The 'Payback Framework' explained

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.

Full text

Research Evaluation September 2011 0958-2029/11/03000-13 US$12.00 © Beech Tree Publishing 2011
1
Research Evaluation, 20(3), September 2011, pages 000–000
DOI: 10.3152/095820211X13118583635756; http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/beech/rev
The ‘Payback Framework’ explained
Claire Donovan and Stephen Hanney
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.
HE PAYBACK FRAMEWORK was original-
ly developed by Martin Buxton and Stephen
Hanney at the Health Economics Research
Group (HERG) at Brunel University, UK, to exam-
ine the ‘impact’ or ‘payback’ of health services re-
search (Buxton and Hanney, 1994; 1996). It was
further developed in studies of research funded by
the National Health Service (NHS) (Buxton and
Hanney, 1998), and subsequently extended in col-
laboration with RAND Europe to also examine basic
and early clinical biomedical research (Hanney et al,
2004; Wooding et al, 2005).
The Payback Framework consists of two ele-
ments: a logic model representation of the complete
research processes (for the purposes of research im-
pact evaluation), and a series of categories to classi-
fy the individual paybacks from research. The
framework has undergone some development and
revision, partly to reflect the perspectives of various
research funders who have commissioned studies
organised using the framework. Nevertheless, the
basic Payback Framework still retains most of its
original structure and elements.
The logic model is presented in Figure 1. It con-
sists of seven stages (0–6) and two interfaces be-
tween the research system and the wider political,
professional and economic environment.
The model facilitates analysis of the ‘story’ of a
research idea from initial inception (Stage 0) through
the research process (Stage 2) into dissemination
(Interface B) and on towards its impact on society,
potentially reaching the final outcomes of health and
economic benefits (Stage 6). Depending on the type
of research funding being considered, Stage 0 might
represent two rather different forms of topic identifi-
cation. It could be undertaken by researchers inter-
nally within the scientific community and be aimed
at addressing particular scientific imperatives or un-
answered questions. Alternatively, the topic identifi-
cation could involve, at least partially, the wider
environment and include policy-makers, healthcare
professionals, patient representatives, etc. (Buxton
and Hanney, 1996; Hanney et al, 2007).
The framework is a research tool to facilitate data
collection (by informing surveys, interview sched-
ules and documentary analysis) and cross-case analy-
sis by providing a common structure for each case
study, thereby ensuring cognate information for each
study is recorded in the same place. The model con-
tains numerous feedback loops and so is not meant
to imply that the research process is linear.
The multi-dimensional categorisation of benefits
from health research starts with more traditional
academic benefits of knowledge production and re-
search capacity-building. But the next three catego-
ries constitute wider benefits to society. Apart from
the first category, the others have various sub-
categories as illustrated in Table 1. There has been a
widening of the scope of some categories of bene-
fits, for example, the ‘Benefits from informing poli-
cy and product development’ category has expanded
T
Claire Donovan is Reader and Stephen Hanney is Professorial
Research Fellow at the Health Economics Research Group
(HERG), Brunel University, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH, UK; Email:
claire.donovan@brunel.ac.uk; Tel: +44 (0)1895 267651.

The ‘Payback Framework’ explained
Research Evaluation September 2011
2
to give more emphasis to product development. This
widening is partly a consequence of the expansion of
the types of research to which the Payback Frame-
work has been applied, especially to basic and early
clinical research.
While it is not completely possible to tie the cate-
gories of benefits to specific stages of the model, it
is possible to identify broad correlations that show
where the categories of impacts are most likely to be
found in the logic model: in this instance the
‘Knowledge’ and ‘Benefits to future research and
research use’ categories together are generally the
primary outputs from research; the ‘Benefits from
informing policy and product development’ category
relates to the secondary outputs; and the categories
for ‘Health and health sector benefits’ and ‘Broader
economic benefits’, respectively, are generally the
final outcomes.
While the Payback Framework was originally
developed to examine the ‘impact’ or ‘payback’
of healthcare research, it has subsequently been
adapted to assess the impact of research in other are-
as such as the social sciences (Wooding et al, 2007;
Klautzer et al, 2011) and the humanities (Levitt et
al, 2010).
References
Buxton, Martin and Stephen Hanney 1994. Assessing Payback
from Department of Health Research and Development: Pre-
liminary Report. Volume 1: The Main Report. HERG Research
Report, No. 19. Uxbridge: HERG, Brunel University.
Buxton, Martin and Stephen Hanney 1996. How can payback
from health services research be assessed? Journal of Health
Service Research and Policy, 1(1), 35–43.
Buxton, Martin and Stephen Hanney 1997. Assessing Payback
from Department of Health Research and Development:
Figure 1. The logic model of the Payback Framework
Source: Hanney et al (2004)
Table 1. Example of the multi-dimensional categorisation of paybacks of the Payback Framework
Category Definition
1. Knowledge Journal articles; conference presentations; books; book chapters; research reports
2. Benefits to future research and
research use

Better targeting of future research
 Development of research skills, personnel and overall research capacity
 A critical capacity to absorb and utilise appropriately existing research including that from overseas
 Staff development and educational benefits
3. Benefits from informing policy
and product development

Improved information bases for political and executive decisions
 Other political benefits from undertaking research
 Development of pharmaceutical products and therapeutic techniques
4. Health and health sector benefits

Improved health
 Cost reduction in delivery of existing services
 Qualitative improvements in the process of delivery
 Improved equity in service delivery
5. Broader economic benefits

Wider economic benefits from commercial exploitation of innovations arising from R&D
 Economic benefits from a healthy workforce and reduction in working days lost
Source: Adapted from Buxton and Hanney (1994, 1996, 1997) and Wooding et al (2004)

The ‘Payback Framework’ explained
Research Evaluation September 2011
3
Second Report. Volume 1: The Main Report. HERG Research
Report, No. 24. Uxbridge: HERG, Brunel University.
Buxton, Martin and Stephen Hanney 1998. Evaluating the NHS
R&D programme: will the programme give value for money?
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 91(suppl 35): 2–6.
Hanney, Stephen, Jonathan Grant, Steven Wooding and Martin
Buxton 2004. Proposed methods for reviewing the outcomes
of research: the impact of funding by the UK’s Arthritis Re-
search Campaign. Health Research Policy and Systems, 2(4).
Hanney Stephen, Martin Buxton, Colin Green, Diane Coulson and
James Raftery 2007. An assessment of the impact of the NHS
Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol-
ogy Assessment, 11(53).
Klautzer, Lisa, Stephen Hanney, Edward Nason, Jennifer Rubin,
Jonathan Grant and Steven Wooding 2011. Assessing policy
and practice impacts of social science research: the applica-
tion of the Payback Framework to assess the Future of Work
programme. Research Evaluation, 20(3), xxx–xxx.
Levitt, Ruth, Claire Celia, Stephanie Diepeveen, Siobhan Ni
Chonaill, Lila Rabinovich and Jan Tiessen 2010. Assessing
the Impact of Arts and Humanities Research at the University
of Cambridge. Report prepared for the University of Cam-
bridge and the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Cam-
bridge: RAND Europe. <http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical
_reports/TR816/>, last accessed 15 July 2011.
Wooding, Steve, Steve Hanney, Martin Buxton and Jonathan
Grant 2004. The Returns from Arthritis Research Volume 1:
Approach, Analysis and Recommendations. Cambridge:
RAND Europe. <http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/
RAND_MG251.pdf>, last accessed 15 July 2011.
Wooding, Steven, Stephen Hanney, Martin Buxton and Jonathan
Grant 2005. Payback arising from research funding: evaluation
of the Arthritis Research Campaign. Rheumatology (Oxford),
44(9), 1145–1156.
Wooding, Steven, Edward Nason, Lisa Klautzer, Jennifer Rubin,
Stephen Hanney and Jonathan Grant 2007. Policy and Prac-
tice Impacts of Research Funded by the Economic and Social
Research Council: a Case Study of the Future of Work Pro-
gramme, Approach and Analysis. Santa Monica, CA: The
RAND Corporation. <www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/Case_Study_
of_the_Future_of_Work_Programme_Volume_2_tcm8-4563.
pdf>, last accessed 15 July 2011.