74
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Understanding relevance of health research: considerations in the context of research impact assessment

      editorial

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          With massive investment in health-related research, above and beyond investments in the management and delivery of healthcare and public health services, there has been increasing focus on the impact of health research to explore and explain the consequences of these investments and inform strategic planning. Relevance is reflected by increased attention to the usability and impact of health research, with research funders increasingly engaging in relevance assessment as an input to decision processes. Yet, it is unclear whether relevance is a synonym for or predictor of impact, a necessary condition or stage in achieving it, or a distinct aim of the research enterprise. The main aim of this paper is to improve our understanding of research relevance, with specific objectives to (1) unpack research relevance from both theoretical and practical perspectives, and (2) outline key considerations for its assessment.

          Approach

          Our approach involved the scholarly strategy of review and reflection. We prepared a draft paper based on an exploratory review of literature from various fields, and gained from detailed and insightful analysis and critique at a roundtable discussion with a group of key health research stakeholders. We also solicited review and feedback from a small sample of expert reviewers.

          Conclusions

          Research relevance seems increasingly important in justifying research investments and guiding strategic research planning. However, consideration of relevance has been largely tacit in the health research community, often depending on unexplained interpretations of value, fit and potential for impact. While research relevance seems a necessary condition for impact – a process or component of efforts to make rigorous research usable – ultimately, relevance stands apart from research impact. Careful and explicit consideration of research relevance is vital to gauge the overall value and impact of a wide range of individual and collective research efforts and investments. To improve understanding, this paper outlines four key considerations, including how research relevance assessments (1) orientate to, capture and compare research versus non-research sources, (2) consider both instrumental versus non-instrumental uses of research, (3) accommodate dynamic temporal-shifting perspectives on research, and (4) align with an intersubjective understanding of relevance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Many Meanings of Research Utilization

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Indirect treatment comparison/network meta-analysis study questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report.

            Despite the great realized or potential value of network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial evidence to inform health care decision making, many decision makers might not be familiar with these techniques. The Task Force developed a consensus-based 26-item questionnaire to help decision makers assess the relevance and credibility of indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis to help inform health care decision making. The relevance domain of the questionnaire (4 questions) calls for assessments about the applicability of network meta-analysis results to the setting of interest to the decision maker. The remaining 22 questions belong to an overall credibility domain and pertain to assessments about whether the network meta-analysis results provide a valid answer to the question they are designed to answer by examining 1) the used evidence base, 2) analysis methods, 3) reporting quality and transparency, 4) interpretation of findings, and 5) conflicts of interest. The questionnaire aims to help readers of network meta-analysis opine about their confidence in the credibility and applicability of the results of a network meta-analysis, and help make decision makers aware of the subtleties involved in the analysis of networks of randomized trial evidence. It is anticipated that user feedback will permit periodic evaluation and modification of the questionnaire. Copyright © 2014 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How can payback from health services research be assessed?

              Throughout the world there is a growing recognition that health care should be research-led. This strengthens the requirement for expenditure on health services research to be justified by demonstrating the benefits it produces. However, payback from health research and development is a complex concept and little used term. Five main categories of payback can be identified: knowledge; research benefits; political and administrative benefits; health sector benefits; and broader economic benefits. Various models of research utilization together with previous assessments of payback from research helped in the development of a new conceptual model of how and where payback may occur. The model combines an input-output perspective with an examination of the permeable interfaces between research and its environment. The model characterizes research projects in terms of Inputs, Processes, and Primary Outputs. The last consist of knowledge and research benefits. There are two interfaces between the project and its environment. The first (Project Specification, Selection and Commissioning) is the link with Research Needs Assessment. The second (Dissemination) should lead to Secondary Outputs (which are policy or administrative decisions), and usually Applications (which take the form of behavioural changes), from which Impacts or Final Outcomes result. It is at this final stage that health and wider economic benefits can be measured. A series of case studies were used to assess the feasibility both of applying the model and the payback categorization. The paper draws various conclusions from the case studies and identifies a range of issues for further work.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                mark.dobrow@utoronto.ca
                fiona.miller@utoronto.ca
                adalsteinn.brown@utoronto.ca
                Journal
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Research Policy and Systems
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-4505
                17 April 2017
                17 April 2017
                2017
                : 15
                : 31
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2157 2938, GRID grid.17063.33, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, , University of Toronto, ; 155 College Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON M5T 3M6 Canada
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0471 7172, GRID grid.453114.6, , Alberta Innovates - Health Solutions, ; Edmonton, Alberta Canada
                Article
                188
                10.1186/s12961-017-0188-6
                5392970
                28412937
                4c4dbcb4-3917-4032-b7e3-b9fa4022e556
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 27 September 2016
                : 7 March 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: Ontario SPOR Support Unit
                Categories
                Opinion
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Health & Social care
                health research systems,research relevance,research impact,ontario,canada
                Health & Social care
                health research systems, research relevance, research impact, ontario, canada

                Comments

                Comment on this article