The feasibility of determining the impact of primary health care research projects using the Payback Framework

Kalucy, Elizabeth Carment; Jackson-Bowers, Eleanor; McIntyre, Ellen; Reed, Richard

doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-11

Cited by 40 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This enabled us to get the views of those people most closely associated with the reviews, otherwise known as the insider account. 34 The questionnaires were based on previous questionnaires for evaluating research impact [40][41][42][43] and draw on our framework. In addition to the questionnaires, we undertook semistructured interviews with guideline developers (GDs) to gain further insight into how Cochrane Reviews have contributed to the development and preparation of guidance.…”

Section: Questionnaires and Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of Cochrane Reviews: a mixed-methods evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the National Institute for Health Research

Bunn

Trivedi

Alderson

et al. 2015

Health Technology Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe last few decades have seen a growing emphasis on evidence-informed decision-making in health care. Systematic reviews, such as those produced by Cochrane, have been a key component of this movement. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Systematic Review Programme currently supports 20 Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) in the UK and it is important that this funding represents value for money.Aims and objectivesThe overall aim was to identify the impacts and likely impacts on health care, patient outcomes and value for money of Cochrane Reviews published by 20 NIHR-funded CRGs during the years 2007–11.DesignWe sent questionnaires to CRGs and review authors, undertook interviews with guideline developers (GDs) and used bibliometrics and documentary review to get an overview of CRG impact and to evaluate the impact of a sample of 60 Cochrane Reviews. The evaluation was guided by a framework with four categories (knowledge production, research targeting, informing policy development and impact on practice/services).ResultsA total of 3187 new and updated reviews were published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews between 2007 and 2011, 1502 (47%) of which were produced by the 20 CRGs funded by the NIHR. We found 40 examples where reviews appeared to have influenced primary research and reviews had contributed to the creation of new knowledge and stimulated debate. Twenty-seven of the 60 reviews had 100 or more citations in Google Scholar™ (Google, CA, USA). Overall, 483 systematic reviews had been cited in 247 sets of guidance. This included 62 sets of international guidance, 175 sets of national guidance (87 from the UK) and 10 examples of local guidance. Evidence from the interviews suggested that Cochrane Reviews often play an instrumental role in informing guidance, although reviews being a poor fit with guideline scope or methods, reviews being out of date and a lack of communication between CRGs and GDs were barriers to their use. Cochrane Reviews appeared to have led to a number of benefits to the health service including safer or more appropriate use of medication or other health technologies or the identification of new effective drugs or treatments. However, whether or not these changes were directly as a result of the Cochrane Review and not the result of subsequent clinical guidance was difficult to judge. Potential benefits of Cochrane Reviews included economic benefits through budget savings or the release of funds, improvements in clinical quality, the reduction in the use of unproven or unnecessary procedures and improvements in patient and carer experiences.ConclusionsThis study identified a number of impacts and likely impacts of Cochrane Reviews. The clearest impacts of Cochrane Reviews are on research targeting and health-care policy, with less evidence of a direct impact on clinical practice and the organisation and delivery of NHS services. Although it is important for researchers to consider how they might increase the influence of their work, such impacts are difficult to measure. More work is required to develop suitable methods for defining and quantifying the impact of research.FundingThe NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

show abstract

Section: Questionnaires and Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of Cochrane Reviews: a mixed-methods evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the National Institute for Health Research

Bunn

Trivedi

Alderson

et al. 2015

Health Technology Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although this approach is more directly relevant for assessing the influence of research on practice (rather than policy) it provides a thorough and comprehensive approach to assessing research impact. As a result it is also time intensive (Kalucy, Jackson-Bowers, McIntyre, & Reed, 2009). Checklists of indicators have been published (Lavis, Ross, McLeod, & Gildiner, 2003;Smith, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Measuring research influence on drug policy: A case example of two epidemiological monitoring systems

Ritter¹,

Lancaster²

2013

International Journal of Drug Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The PHCRED strategy included scholarships and paid research placements in academic settings (Askew et al 2008;McIntyre et al 2011), research grants and an information exchange to support dissemination of research findings (Yen et al 2010), and resulted in increased research output (Askew et al 2008;McIntyre et al 2011). Studies also suggest the PHCRED strategy resulted in additional benefits to participants, including staff development, impact on knowledge production and impact on policy (Kalucy et al 2009;Reed et al 2011). …”

Section: Consulting the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Future studies should consider the impact of evidence generated through the Researcher Development Program on service planning and delivery within primary and community health in SWSLHD. Buxton and Hanney's Payback framework (Donovan and Hanney 2011) is emerging as a useful tool for this purpose in the Australian context (Kalucy et al 2009). …”

Section: Learning From This Casementioning

confidence: 99%

Building research capacity in south-west Sydney through a Primary and Community Health Research Unit

Friesen

Comino

Reath

et al. 2014

Aust. J. Prim. Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The Primary and Community Health Research Unit was established in 2010 in south-west Sydney to build research capacity in primary and community health services and help generate evidence to underpin clinical activities. In 2011, six project teams participated in a 12-month researcher mentoring program, undertaking projects in quality improvement and service evaluation. Project teams were linked with academic mentors and participated in four research skill development workshops covering research design, research ethics, statistical analysis and academic writing. All project teams presented their work at two or more research conferences, and all are preparing manuscripts for publication in peerreviewed journals. The Primary and Community Health Research Unit's approach to research capacity building in primary and community health services appears to be effective in supporting novice researchers to undertake research in their clinical settings. Sustainability is dependent on securing ongoing funding. Further analysis is needed to identify strengths and weaknesses of this approach.Additional keywords: research capacity building, research skills training.

show abstract

The feasibility of determining the impact of primary health care research projects using the Payback Framework

Cited by 40 publications

References 12 publications

The impact of Cochrane Reviews: a mixed-methods evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the National Institute for Health Research

The impact of Cochrane Reviews: a mixed-methods evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the National Institute for Health Research

Measuring research influence on drug policy: A case example of two epidemiological monitoring systems

Building research capacity in south-west Sydney through a Primary and Community Health Research Unit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About