» Articles » PMID: 20939915

Societal Output and Use of Research Performed by Health Research Groups

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2010 Oct 14
PMID 20939915
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The last decade has seen the evaluation of health research pay more and more attention to societal use and benefits of research in addition to scientific quality, both in qualitative and quantitative ways. This paper elaborates primarily on a quantitative approach to assess societal output and use of research performed by health research groups (societal quality of research). For this reason, one of the Dutch university medical centres (i.e. the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC)) was chosen as the subject of a pilot study, because of its mission to integrate top patient care with medical, biomedical and healthcare research and education. All research departments were used as units of evaluation within this university medical centre.The method consisted of a four-step process to reach a societal quality score per department, based on its (research) outreach to relevant societal stakeholders (the general public, healthcare professionals and the private sector). For each of these three types of stakeholders, indicators within four modes of communication were defined (knowledge production, knowledge exchange, knowledge use and earning capacity). These indicators were measured by a bottom-up approach in a qualitative way (i.e. all departments of the LUMC were asked to list all activities they would consider to be of societal relevance), after which they were converted into quantitative scores. These quantitative scores could then be compared to standardised scientific quality scores that are based on scientific publications and citations of peer-reviewed articles.Based on the LUMC pilot study, only a weak correlation was found between societal and scientific quality. This suggests that societal quality needs additional activities to be performed by health research groups and is not simply the consequence of high scientific quality. Therefore we conclude that scientific and societal evaluation should be considered to be synergistic in terms of learning for the future, accountability and advocacy.This quantitative approach to assess societal quality in a quantitative sense is based on indicators that function as proxies for society quality on different levels, based on the communication of researchers with their societal stakeholders (i.e. knowledge production, knowledge exchange and knowledge use). The methodology presented is just a first attempt to compare scientific quality scores (publication and citation scores) with societal quality scores in a quantitative way. This comparison can be used by organisations (e.g. university medical centres) in their planning and control cycle.

Citing Articles

'All the stars were aligned'? The origins of England's National Institute for Health Research.

Atkinson P, Sheard S, Walley T Health Res Policy Syst. 2019; 17(1):95.

PMID: 31801552 PMC: 6894247. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-019-0491-5.


'Knowledge for better health' revisited - the increasing significance of health research systems: a review by departing Editors-in-Chief.

Hanney S, Gonzalez-Block M Health Res Policy Syst. 2017; 15(1):81.

PMID: 28965493 PMC: 5623979. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-017-0248-y.


Measuring research impact in Australia's medical research institutes: a scoping literature review of the objectives for and an assessment of the capabilities of research impact assessment frameworks.

Deeming S, Searles A, Reeves P, Nilsson M Health Res Policy Syst. 2017; 15(1):22.

PMID: 28327199 PMC: 5361798. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-017-0180-1.


Achieving Research Impact Through Co-creation in Community-Based Health Services: Literature Review and Case Study.

Greenhalgh T, Jackson C, Shaw S, Janamian T Milbank Q. 2016; 94(2):392-429.

PMID: 27265562 PMC: 4911728. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12197.


Measuring the outcome of biomedical research: a systematic literature review.

Thonon F, Boulkedid R, Delory T, Rousseau S, Saghatchian M, van Harten W PLoS One. 2015; 10(4):e0122239.

PMID: 25837969 PMC: 4383328. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122239.


References
1.
Smith R . Measuring the social impact of research. BMJ. 2001; 323(7312):528. PMC: 1121118. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.323.7312.528. View

2.
Hanney S, Grant J, Wooding S, Buxton M . Proposed methods for reviewing the outcomes of health research: the impact of funding by the UK's 'Arthritis Research Campaign'. Health Res Policy Syst. 2004; 2(1):4. PMC: 503400. DOI: 10.1186/1478-4505-2-4. View

3.
King D . The scientific impact of nations. Nature. 2004; 430(6997):311-6. DOI: 10.1038/430311a. View

4.
Horton B . From bench to bedside... research makes the translational transition. Nature. 2000; 402(6758):213-5. DOI: 10.1038/46097. View

5.
Buxton M, Hanney S . How can payback from health services research be assessed?. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1995; 1(1):35-43. View