Implementing a protocol for a research impact assessment of the Centre for Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery
Tóm tắt
There is growing recognition that the wider benefits of research (economic, social and health impacts) should be assessed and valued alongside traditional research performance metrics such as peer-reviewed papers. Translation of findings into policy and practice needs to accelerate and pathways to impact need to be better understood. This research protocol outlines a mixed methods study to apply the Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) to the Centre for Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery (CRE-Stroke). FAIT is purpose-designed to encourage research translation and assess research impact but lacks validation. Phase 1 involves application of the FAIT-modified programme logic model to each CRE-Stroke research stream including identifying process, output and impact metrics, as well as end users of the research. A scoping review will inform potential impacts anticipated from CRE-Stroke. In Phase 2, audit and feedback on achievements against plans will track and encourage research translation. Logic models will be updated to account for changes in the research pathways over time. In Phase 3, three proven methods for measuring research impact – Payback, economic assessment and narratives – will be applied to each research stream and the data triangulated and reported in Phase 4. The feasibility of applying FAIT will also be assessed as part of Phase 3. Use of prospective, comprehensive research impact frameworks for large interdisciplinary programmes of research is rare. FAIT’s application to CRE-Stroke will provide opportunity for the impact of CRE-Stroke to be assessed and a range of impacts beyond standard academic achievements to be reliably reported. The feasibility of FAIT’s application will also be assessed and, if necessary, refined. The usefulness of FAIT for encouraging research translation will also be described and may prove useful for other programmes looking to implement a research impact framework.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Wang H, Naghavi M, Allen C, Barber RM, Bhutta ZA, Carter A, et al. Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980-2013;2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2015. Lancet. 2016;388(10053):1459–544.
Stroke Foundation - Australia. Facts and Figures about Stroke. 2018. https://strokefoundation.org.au/en/About-Stroke/Facts-and-figures-about-stroke. Accessed 23 July 2018.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s Health 2016. Australia’s Health Series No. 15. Canberra: AIHW; 2017.
Deloitte Access Economics. The Economic Impact of Stroke in Australia. Canberra: National Stroke Foundation; 2013.
Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011;377(9778):1693–702.
Bayley MT, Hurdowar A, Richards CL, Korner-Bitensky N, Wood-Dauphinee S, Eng JJ, et al. Barriers to implementation of stroke rehabilitation evidence: findings from a multi-site pilot project. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(19):1633–8.
Donnellan C, Sweetman S, Shelley E. Health professionals’ adherence to stroke clinical guidelines: a review of the literature. Health Policy. 2013;111(3):245–63.
National Stroke Foundation. National Stroke Audit – Rehabilitation Services Report in National Stroke Audit. Melbourne: National Stroke Foundation; 2016.
Hubbard IJ, Harris D, Kilkenny MF, Faux SG, Pollack MR, Cadilhac DA. Adherence to clinical guidelines improves patient outcomes in Australian audit of stroke rehabilitation practice. Ach Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(6):965–71.
The Centre for Reserach Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery. 2015. https://strokerecovery.org.au/cre/. Accessed 12 Jul 2017.
Gila N, Glasgow RE, Carpenter CR, Grimshaw JM, Rabin BA, Fernandez ME, et al. A framework for enhancing the value of research for dissemination and implementation. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(1):49–57.
Australian Research Council. Research impact principles and framework. 2013. http://www.arc.gov.au/research-impact-principles-and-framework. Accessed 15 Aug 2017.
Rubio D, Schoenbaum E, Lee L, Schteingart D, Marantz P, Anderson K. Defining translational research: implications for training. Acad Med. 2010;85(3):470–5.
Penfield T, Baker MJ, Scoble R, Wykes MC. Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: a review. Res Eval. 2014;23(1):21–32.
McKeon S, Alexander E, Brodaty H, Ferris B, Frazer I, Little M. Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research in Australia – Better Health Through Research. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Health and Ageing; 2013.
Bornmann L. What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013;64(2):217–33.
Rosenberg G. Research Excellence Framework 2014: Manager’s Report. 2015. http://www.ref.ac.uk/. Accessed 15 Aug 2017.
Deeming S, Searles A, Reeves P, Nilsson M. 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. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):22.
Raftery J, Hanney S, Greenhalgh T, Glover M, Blatch-Jones A. Models and applications for measuring impact of health research:update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20(76):1–254.
Rivera SC, Kyte DG, Aiyegbusi OL, Keeley TJ, Calvert MJ. Assessing the impact of healthcare research: a systematic review of methodological framework. PLoS Med. 2017;14(8):e1002370.
Australian Research Council. Excellence in Research Australia. 2010. http://www.arc.gov.au/excellence-research-australia. Accessed 20 Jun 2017.
National Health and Medical Research Council. Advanced Health Research and Translation Centres. 2015. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/research/advanced-health-research-and-translation-centres. Accessed 20 Jun 2017.
Department of Health. Medical Research Futures Fund. 2015. https://beta.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/medical-research-future-fund. Accessed 25 July 2018.
Australian Research Council. Engagement and Impact Assessment. 2015. http://www.arc.gov.au/engagement-and-impact-assessment. Accessed 20 Jun 2017.
National Health and Medical Research Council. Centres for Innovation in Regional Health. 2016. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/research/centres-innovation-regional-health. Accessed 20 Jun 2017.
Australian Clinical Trials Alliance. Economic Evaluation of Investigator-initiated Clinical Trials Conducted by Networks. Sydney: Australian Commission of Quality and Safety in Healthcare; 2017.
Searles A, Doran C, Attia J, Knight D, Wiggers J, Deeming S, et al. An approach to measuring and encouraging research translation and research impact. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:60.
Buxton M, Hanney S. Evaluating the NHS research and development programme: will the programme give value for money? J R Soc Med. 1998;91(Suppl 35):2–6.
The Pell Institute and Pathways to College Network. Evaluation Toolkit: Using a Logic Model. 2017. http://toolkit.pellinstitute.org/evaluation-guide/plan-budget/using-a-logic-model/. Accessed 14 Sep 2017.
Reed M. The Research Impact Handbook. UK: Fast Track Impact Ltd; 2016.
Washington University School of Medicine. Assessing the Impact of Research: A Bernard Becker Medical Library Project. 2018. https://becker.wustl.edu/impact-assessment/. Accessed 31 May 2018.
The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual: 2015 Edition/Supplement. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide; 2015.
Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.
Lavis J, Ross S, McLeod C, Gildiner A. Measuring the impact of health research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8(3):165–70.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):15.
Buxton M. The payback of “payback”: challenges in assessing research impact. Res Eval. 2011;20:259–60.
Buxton M, Hanney S, Jones T. Estimating the economic value to societies of the impact of health research: a critical review. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(10):733–9.
Buxton M, Hanney S. How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1(1):35–43.
Social Value UK. In: U.C. Office, editor. A Guide to Social Return on Investment. Cambridge: The SROI Network; 2012.
Barker K. The UK research assessment exercise: the evolution of a national research evaluation system. Res Eval. 2007;16(1):3–12.
Banzi R, Moja L, Pistotti V, Facchini A, Liberati A. Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2011;9:26.