Payback arising from research funding: evaluation of the Arthritis Research Campaign

Brunel University London, अक्सब्रिज, England, United Kingdom
Rheumatology (Impact Factor: 4.44). 10/2005; 44(9):1145-56. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keh708
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Using a structured evaluation framework to systematically review and document the outputs and outcomes of research funded by the Arthritis Research Campaign in the early 1990s. To illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of different modes of research funding.
The payback framework was applied to 16 case studies of research grants funded in the early 1990s. Case study methodology included bibliometric analysis, literature and archival document review and key informant interviews.
A range of research paybacks was identified from the 16 research grants. The payback included 302 peer-reviewed papers, postgraduate training and career development, including 28 PhD/MDs, research informing recommendations in clinical guidelines, improved quality of life for people with RA and the reduction of the likelihood of recurrent miscarriage for women with antiphospholipid syndrome. The payback arising from project grants appeared to be similar to that arising from other modes of funding that were better resourced.
There is a wide diversity of research payback. Short focused project grants seem to provide value for money.


Available from: Martin Buxton, Jun 18, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Payback Framework, originally developed to examine the 'impact' or 'payback' of health services research, is explained. The Payback Framework is a research tool used to facilitate data collection and cross-case analysis by providing a common structure and so ensuring cognate information is recorded. It consists of a logic model representation of the complete research process, and a series of categories to classify the individual paybacks from research. Its multi-dimensional categorisation of benefits from research starts with more traditional academic benefits of knowledge production and research capacity-building, and then extends to wider benefits to society.
    Research Evaluation 09/2011; 20(3):181-183. DOI:10.3152/095820211X13118583635756 · 0.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Research Evaluation 01/2015; DOI:10.1093/reseval/rvv007 · 0.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The time taken, or 'time lags', between biomedical/health research and its translation into health improvements is receiving growing attention. Reducing time lags should increase rates of return to such research. However, ways to measure time lags are under-developed, with little attention on where time lags arise within overall timelines. The process marker model has been proposed as a better way forward than the current focus on an increasingly complex series of translation 'gaps'. Starting from that model, we aimed to develop better methods to measure and understand time lags and develop ways to identify policy options and produce recommendations for future studies. Following reviews of the literature on time lags and of relevant policy documents, we developed a new approach to conduct case studies of time lags. We built on the process marker model, including developing a matrix with a series of overlapping tracks to allow us to present and measure elements within any overall time lag. We identified a reduced number of key markers or calibration points and tested our new approach in seven case studies of research leading to interventions in cardiovascular disease and mental health. Finally, we analysed the data to address our study's key aims. The literature review illustrated the lack of agreement on starting points for measuring time lags. We mapped points from policy documents onto our matrix and thus highlighted key areas of concern, for example around delays before new therapies become widely available. Our seven completed case studies demonstrate we have made considerable progress in developing methods to measure and understand time lags. The matrix of overlapping tracks of activity in the research and implementation processes facilitated analysis of time lags along each track, and at the cross-over points where the next track started. We identified some factors that speed up translation through the actions of companies, researchers, funders, policymakers, and regulators. Recommendations for further work are built on progress made, limitations identified and revised terminology. Our advances identify complexities, provide a firm basis for further methodological work along and between tracks, and begin to indicate potential ways of reducing lags.
    Health Research Policy and Systems 01/2015; 13(1):1. DOI:10.1186/1478-4505-13-1 · 1.86 Impact Factor