How has healthcare research performance been assessed? A systematic review

Abstract

Objectives Healthcare research performance is increasingly assessed through research indicators. We performed a systematic review to identify the indicators that have been used to measure healthcare research performance. We evaluated their feasibility, validity, reliability and acceptability; and finally assessed the utility of these indicators in terms of measuring performance in individuals, specialties, institutions and countries. Design A systematic review was performed by searching EMBASE, PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases between 1950 and September 2010. Setting Studies of healthcare research were appraised. Healthcare was defined as the prevention, treatment and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical wellbeing through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions. Participants All original studies that evaluated research performance indicators in healthcare were included. Main outcome measures Healthcare research indicators, data sources, study characteristics, results and limitations for each study were studied. Results The most common research performance indicators identified in 50 studies were: number of publications (n = 38), number of citations (n = 27), Impact Factor (n = 15), research funding (n = 10), degree of co-authorship (n = 9), and h index (n = 5). There was limited investigation of feasibility, validity, reliability and acceptability, although the utility of these indicators was adequately described. Conclusion Currently, there is only limited evidence to assess the value of healthcare research performance indicators. Further studies are required to define the application of these indicators through a balanced approach for quality and innovation. The ultimate aim of utilizing healthcare research indicators is to create a culture of measuring research performance to support the translation of research into greater societal and economic impact.

Nobel Prizes in Medicine: are clinicians out of fashion?

“…11 Although a large proportion of research translation 12 and impact is delivered by clinicians, the proportion of prizes they receive has significantly dropped. The 1970 -1979 period demonstrates a temporary reversal of this trend and may represent an era when the selection criteria for prizes was more considerate to clinical contribution.…”

Análisis de las publicaciones biomédicas chilenas indizadas en PubMed, en los años 2008 y 2009

“…El "índice H", propuesto por Hirsch en el año 2005 10 , considera las citaciones que reciben individualmente los autores de artículos científi-cos, lo que tendría mayor precisión para evaluar el impacto individual de un investigador y sería útil para predecir sus expectativas de éxito en una carrera académica 11 . Aunque ha sido validado para publicaciones relacionadas al área de salud, adolecería de limitaciones, entre las cuales está el número de años dedicados a la investigación, favoreciendo a los investigadores más antiguos 12 .…”

H-indeks - et godt mål på forskningsaktivitet?

“…Hovedproblemet med antall publikasjoner som bibliometrisk størrelse er at den sier intet om kvalitet. Det er heller aldri dokumentert noen sammenheng mellom antall publikasjoner og forskningskvalitet (13,14).…”