Research Impact: A United Kingdom Occupational Therapy Research Foundation Perspective

Abstract

Introduction: The United Kingdom Occupational Therapy Research Foundation provides profession-specific funding for research, but what is its impact? An exploratory study was undertaken to gather intelligence on the impact of completed projects. Method: Eleven grant holders were invited to complete a research impact assessment form based on the multidimensional Becker Medical Library Model. Four domains of impact were included: research outputs and advancement of knowledge, clinical implementation, community and public benefit, and economic benefit. Results: Eight impact assessment forms were returned (73%); these reflected grants awarded across the four funding streams, although there were no returns from grant holders receiving over £50,000. Clearly evident was that most researchers were seeking publication in a range of journals, and disseminating findings at conferences. Other notable impacts included the extent to which participants were using findings in educational activities; the apparent importance of the collaborative partnerships in terms of the clinical application of findings post project; the active engagement of practitioners and service users; and the opportunities arising for follow-on funding or projects. Conclusion: Capturing research impact is complex, but vital. The project provided a strong argument to adopt a prospective approach to impact reporting throughout, and beyond, the life of a grant.

The impact on healthcare, policy and practice from 36 multi-project research programmes: findings from two reviews

“…Surveys to all PIs for projects funded between 1998 and 2011 who could be contacted (169; 84 responses, 50%)Payback Framework19% impact on policy development; for impact on health and the healthcare system: 20% health gain; 14% improvements in service delivery; 17% increased equity (the 20% figure used in our analysis represents the most conservative overall figure); substantial leveraged funds for follow-on projects came from outside Northern IrelandBecause Northern Ireland’s government did not contribute to the United Kingdom’s NIHR, researchers were not able to apply to the NIHR programmes. This “ was seen by respondents as a major constraint to research activity… research was not seen as a priority within many organisations and that many key stakeholders in the health sector did not fully engage with research or see its benefits ” ([58], p. 49); as a result of the assessment, Northern Ireland decided to subscribe to the NIHRSainty, 2013 [59]; United KingdomUK Occupational Therapy Research Foundation – Occupational therapyPIs of completed project invited to complete a ‘personalized impact assessment form’ (equivalent to a survey) (11, 8 responded, 73%)Two researchers provided an independent review of the collated findingsBecker Medical Library ModelThree projects (37.5%) reported local clinical application: “ particular tools, clinical advice, or models that were the subject of research having been used in practice ” ([59], p. 534)In relation to the clinically related activities of three projects: “ Important to note, was the extent to which respondents highlighted this as being in the context of the participating services or host organizations ” ([59], p. 534)Shah & Ward, 2001 [60]; AustraliaNHMRC – Public health R&D committeeSelf-complete questionnaires to CIs funded in 1993 (55, 38 responses, 69%); combined with desk analysis – attempted some correlations between publications and impactNo framework stated58% claimed research influenced policy; 69% influence on practice; 53% stated both“ Influence on policy, practice or both was not associated with peer-reviewed publication in an Australian journal ” ([60], p. 558)Soper & Hanney, 2007 [61]; United KingdomNHS Implementation Methods Programme – Implementation researchPostal survey of PIs (36, 30 responses, 83%) and potential users of the three projects in maternity care (227, 100 responses, 44%); poor response from other users to electronic survey; some desk analysis; interviews with key figuresPayback Framework30% claimed impact on policy; 27% on practice; 54% of the midwives and perinatal care researchers surveyed said the findings from at least one of the three maternity care projects had influenced their clinical practiceIn this new field, the programme generated considerable enthusiasm among members of advisory and commissioning groups, and increased understanding and interest in the field; some projects made considerable impact, but IMP did not have a communications strategy and as a programme it highlighted some of complexities facing implementation.The Madrillon Group, 2011 [62]; United States of AmericaNIH – Mind body interactions and health programMixed methods cross-sectional evaluation design; semi-structured interviews wit...…”

Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment programme

“…Of the 10 studies reporting on impact on clinical practice, 2,53,62,66,69,84,96,99,139,140 the five highest were in a narrow band of 37-43% of the principal investigators claiming such impact. 2,66,84,96,99 The projects in these programmes generally incorporated factors associated with achieving impact, including being funded to meet the needs of the local health-care system and interaction with potential users.…”

“…Therefore, surveys of researchers can play some role in research impact assessment, and do allow wider coverage than is usually possible through more resource-intensive methods such as case studies. 96,99 illustrate that there is now wide interest in assessing the impact of health research funding, but also illustrate that conducting research in a health-care setting can lead to impacts in that health-care setting. 4.…”

“…2,66,84,96,99 The projects in these programmes generally incorporated factors associated with achieving impact, including being funded to meet the needs of the local health-care system and interaction with potential users. Two of the studies 96,99 looked at small-scale funding initiatives, and found that the impact was often at the location where the research was conducted.…”

A Bibliometric Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Journal Publications by British Occupational Therapy Authors

“…Therefore, the pool of potential occupational therapy authors as well as universities that employ them has increased (Jackson, 2015;Sainty, 2013). Further, it is likely that the occupational therapy academic staff employed in university education programs have the requirement to meet research outputs as part of their yearly key performance indicators and that publishing in peer-reviewed journals is included under this umbrella (College of Occupational Therapists, 2007;Ilott, Taylor, & Bolanos, 2006;Scott, Justiss, Schmid, & Fisher, 2013).…”