathways to impact ought to be more transparent. These processes are particularly pertinent to the Indigenous health sector given continued concerns that Indigenous communities are over-researched ...[more]

PMID: 29208619

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundResearch impact is an emerging measure of research achievement alongside traditional academic outputs such as publications. We present the results of applying the Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) to the Centre for Research Excellence (CRE) in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery (CRE-Stroke, 2014-2019) and report on the feasibility and lessons from the application of FAIT to a CRE rather than a discrete research project.MethodsData were gathered via online surveys, in-depth interviews, document analysis and review of relevant websites/databases to report on the three major FAIT methods: the modified Payback Framework, an assessment of costs against monetized consequences, and a narrative account of the impact generated from CRE-Stroke activities. FAIT was applied during the last 4 years of CRE-Stroke operation.ResultsWith an economic investment of AU$ 3.9 million over 5 years, CRE-Stroke delivered a return on investment that included AU$ 18.8 million in leveraged grants, fellowships and consultancies. Collectively, CRE-Stroke members produced 354 publications that were accessed 470,000 times and cited over 7220 times. CRE-Stroke supported 26 PhDs, 39 postdocs and seven novice clinician researchers. There were 59 capacity-building events benefiting 744 individuals including policy-makers and consumers. CRE-Stroke created research infrastructure (including a research register of stroke survivors and a brain biobank), and its global leadership produced international consensus recommendations to influence the stroke research landscape worldwide. Members contributed to the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines: four researchers' outputs were directly referenced. Based only on the consequences that could be monetized, CRE-Stroke returned AU$ 4.82 for every dollar invested in the CRE.ConclusionThis case example in the developing field of impact assessment illustrates how researchers can use evidence to demonstrate and report the impact of and returns on research investment. The prospective application of FAIT by a dedicated research impact team demonstrated impact in broad categories of knowledge-gain, capacity-building, new infrastructure, input to policy and economic benefits. The methods can be used by other research teams to provide comprehensive evidence to governments and other research funders about what has been generated from their research investment but requires dedicated resources to complete.

Project description:ObjectiveThere is a growing need for researchers to demonstrate impact, which is reliant on successful research translation. The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council funded a Centre of Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery (CRE-Stroke) to enhance collaborations between researchers conducting different types of stroke rehabilitation research. The purpose of this study was to explore opinions about research translation held by CRE-Stroke researchers conducting preclinical and clinical research, in terms of scope, importance, responsibility and perceived skills and knowledge.DesignMixed-methods study, comprising a paper-based survey and semistructured interviews. Interview data were inductively coded and thematically analysed. Survey and interview data were compared and synthesised.Participants55 (7 preclinical, 48 clinical) researchers attending a CRE-Stroke research forum completed a paper-based survey. Semistructured interviews with 22 CRE-Stroke (5 preclinical, 17 clinical) researchers were conducted.ResultsResearch translation was described as translating to other research and translating to clinical practice and policy. Most researchers (n=54, 98%) reported that research translation was important, particularly in terms of generating research impact, but the most common sign of project completion reported by researchers (n=7, 100% preclinical; n=37, 77% clinical) was publication. Most researchers (preclinical n=4, 57%; clinical n=37, 77%) reported having responsibility for translating research, but less than half reported having the necessary skills (n=1, 14% preclinical; n=17, 35% clinical) and knowledge (n=3, 43% preclinical; n=19, 40% clinical). Differing opinions about who should be responsible for translating findings to clinical practice were expressed.ConclusionsStroke rehabilitation researchers appear confident to translate their research via the traditional mechanism of publications. To optimise impact, clarity is needed regarding who is best placed to translate research findings to clinical practice and policy. Education and skills development to apply broader translation processes are needed to maximise the use of research at all stages.

Project description:Impactful academic research plays a stellar role in society, pressing to ask the question of how one measures the impact created by different areas of academic research. Measuring the societal, cultural, economic and scientific impact of research is currently the priority of the National Science Foundation, European Commission and several research funding agencies. The recently concluded United Kingdom's national research quality exercise, the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014, which piloted impact assessment as part of the overall evaluation offers a lens to view how impact of research in different disciplines can be measured. Overall research quality was assessed through quality of outputs, 'impact' and research environment. We performed two studies using the REF 2014 as a case study. The first study on 363 Impact Case Studies (ICSs) submitted in 5 research areas (UoAs) reveals that, in general, the impact scores were constructed upon a combination of factors i.e. quantity of quartile-one (Q1) publications, quantity and value of grants/income, number of researchers stated in the ICSs, spin-offs created, discoveries/patents and presentation of esteem data, informing researchers/ academics of the factors to consider in order to achieve a better impact score in research impact assessments. However, there were differences among disciplines in terms of the role played by the factors in achieving their overall scores for the ICSs. The outcome of this study is thus a set of impact indicators, and their relationship with the overall score of impact of research in different disciplines as determined in REF2014, which would in the first instance provide some answers to impact measures that would be useful for researchers in different disciplines. The second study extracts the general themes of impact reported by universities by performing a word frequency analysis in all the ICSs submitted in the five chosen research areas, which were substantially varied owing to their fields.

Project description:BackgroundAboriginal people in Australia experience the highest prevalence of diabetes in the country, an excess of preventable complications and early death. There is increasing evidence demonstrating the importance of healthcare systems for improvement of chronic illness care. The aims of this study were to assess the status of systems for chronic illness care in Aboriginal community health centres, and to explore whether more developed systems were associated with better quality of diabetes care.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in 12 Aboriginal community health centres in the Northern Territory of Australia. Assessment of Chronic Illness Care scale was adapted to measure system development in health centres, and administered by interview with health centre staff and managers. Based on a random sample of 295 clinical records from attending clients with diagnosed type 2 diabetes, processes of diabetes care were measured by rating of health service delivery against best-practice guidelines. Intermediate outcomes included the control of HbA1c, blood pressure, and total cholesterol.ResultsHealth centre systems were in the low to mid-range of development and had distinct areas of strength and weakness. Four of the six system components were independently associated with quality of diabetes care: an increase of 1 unit of score for organisational influence, community linkages, and clinical information systems, respectively, was associated with 4.3%, 3.8%, and 4.5% improvement in adherence to process standards; likewise, organisational influence, delivery system design and clinical information systems were related to control of HbA1c, blood pressure, and total cholesterol.ConclusionThe state of development of health centre systems is reflected in quality of care outcome measures for patients. The health centre systems assessment tool should be useful in assessing and guiding development of systems for improvement of diabetes care in similar settings in Australia and internationally.

Project description:IntroductionThe need for public research funding to be more accountable and demonstrate impact beyond typical academic outputs is increasing. This is particularly challenging and the science behind this form of research is in its infancy when applied to collaborative research funding such as that provided by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council to the Centre for Research Excellence in Digestive Health (CRE-DH).Methods and analysisIn this paper, we describe the protocol for applying the Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research to the CRE-DH. The study design involves a five-stage sequential mixed-method approach. In phase I, we developed an impact programme logic model to map the pathway to impact and establish key domains of benefit such as knowledge advancement, capacity building, clinical implementation, policy and legislation, community and economic impacts. In phase 2, we have identified and selected appropriate, measurable and timely impact indicators for each of these domains and established a data plan to capture the necessary data. Phase 3 will develop a model for cost-consequence analysis and identification of relevant data for microcosting and valuation of consequences. In phase 4, we will determine selected case studies to include in the narrative whereas phase 5 involves collation, data analysis and completion of the reporting of impact.We expect this impact evaluation to comprehensively describe the contribution of the CRE-DH for intentional activity over the CRE-DH lifespan and beyond to improve outcomes for people suffering with chronic and debilitating digestive disorders.Ethics and disseminationThis impact evaluation study has been registered with the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee as project 2024/PID00336 and ethics application 2024/ETH00290. Results of this study will be disseminated via medical conferences, peer-reviewed publications, policy submissions, direct communication with relevant stakeholders, media and social media channels such as X (formely Twitter).

Project description:INTRODUCTION:An impactful clinical trial will have real-life benefits for patients and society beyond the academic environment. This study analyses case studies of cancer trials to understand how impact is evidenced for cancer trials and how impact evaluation can be more routinely adopted and improved. METHODS:The United Kingdom (UK) Government allocates research funding to higher-education institutions based on an assessment of the institutions' previous research efforts, in an exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF). In addition to each institution's journal publications and research environment, for the first time in 2014, allocation of funding was also dependent on an evaluation of the wider, societal impact of research conducted. In the REF2014, impact assessment was performed by evaluation of impact case studies. In this study, case studies (n?=?6637) submitted by institutions for the REF2014 were accessed and those focussing on cancer trials were identified. Manual content analysis was then used to assess the characteristics of the cancer trials discussed in the case studies, the impact described and the methods used by institutions to demonstrate impact. RESULTS:Forty-six case studies describing 106 individual cancer trials were identified. The majority were phase III randomised controlled trials and those recruiting patients with breast cancer. A list of indicators of cancer trial impact was generated using the previous literature and developed inductively using these case studies. The most common impact from a cancer trial identified in the case studies was on policy, in particular citation of trial findings in clinical guidelines. Impact on health outcomes and the economy were less frequent and health outcomes were often predicted rather than evidenced. There were few descriptions identified of trialists making efforts to maximise trial impact. DISCUSSION:Cancer trial impact narratives for the next REF assessment exercise in 2021 can be improved by evidencing actual rather than predicted Impact, with a clearer identification of the beneficiaries of cancer trials and the processes through which trial results are used. Clarification of the individuals responsible for performing impact evaluations of cancer trials and the provision of resources to do so needs to be addressed if impact evaluation is to be sustainable.

Project description:BackgroundMalaria microscopy, while the gold standard for malaria diagnosis, has limitations. Efficacy estimates in drug and vaccine malaria trials are very sensitive to small errors in microscopy endpoints. This fact led to the establishment of a Malaria Diagnostics Centre of Excellence in Kisumu, Kenya. The primary objective was to ensure valid clinical trial and diagnostic test evaluations. Key secondary objectives were technology transfer to host countries, establishment of partnerships, and training of clinical microscopists.Case descriptionA twelve-day "long" and a four-day "short" training course consisting of supervised laboratory practicals, lectures, group discussions, demonstrations, and take home assignments were developed. Well characterized slides were developed and training materials iteratively improved. Objective pre- and post-course evaluations consisted of 30 slides (19 negative, 11 positive) with a density range of 50-660 parasites/mul, a written examination (65 questions), a photographic image examination (30 images of artifacts and species specific characteristics), and a parasite counting examination.Discussion and evaluationTo date, 209 microscopists have participated from 11 countries. Seventy-seven experienced microscopists participated in the "long" courses, including 47 research microscopists. Sensitivity improved by a mean of 14% (CI 9-19%) from 77% baseline (CI 73-81 %), while specificity improved by a mean of 17% (CI 11-23%) from 76% (CI 70-82%) baseline. Twenty-three microscopists who had been selected for a four-day refresher course showed continued improvement with a mean final sensitivity of 95% (CI 91-98%) and specificity of 97% (CI 95-100%). Only 9% of those taking the pre-test in the "long" course achieved a 90% sensitivity and 95% specificity, which increased to 61% of those completing the "short" course. All measures of performance improved substantially across each of the five organization types and in each course offered.ConclusionThe data clearly illustrated that false positive and negative malaria smears are a serious problem, even with research microscopists. Training dramatically improved performance. Quality microscopy can be provided by the Centre of Excellence concept. This concept can be extended to other diagnostics of public health importance, and comprehensive disease control strategies.

Dataset Information

Encouraging translation and assessing impact of the Centre for Research Excellence in Integrated Quality Improvement: rationale and protocol for a research impact assessment.

Publications

Encouraging translation and assessing impact of the Centre for Research Excellence in Integrated Quality Improvement: rationale and protocol for a research impact assessment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets