Do Canadian Researchers and the Lay Public Prioritize Biomedical Research Outcomes Equally? A Choice Experiment

Miller, Fiona A.; Mentzakis, Emmanouil; Axler, Renata; Lehoux, Pascale; French, Martin; Tarride, Jean‐Éric; Wodchis, Walter P.; Wilson, Brenda J.; Longo, Christopher J.; Bytautas, Jessica P; Slater, Barbara

doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e31828577fe

Cited by 12 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there remains a lack of methodological and empirical research on how the public value research impact 14 15 and how valuations may vary between stakeholder groups. 16 To address this issue, we undertook online surveys with a representative sample of the UK public as well as current and recent Medical Research Council (MRC) grant holders to elicit their relative valuation of different types of research impact. Using a method known as 'best-worst scaling' (BWS), 17 we asked survey participants to compare statements about different types of impact.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitations Of This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The survey assessed preferences for research outcomes across five attributes using a discrete choice experiment. 16 The authors concluded that citizens and researchers fundamentally prioritised the same outcomes for basic biomedical research. Notably, they prioritised traditional scientific outcomes and devalued the pursuit of economic returns.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitations Of This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding the relative valuation of research impact: a best–worst scaling experiment of the general public and biomedical and health researchers

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives(1) To test the use of best–worst scaling (BWS) experiments in valuing different types of biomedical and health research impact, and (2) to explore how different types of research impact are valued by different stakeholder groups.DesignSurvey-based BWS experiment and discrete choice modelling.SettingThe UK.ParticipantsCurrent and recent UK Medical Research Council grant holders and a representative sample of the general public recruited from an online panel.ResultsIn relation to the study's 2 objectives: (1) we demonstrate the application of BWS methodology in the quantitative assessment and valuation of research impact. (2) The general public and researchers provided similar valuations for research impacts such as improved life expectancy, job creation and reduced health costs, but there was less agreement between the groups on other impacts, including commercial capacity development, training and dissemination.ConclusionsThis is the second time that a discrete choice experiment has been used to assess how the general public and researchers value different types of research impact, and the first time that BWS has been used to elicit these choices. While the 2 groups value different research impacts in different ways, we note that where they agree, this is generally about matters that are seemingly more important and associated with wider social benefit, rather than impacts occurring within the research system. These findings are a first step in exploring how the beneficiaries and producers of research value different kinds of impact, an important consideration given the growing emphasis on funding and assessing research on the basis of (potential) impact. Future research should refine and replicate both the current study and that of Miller et al in other countries and disciplines.

show abstract

Section: Strengths and Limitations Of This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Strengths and Limitations Of This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the relative valuation of research impact: a best–worst scaling experiment of the general public and biomedical and health researchers

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, our completion rate is typical of internet surveys that target samples representing the population on key demographic criteria. 26,41,42,43 Although individuals who earn less and have less formal education were under-represented, bivariate analyses demonstrated that the attitudes and beliefs examined did not differ significantly along these characteristics (data not shown). Further, our findings on the predictors of reduced obligations to participate in WG/ES-based NBS were based on a smaller sub-sample of 472 and should be interpreted cautiously.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Public views on participating in newborn screening using genome sequencing

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growing discussion on the use of whole-genome or exome sequencing (WG/ES) in newborn screening (NBS) has raised concerns regarding the generation of incidental information on millions of infants annually. It is unknown whether integrating WG/ES would alter public expectations regarding participation in universal NBS. We assessed public willingness to participate in NBS using WG/ES compared with current NBS. Our secondary objective was to assess the public's beliefs regarding a parental responsibility to participate in WG/ES-based NBS compared with current NBS. We examined self-reported attitudes regarding willingness to participate in NBS using a cross-sectional national survey of Canadian residents recruited through an internet panel, reflective of the Canadian population by age, gender and region. Our results showed that fewer respondents would be willing to participate in NBS using WG/ES compared with NBS using current technologies (80 vs 94%, Po0.001), or perceived a parental responsibility to participate in WG/ES-based NBS vs current NBS (30 vs 48%, Po0.001). Our findings suggest that integrating WG/ES into NBS might reduce participation, and challenge the moral authority that NBS programmes rely upon to ensure population benefits. These findings point to the need for caution in the untargeted use of WG/ES in public health contexts.

show abstract

“…These studies suggest differing levels of alignment between researcher and public views, emphasizing the importance of the question for research impact evaluation. In both studies, however, both researchers and the public showed a preference for health-related over economic or commercial outcomes (Miller et al, 2013;Pollitt et al, 2016).…”

Section: Socially-desirable Impact Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is limited empirical evidence on the variation in views about impact from research. Two studies, focusing on medical research, have examined the preferences of researchers and the public with respects to research impact (Miller et al, 2013;Pollitt et al, 2016). These studies suggest differing levels of alignment between researcher and public views, emphasizing the importance of the question for research impact evaluation.…”

Section: Socially-desirable Impact Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing (for) impact: future assessment of the societal impact of research

Hill¹

2016

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

National research assessments play a role in providing accountability-to funders, government and civil society-for the activities of largely autonomous research systems. Increasingly, an element of such assessments is the assessment of societal impact. In this article, I review the development of impact assessment, with a focus on the UK's Research Excellence Framework, and consider implications and challenges for the future. Notwithstanding these challenges, I further argue that the assessment of societal impact needs to become a more central aspect of research evaluation. This article is published as part of a collection on the future of research assessment.

show abstract

Do Canadian Researchers and the Lay Public Prioritize Biomedical Research Outcomes Equally? A Choice Experiment

Cited by 12 publications

References 32 publications

Understanding the relative valuation of research impact: a best–worst scaling experiment of the general public and biomedical and health researchers

Understanding the relative valuation of research impact: a best–worst scaling experiment of the general public and biomedical and health researchers

Public views on participating in newborn screening using genome sequencing

Assessing (for) impact: future assessment of the societal impact of research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About