BackgroundResearch translation, particularly in the biomedical area, is often discussed but there are few methods that are routinely used to measure it or its impact. Of the impact measurement methods that are used, most aim to provide accountability – to measure and explain what was generated as a consequence of funding research. This case study reports on the development of a novel, conceptual framework that goes beyond measurement. The Framework To Assess the Impact from Translational health research, or FAIT, is a platform designed to prospectively measure and encourage research translation and research impact. A key assumption underpinning FAIT is that research translation is a prerequisite for research impact.MethodsThe research impact literature was mined to understand the range of existing frameworks and techniques employed to measure and encourage research translation and research impact. This review provided insights for the development of a FAIT prototype. A Steering Committee oversaw the project and provided the feedback that was used to refine FAIT.ResultsThe outcome of the case study was the conceptual framework, FAIT, which is based on a modified program logic model and a hybrid of three proven methodologies for measuring research impact, namely a modified Payback method, social return on investment, and case studies or narratives of the process by which research translates and generates impact.ConclusionAs funders increasingly seek to understand the return on their research investments, the routine measurement of research translation and research impact is likely to become mandatory rather than optional. Measurement of research impact on its own is insufficient. There should also be a mechanism attached to measurement that encourages research translation and impact – FAIT was designed for this task.
BackgroundSkin cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world. The increased incidence of skin cancer, combined with limited health care resources and tight budgetary conditions, has increased the importance of understanding the economic impact of skin cancer. This research estimates the economic cost of skin cancer in the Australian state of New South Wales.MethodAn incidence based approach is used to estimate lifetime costs of skin cancer. Both direct and indirect costs are considered - direct costs include resources associated with the management of skin cancer and indirect costs refer to productivity costs associated with morbidity and premature mortality. Diagnosis of skin cancer was determined according to ICD-10 codes using principal diagnosis. Linked administrative data and regression modelling are used to calculate costs; presented as Australian dollars for the year 2010. The human capital approach is used to value present and future productivity losses.ResultsThe lifetime cost of the 150,000 incident cases of skin cancer diagnosed in NSW in 2010 is estimated at $536 million ($44,796 per melanoma and $2459 per non-melanoma). Direct costs accounted for 72 % of costs ($10,230 per melanoma and $2336 per non-melanoma) and indirect costs accounted for 28 % of costs ($34,567 per melanoma and $123 per non-melanoma). Direct costs are, on average, higher for females than males with indirect costs, on average, higher for males than females.ConclusionThis research provides new evidence on the economic cost of skin cancer and provides policy makers with information of the potential monetary savings that may arise from efforts to reduce the incidence of skin cancer.
Abstract. Background: Little research has been conducted into the cost and prevention of self-harm in the workplace. Aims: To quantify the economic cost of self-harm and suicide among New South Wales (NSW) construction industry (CI) workers and to examine the potential economic impact of implementing Mates in Construction (MIC). Method: Direct and indirect costs were estimated. Effectiveness was measured using the relative risk ratio (RRR). In Queensland (QLD), relative suicide risks were estimated for 5-year periods before and after the commencement of MIC. For NSW, the difference between the expected (i.e., using NSW pre-MIC [2008–2012] suicide risk) and counterfactual suicide cases (i.e., applying QLD RRR) provided an estimate of potential suicide cases averted in the post-MIC period (2013–2017). Results were adjusted using the average uptake (i.e., 9.4%) of MIC activities in QLD. Economic savings from averted cases were compared with the cost of implementing MIC. Results: The cost of self-harm and suicide in the NSW CI was AU $527 million in 2010. MIC could potentially avert 0.4 suicides, 1.01 full incapacity cases, and 4.92 short absences, generating annual savings of AU $3.66 million. For every AU $1 invested, the economic return is approximately AU $4.6. Conclusion: MIC represents a positive economic investment in workplace safety.
BackgroundThe aim of this systematic literature review is to identify and critique full economic evaluations of interventions for high risk young people with the purpose of informing the design of future rigorous economic evaluations of such intervention programs.MethodsA PRISMA compliant search of the literature between 2000 and April 2018 was conducted to identify full economic evaluations of youth focussed interventions for at risk young people. Duplicates were removed and two researchers independently screened the article titles and abstracts according to PICOS criteria for exclusion and inclusion. The remaining full text articles were assessed for eligibility and a quality assessment of the included articles was conducted using the Drummond checklist.ResultsThe database, grey literature and hand searches located 488 studies of interventions for at risk young people. After preliminary screening of titles and abstracts, 104 studies remained for full text examination and 29 empirical studies containing 32 separate economic evaluations were judged eligible for inclusion in the review. These comprised 13 cost-benefit analyses (41%), 17 cost-effectiveness analyses (53%), one cost-utility analysis (3%) and a social return on investment (3%). Three main methodological challenges were identified: 1. attribution of effects; 2. measuring and valuing outcomes; and 3. identifying relevant costs and consequences.ConclusionsA cost-benefit analysis would best capture the dynamic nature of a multi-component intervention for high risk young people, incorporating broader intersectoral outcomes and enabling measurement of more domains of risk. Prospective long-term data collection and a strong study design that incorporates a control group contribute to the quality of economic evaluation. Extrapolation of impact into the future is important for this population, in order to account for the time lag in effect of many impacts and benefits arising from youth interventions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3450-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.