Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Review

Research impact: a narrative review

Authors: Trisha Greenhalgh, James Raftery, Steve Hanney, Matthew Glover

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Impact occurs when research generates benefits (health, economic, cultural) in addition to building the academic knowledge base. Its mechanisms are complex and reflect the multiple ways in which knowledge is generated and utilised. Much progress has been made in measuring both the outcomes of research and the processes and activities through which these are achieved, though the measurement of impact is not without its critics. We review the strengths and limitations of six established approaches (Payback, Research Impact Framework, Canadian Academy of Health Sciences, monetisation, societal impact assessment, UK Research Excellence Framework) plus recently developed and largely untested ones (including metrics and electronic databases). We conclude that (1) different approaches to impact assessment are appropriate in different circumstances; (2) the most robust and sophisticated approaches are labour-intensive and not always feasible or affordable; (3) whilst most metrics tend to capture direct and proximate impacts, more indirect and diffuse elements of the research-impact link can and should be measured; and (4) research on research impact is a rapidly developing field with new methodologies on the horizon.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Raftery J, Hanney S, Greenhalgh T, Glover M, Young A. Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: Update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment Programme Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 2016 (in press). Raftery J, Hanney S, Greenhalgh T, Glover M, Young A. Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: Update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment Programme Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 2016 (in press).
2.
go back to reference Penfield T, Baker MJ, Scoble R, Wykes MC. Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Res Evaluation. 2013:21-32. Penfield T, Baker MJ, Scoble R, Wykes MC. Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Res Evaluation. 2013:21-32.
4.
go back to reference Grant J, Brutscher P-B, Kirk SE, Butler L, Wooding S. Capturing Research Impacts: A Review of International Practice. Documented Briefing. Rand Corporation 2010. Grant J, Brutscher P-B, Kirk SE, Butler L, Wooding S. Capturing Research Impacts: A Review of International Practice. Documented Briefing. Rand Corporation 2010.
5.
go back to reference Greenhalgh T. Research impact in the community based health sciences: what would good look like? (MBA Dissertation). London: UCL Institute of Education; 2015. Greenhalgh T. Research impact in the community based health sciences: what would good look like? (MBA Dissertation). London: UCL Institute of Education; 2015.
6.
go back to reference Boaz A, Fitzpatrick S, Shaw B. Assessing the impact of research on policy: A literature review. Sci Public Policy. 2009;36(4):255–70.CrossRef Boaz A, Fitzpatrick S, Shaw B. Assessing the impact of research on policy: A literature review. Sci Public Policy. 2009;36(4):255–70.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Hanney S, Buxton M, Green C, Coulson D, Raftery J. An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 2007. 11(53). Hanney S, Buxton M, Green C, Coulson D, Raftery J. An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 2007. 11(53).
8.
go back to reference Hughes A, Martin B. Enhancing Impact: The value of public sector R&D. CIHE & UKirc, available at wwwcbrcamacuk/pdf/Impact%20Report 2012, 20. Hughes A, Martin B. Enhancing Impact: The value of public sector R&D. CIHE & UKirc, available at wwwcbrcamacuk/pdf/Impact%20Report 2012, 20.
10.
go back to reference Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267–76.CrossRefPubMed Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267–76.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Guthrie S, Wamae W, Diepeveen S, Wooding S, Grant J. Measuring research: a guide to research evaluation frameworks and tools. Arlington, VA: RAND Corporation; 2013. Guthrie S, Wamae W, Diepeveen S, Wooding S, Grant J. Measuring research: a guide to research evaluation frameworks and tools. Arlington, VA: RAND Corporation; 2013.
12.
go back to reference Weiss CH. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review 1979:426-431. Weiss CH. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review 1979:426-431.
13.
go back to reference Kogan M, Henkel M. Government and research: the Rothschild experiment in a government department. London: Heinemann Educational Books; 1983. Kogan M, Henkel M. Government and research: the Rothschild experiment in a government department. London: Heinemann Educational Books; 1983.
14.
go back to reference Smith K. Beyond evidence based policy in public health: The interplay of ideas: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013. Smith K. Beyond evidence based policy in public health: The interplay of ideas: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013.
15.
go back to reference Amara N, Ouimet M, Landry R. New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Sci Commun. 2004;26(1):75–106.CrossRef Amara N, Ouimet M, Landry R. New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Sci Commun. 2004;26(1):75–106.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Swan J, Bresnen M, Robertson M, Newell S, Dopson S. When policy meets practice: colliding logics and the challenges of ‘mode 2’ initiatives in the translation of academic knowledge. Organ Stud. 2010;31(9-10):1311–40.CrossRef Swan J, Bresnen M, Robertson M, Newell S, Dopson S. When policy meets practice: colliding logics and the challenges of ‘mode 2’ initiatives in the translation of academic knowledge. Organ Stud. 2010;31(9-10):1311–40.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Davies H, Nutley S, Walter I. Why ‘knowledge transfer’ is misconceived for applied social research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(3):188–90.CrossRefPubMed Davies H, Nutley S, Walter I. Why ‘knowledge transfer’ is misconceived for applied social research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(3):188–90.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Dopson S, Fitzgerald L. Knowledge to action? Evidence-based health care in context: Oxford University Press; 2005. Dopson S, Fitzgerald L. Knowledge to action? Evidence-based health care in context: Oxford University Press; 2005.
19.
go back to reference Gabbay J, Le May A. Practice-based evidence for healthcare: Clinical mindlines. London: Routledge; 2010. Gabbay J, Le May A. Practice-based evidence for healthcare: Clinical mindlines. London: Routledge; 2010.
20.
go back to reference Lomas J. Using ‘linkage and exchange’ to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Health Affairs (Project Hope). 2000;19(3):236–40.CrossRef Lomas J. Using ‘linkage and exchange’ to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Health Affairs (Project Hope). 2000;19(3):236–40.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Thomson MA. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ. 1998;317(7156):465–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Thomson MA. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ. 1998;317(7156):465–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference Long JC, Cunningham FC, Braithwaite J. Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:158.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Long JC, Cunningham FC, Braithwaite J. Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:158.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Buxton M, Hanney S. How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1(1):35–43.PubMed Buxton M, Hanney S. How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1(1):35–43.PubMed
27.
go back to reference Hanney SR, Castle-Clarke S, Grant J, Guthrie S, Henshall C, Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Pistollato M, Pollitt A, Sussex J, Wooding S: How long does biomedical research take? Studying the time taken between biomedical and health research and its translation into products, policy, and practice. Health research policy and systems/BioMed Central 2015, 13. Hanney SR, Castle-Clarke S, Grant J, Guthrie S, Henshall C, Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Pistollato M, Pollitt A, Sussex J, Wooding S: How long does biomedical research take? Studying the time taken between biomedical and health research and its translation into products, policy, and practice. Health research policy and systems/BioMed Central 2015, 13.
28.
go back to reference Meagher L, Lyall C, Nutley S. Flows of knowledge, expertise and influence: a method for assessing policy and practice impacts from social science research. Res Eval. 2008;17(3):163–73.CrossRef Meagher L, Lyall C, Nutley S. Flows of knowledge, expertise and influence: a method for assessing policy and practice impacts from social science research. Res Eval. 2008;17(3):163–73.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Guthrie S, Bienkowska-Gibbs T, Manville C, Pollitt A, Kirtley A, Wooding S. The impact of the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, 2003–13: a multimethod evaluation. 2015. Guthrie S, Bienkowska-Gibbs T, Manville C, Pollitt A, Kirtley A, Wooding S. The impact of the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, 2003–13: a multimethod evaluation. 2015.
30.
go back to reference Klautzer L, Hanney S, Nason E, Rubin J, Grant J, Wooding S. Assessing policy and practice impacts of social science research: the application of the Payback Framework to assess the Future of Work programme. Res Eval. 2011;20(3):201–9.CrossRef Klautzer L, Hanney S, Nason E, Rubin J, Grant J, Wooding S. Assessing policy and practice impacts of social science research: the application of the Payback Framework to assess the Future of Work programme. Res Eval. 2011;20(3):201–9.CrossRef
31.
32.
go back to reference Kuruvilla S, Mays N, Walt G. Describing the impact of health services and policy research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12 suppl 1:23–31.CrossRef Kuruvilla S, Mays N, Walt G. Describing the impact of health services and policy research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12 suppl 1:23–31.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Johnston SC, Rootenberg JD, Katrak S, Smith WS, Elkins JS. Effect of a US National Institutes of Health programme of clinical trials on public health and costs. Lancet. 2006;367(9519):1319–27.CrossRefPubMed Johnston SC, Rootenberg JD, Katrak S, Smith WS, Elkins JS. Effect of a US National Institutes of Health programme of clinical trials on public health and costs. Lancet. 2006;367(9519):1319–27.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Deloitte Access Economics. Returns on NHMRC funded Research and Development. Commissioned by the Australian Society for Medical Research Sydney, Australia: Author 2011. Deloitte Access Economics. Returns on NHMRC funded Research and Development. Commissioned by the Australian Society for Medical Research Sydney, Australia: Author 2011.
36.
go back to reference de Oliveira C, Nguyen HV, Wijeysundera HC, Wong WW, Woo G, Grootendorst P, et al. Estimating the payoffs from cardiovascular disease research in Canada: an economic analysis. CMAJ Open. 2013;1(2):E83–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral de Oliveira C, Nguyen HV, Wijeysundera HC, Wong WW, Woo G, Grootendorst P, et al. Estimating the payoffs from cardiovascular disease research in Canada: an economic analysis. CMAJ Open. 2013;1(2):E83–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
go back to reference Glover M, Buxton M, Guthrie S, Hanney S, Pollitt A, Grant J. Estimating the returns to UK publicly funded cancer-related research in terms of the net value of improved health outcomes. BMC Med. 2014;12:99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Glover M, Buxton M, Guthrie S, Hanney S, Pollitt A, Grant J. Estimating the returns to UK publicly funded cancer-related research in terms of the net value of improved health outcomes. BMC Med. 2014;12:99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
go back to reference Buxton M, Hanney S, Morris S, Sundmacher L, Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Garau M, Sussex J, Grant J, Ismail S, Nason E: Medical research–what’s it worth? Estimating the economic benefits from medical research in the UK. In: London: UK Evaluation Forum (Academy of Medical Sciences, MRC, Wellcome Trust): 2008; 2008. Buxton M, Hanney S, Morris S, Sundmacher L, Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Garau M, Sussex J, Grant J, Ismail S, Nason E: Medical research–what’s it worth? Estimating the economic benefits from medical research in the UK. In: London: UK Evaluation Forum (Academy of Medical Sciences, MRC, Wellcome Trust): 2008; 2008.
39.
go back to reference Access Economics. Exceptional returns: the value of investing in health R&D in Australia: Australian Society for Medical Research; 2008. Access Economics. Exceptional returns: the value of investing in health R&D in Australia: Australian Society for Medical Research; 2008.
41.
go back to reference Roback K, Dalal K, Carlsson P. Evaluation of health research: measuring costs and socioeconomic effects. Int J Preventive Med. 2011;2(4):203. Roback K, Dalal K, Carlsson P. Evaluation of health research: measuring costs and socioeconomic effects. Int J Preventive Med. 2011;2(4):203.
42.
go back to reference Bozeman B, Rogers JD. A churn model of scientific knowledge value: Internet researchers as a knowledge value collective. Res Policy. 2002;31(5):769–94.CrossRef Bozeman B, Rogers JD. A churn model of scientific knowledge value: Internet researchers as a knowledge value collective. Res Policy. 2002;31(5):769–94.CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Spaapen J, Sylvain C. Societal Quality of Research: Toward a Method for the Assessment of the Potential Value of Research for Society: Science Policy Support Group; 1994. Spaapen J, Sylvain C. Societal Quality of Research: Toward a Method for the Assessment of the Potential Value of Research for Society: Science Policy Support Group; 1994.
44.
go back to reference Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. The societal impact of applied research: towards a quality assessment system. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; 2002. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. The societal impact of applied research: towards a quality assessment system. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; 2002.
45.
go back to reference ERiC: Evaluating Research in Context: Evaluating the societal relevance of academic research: A guide. Den Haag: Science System Assessment Departmnet, Rathenau Instituut.; 2010. ERiC: Evaluating Research in Context: Evaluating the societal relevance of academic research: A guide. Den Haag: Science System Assessment Departmnet, Rathenau Instituut.; 2010.
46.
go back to reference Spaapen J, Dijstelbloem H, Wamelink F. Evaluating research in context. A method for comprehensive assessment, 2nd edition, The Hague: COS 2007. Spaapen J, Dijstelbloem H, Wamelink F. Evaluating research in context. A method for comprehensive assessment, 2nd edition, The Hague: COS 2007.
47.
go back to reference Molas-Gallart J, Tang P, Morrow S. Assessing the non-academic impact of grant-funded socio-economic research: results from a pilot study. Res Eval. 2000;9(3):171–82.CrossRef Molas-Gallart J, Tang P, Morrow S. Assessing the non-academic impact of grant-funded socio-economic research: results from a pilot study. Res Eval. 2000;9(3):171–82.CrossRef
48.
go back to reference Spaapen J. Social Impact Assessment Methods for Research and Funding Instruments Through the Study of Productive Interactions (SIAMPI): Final report on social impacts of research. In. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; 2011. Spaapen J. Social Impact Assessment Methods for Research and Funding Instruments Through the Study of Productive Interactions (SIAMPI): Final report on social impacts of research. In. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; 2011.
49.
go back to reference Donovan C. The Australian Research Quality Framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. N Dir Eval. 2008;118:47–60.CrossRef Donovan C. The Australian Research Quality Framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. N Dir Eval. 2008;118:47–60.CrossRef
53.
go back to reference Drew CH, Pettibone KG, Ruben E. Greatest ‘HITS’: A new tool for tracking impacts at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Res Eval. 2013;22(5):307–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Drew CH, Pettibone KG, Ruben E. Greatest ‘HITS’: A new tool for tracking impacts at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Res Eval. 2013;22(5):307–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
55.
go back to reference Pawson R. The science of evaluation: a realist manifesto: Sage; 2013. Pawson R. The science of evaluation: a realist manifesto: Sage; 2013.
56.
go back to reference Rycroft-Malone J, Burton C, Wilkinson J, Harvey G, McCormack B, Baker R, Dopson S, Graham I, Staniszewska S, Thompson C et al: Health Services and Delivery Research. In: Collective action for knowledge mobilisation: a realist evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care. Volume 3, edn. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library.; 2015: 44. Rycroft-Malone J, Burton C, Wilkinson J, Harvey G, McCormack B, Baker R, Dopson S, Graham I, Staniszewska S, Thompson C et al: Health Services and Delivery Research. In: Collective action for knowledge mobilisation: a realist evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care. Volume 3, edn. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library.; 2015: 44.
57.
58.
go back to reference Redman S, Turner T, Davies H, Williamson A, Haynes A, Brennan S, et al. The SPIRIT Action Framework: A structured approach to selecting and testing strategies to increase the use of research in policy. Soc Sci Med. 2015;136-137c:147–55.CrossRef Redman S, Turner T, Davies H, Williamson A, Haynes A, Brennan S, et al. The SPIRIT Action Framework: A structured approach to selecting and testing strategies to increase the use of research in policy. Soc Sci Med. 2015;136-137c:147–55.CrossRef
59.
go back to reference Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg J, Bush PL, Henderson J, et al. Uncovering the Benefits of Participatory Research: Implications of a Realist Review for Health Research and Practice. Milbank Quarterly. 2012;90(2):311–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg J, Bush PL, Henderson J, et al. Uncovering the Benefits of Participatory Research: Implications of a Realist Review for Health Research and Practice. Milbank Quarterly. 2012;90(2):311–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
60.
go back to reference Cacari-Stone L, Wallerstein N, Garcia AP, Minkler M. The Promise of Community-Based Participatory Research for Health Equity: A Conceptual Model for Bridging Evidence With Policy. American Journal of Public Health 2014:e1-e9. Cacari-Stone L, Wallerstein N, Garcia AP, Minkler M. The Promise of Community-Based Participatory Research for Health Equity: A Conceptual Model for Bridging Evidence With Policy. American Journal of Public Health 2014:e1-e9.
62.
go back to reference Hazelkorn E. Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. Hazelkorn E. Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015.
63.
go back to reference Nowotny H. Engaging with the political imaginaries of science: Near misses and future targets. Public Underst Sci. 2014;23(1):16–20.CrossRefPubMed Nowotny H. Engaging with the political imaginaries of science: Near misses and future targets. Public Underst Sci. 2014;23(1):16–20.CrossRefPubMed
65.
go back to reference Higher Education Funding Council for England: 2014 REF: Assessment framework and guidance on submissions. Panel A criteria. London (REF 01/2012): HEFCE; 2012. Higher Education Funding Council for England: 2014 REF: Assessment framework and guidance on submissions. Panel A criteria. London (REF 01/2012): HEFCE; 2012.
67.
go back to reference Kwan P, Johnston J, Fung AY, Chong DS, Collins RA, Lo SV. A systematic evaluation of payback of publicly funded health and health services research in Hong Kong. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:121.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kwan P, Johnston J, Fung AY, Chong DS, Collins RA, Lo SV. A systematic evaluation of payback of publicly funded health and health services research in Hong Kong. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:121.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
68.
go back to reference Scott JE, Blasinsky M, Dufour M, Mandai RJ, Philogene GS. An evaluation of the Mind-Body Interactions and Health Program: assessing the impact of an NIH program using the Payback Framework. Res Eval. 2011;20(3):185–92.CrossRef Scott JE, Blasinsky M, Dufour M, Mandai RJ, Philogene GS. An evaluation of the Mind-Body Interactions and Health Program: assessing the impact of an NIH program using the Payback Framework. Res Eval. 2011;20(3):185–92.CrossRef
69.
go back to reference The Madrillon Group. The Mind-Body Interactions and Health Program Outcome Evaluation. Final Report. Bethesda, Maryland: Report prepared for Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, National Institutes of Health; 2011. The Madrillon Group. The Mind-Body Interactions and Health Program Outcome Evaluation. Final Report. Bethesda, Maryland: Report prepared for Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, National Institutes of Health; 2011.
70.
go back to reference Hanney SR, Watt A, Jones TH, Metcalf L. Conducting retrospective impact analysis to inform a medical research charity’s funding strategies: the case of Asthma UK. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2013;9:17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hanney SR, Watt A, Jones TH, Metcalf L. Conducting retrospective impact analysis to inform a medical research charity’s funding strategies: the case of Asthma UK. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2013;9:17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
71.
go back to reference Donovan C, Butler L, Butt AJ, Jones TH, Hanney SR. Evaluation of the impact of National Breast Cancer Foundation-funded research. Med J Aust. 2014;200(4):214–8.CrossRefPubMed Donovan C, Butler L, Butt AJ, Jones TH, Hanney SR. Evaluation of the impact of National Breast Cancer Foundation-funded research. Med J Aust. 2014;200(4):214–8.CrossRefPubMed
72.
go back to reference Wooding S, Hanney SR, Pollitt A, Grant J, Buxton MJ. Understanding factors associated with the translation of cardiovascular research: a multinational case study approach. Implement Sci. 2014;9:47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wooding S, Hanney SR, Pollitt A, Grant J, Buxton MJ. Understanding factors associated with the translation of cardiovascular research: a multinational case study approach. Implement Sci. 2014;9:47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
73.
go back to reference Montague S, Valentim R. Evaluation of RT&D: from ‘prescriptions for justifying’to ‘user-oriented guidance for learning’. Res Eval. 2010;19(4):251–61.CrossRef Montague S, Valentim R. Evaluation of RT&D: from ‘prescriptions for justifying’to ‘user-oriented guidance for learning’. Res Eval. 2010;19(4):251–61.CrossRef
74.
go back to reference Adam P, Solans-Domènech M, Pons JM, Aymerich M, Berra S, Guillamon I, et al. Assessment of the impact of a clinical and health services research call in Catalonia. Res Eval. 2012;21(4):319–28.CrossRef Adam P, Solans-Domènech M, Pons JM, Aymerich M, Berra S, Guillamon I, et al. Assessment of the impact of a clinical and health services research call in Catalonia. Res Eval. 2012;21(4):319–28.CrossRef
75.
go back to reference Graham KER, Chorzempa HL, Valentine PA, Magnan J. Evaluating health research impact: Development and implementation of the Alberta Innovates – Health Solutions impact framework. Res Eval. 2012;21:354–67.CrossRef Graham KER, Chorzempa HL, Valentine PA, Magnan J. Evaluating health research impact: Development and implementation of the Alberta Innovates – Health Solutions impact framework. Res Eval. 2012;21:354–67.CrossRef
76.
go back to reference Cohen G, Schroeder J, Newson R, King L, Rychetnik L, Milat AJ, et al. Does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts: testing a new impact assessment tool. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cohen G, Schroeder J, Newson R, King L, Rychetnik L, Milat AJ, et al. Does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts: testing a new impact assessment tool. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
77.
go back to reference Molas-Gallart J, Tang P. Tracing ‘productive interactions’ to identify social impacts: an example from the social sciences. Res Eval. 2011;20(3):219–26.CrossRef Molas-Gallart J, Tang P. Tracing ‘productive interactions’ to identify social impacts: an example from the social sciences. Res Eval. 2011;20(3):219–26.CrossRef
79.
go back to reference Greenhalgh T, Fahy N. Research impact in the community based health sciences: an analysis of 162 case studies from the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework. BMC Med. 2015;13:232.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Greenhalgh T, Fahy N. Research impact in the community based health sciences: an analysis of 162 case studies from the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework. BMC Med. 2015;13:232.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Research impact: a narrative review
Authors
Trisha Greenhalgh
James Raftery
Steve Hanney
Matthew Glover
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0620-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Medicine 1/2016 Go to the issue