Article

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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Martin Buxton, Jun 18, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
100 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The relative newness of ‘impact’ as a criterion for research assessment has meant that there is yet to be an empirical study examining the process of its evaluation. This article is part of a broader study which is exploring the panel-based peer and end-user review process for societal impact evaluation using the UK’s national research assessment exercise, the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014, as a case study. In particular, this article explores the different perceptions REF2014 evaluators had regarding societal impact, preceding their evaluation of this measure as part of REF2014. Data are drawn from 62 interviews with evaluators from the health-related Panel A and its subpanels, prior to the REF2014 exercise taking place. We show how going into the REF exercise, evaluators from Panel A had different perceptions about how to characterize impact and how to define impact realization in terms of research outcomes and the research process. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for future impact evaluation frameworks, as well as postulating a series of hypotheses about the ways in which evaluators’ different perceptions going into an impact assessment could potentially influence the evaluation of impact submissions. Using REF2014 as a case study, these hypotheses will be tested in interviews with REF2014 evaluators post-assessment.
    Research Evaluation 01/2015; DOI:10.1093/reseval/rvv007 · 0.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is an increasing need both to understand the translation of biomedical research into improved healthcare and to assess the range of wider impacts from health research such as improved health policies, health practices and healthcare. Conducting such assessments is complex and new methods are being sought. Our new approach involves several steps. First, we developed a qualitative citation analysis technique to apply to biomedical research in order to assess the contribution that individual papers made to further research. Second, using this method, we then proposed to trace the citations to the original research through a series of generations of citing papers. Third, we aimed eventually to assess the wider impacts of the various generations. This article describes our comprehensive literature search to inform the new technique. We searched various databases, specific bibliometrics journals and the bibliographies of key papers. After excluding irrelevant papers we reviewed those remaining for either general or specific details that could inform development of our new technique. Various characteristics of citations were identified that had been found to predict their importance to the citing paper including the citation's location; number of citation occasions and whether the author(s) of the cited paper were named within the citing paper. We combined these objective characteristics with subjective approaches also identified from the literature search to develop a citation categorisation technique that would allow us to achieve the first of the steps above, i.e., being able routinely to assess the contribution that individual papers make to further research.
    Scientometrics 10/2012; 93(1):125-134. DOI:10.1007/s11192-012-0642-8 · 2.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The topic of this work is health research evaluation including basic and clinical medical research, as well as healthcare research. The main objects are to explore possible approaches for valuing research in economic terms and to prepare an analytical model for evaluation of health research using the Swedish context. The study also aims to identify potential effects and their significance, and to provide a basis for discussions about the effects of research investments. The study has reviewed ten articles indicating positive effects, in the form of improved health and economic growth. The study also developed a model applied to Swedish health research. The review indicates that positive effects, in the form of improved health and economic growth, have a value that greatly exceeds the costs of the research investments. The tentative model applied to Swedish health research also indicates predominantly positive returns, but in a lower range than the review would imply. Methodological problems, however, entail major uncertainty in the cited results. Accurate determination of the economic value of research would require significantly better basic data and better knowledge of relationships between research, implementation of new knowledge, and health effects. Information in support of decisions about future allocation of research resources is preferably produced by a combination of general analyses and strategically selected case studies.
    International journal of preventive medicine 10/2011; 2(4):203-15.