Assessing the Benefits of Public Research Within an Economic Framework: The Case of USDA's Agricultural Research Service

Evaluation of publicly funded research can help provide accountability and prioritize programs. In addition, Federal intramural research planning generally involves an institutional assessment of the appropriate Federal role, if any, and whether the research should be left to others, such as universities or the private sector. Many methods of evaluation are available, peer review—used primarily for establishing scientific merit—being the most common. Economic analysis focuses on quantifying ultimate research outcomes, whether measured in goods with market prices or in nonmarket goods such as environmental quality or human health. However, standard economic techniques may not be amenable for evaluating some important public research priorities or for institutional assessments. This report reviews quantitative methods and applies qualitative economic reasoning and stakeholder interviewing methods to the evaluation of economic benefits of Federal intramural research using three case studies of research conducted by USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS). Differences among the case studies highlight the need to select suitable assessment techniques from available methodologies, the limited scope for comparing assessment results across programs, and the inherent difficulty in quantifying benefits in some research areas. When measurement and attribution issues make it difficult to quantify these benefits, the report discusses how qualitative insights based on economic concepts can help research prioritization.Agricultural Research Service, Federal intramural research, publicly funded research, Environmental Economics and Policy, Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety, Livestock Production/Industries, Productivity Analysis,

Non-genetic inheritance of environmental exposures : a protocol for a map of systematic reviews with bibliometric analysis

Abstract Background Over the last few decades, we increasingly see examples of parental environmental experiences influencing offspring health and fitness. More recently, it has become clear that some non-genetic effects can be conferred across multiple generations. This topic has attracted research from a diversity of disciplines such as toxicology, biomedical sciences, and ecology, due to its importance for environmental and health issues, as well as ecological and evolutionary processes, with implications for environmental policies. The rapid accumulation of primary research has enabled researchers to perform systematic reviews (SRs), including meta-analyses, to investigate the generality of and sources of variation in non-genetic effects. However, different disciplines ask different questions and SRs can vary substantially in scope, quality, and terminology usage. This diversity in SRs makes it difficult to assess broad patterns of non-genetic effects across disciplines as well as determine common areas of interest and gaps in the literature. To clarify research patterns within the SR literature on non-genetic inheritance, we plan to create a map of systematic reviews as well as conduct bibliometric mapping (referred to as ‘research weaving’). We will address four key questions: first, what are the broad research patterns unifying the SR literature on non-genetic inheritance across disciplines? Second, are there discipline-specific research patterns, including terminology use, between disciplines? Third, how are authors of the SR literature connected? Fourth, what is the reliability of the SR literature? Methods We will systematically collect reviews within the SR ‘family’ that examine non-genetic inheritance arising from parental and ancestral environment by searching databases for journal articles and grey literature, as well as conducting backwards and forwards searching. Search hits will be double screened using ‘decision trees’ that represent the inclusion criteria. All relevant data elements on the review’s topic, as well as a critical appraisal of the review’s approach and reporting, will be extracted into Excel flat sheets. Bibliometric data will be directly extracted from Scopus. We will then query all relevant data elements to address our objectives and present outcomes in easily interpretable tables and figures, accompanied by a narrative description of results

A systematic evaluation of payback of publicly funded health and health services research in Hong Kong

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Health and Health Services Research Fund (HHSRF) is dedicated to support research related to all aspects of health and health services in Hong Kong. We evaluated the fund's outcomes and explored factors associated with the translation of research findings to changes in health policy and provider behaviour.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A locally suitable questionnaire was developed based on the "payback" evaluation framework and was sent to principal investigators of the completed research projects supported by the fund since 1993. Research "payback" in six outcome areas was surveyed, namely knowledge production, use of research in the research system, use of research project findings in health system policy/decision making, application of the research findings through changed behaviour, factors influencing the utilization of research, and health/health service/economic benefits.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Principal investigators of 178 of 205 (87%) completed research projects returned the questionnaire. Investigators reported research publications in 86.5% (mean = 5.4 publications per project), career advancement 34.3%, acquisition of higher qualifications 38.2%, use of results in policy making 35.4%, changed behaviour in light of findings 49.4%, evidence of health service benefit 42.1% and generated subsequent research in 44.9% of the projects. Payback outcomes were positively associated with the amount of funding awarded. Multivariate analysis found participation of investigators in policy committees and liaison with potential users were significantly associated with reported health service benefit (odds ratio [OR]_{participation}= 2.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28–6.40; OR_liaison= 2.03, 95% CI 1.05–3.91), policy and decision-making (OR_{participation}= 10.53, 95% CI 4.13–26.81; OR_liaison= 2.52, 95% CI 1.20–5.28), and change in behavior (OR_{participation}= 3.67, 95% CI 1.53–8.81).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The HHSRF has produced substantial outcomes and compared favourably with similar health research funds in other developed economies. Further studies are needed to better understand the factors and pathways associated with the translation of research findings into practice.</p

Prospect Theory: A bibliometric and systematic review in the categories of psychology in Web of Science

Prospect Theory (PT) is an alternative, dynamic explanation of the phenomenon of risky decision making. This research presents an overview of PT's history in health fields, including advancements, limitations, and bibliometric data. A systematic and bibliometric review of the scientific literature included in the psychological categories ofWeb of Science (WoS) was performed following the PRISMA 2020 statement for systematic reviews. A total of 37 studies (10 non-empirical and 27 empirical) were included in the sample. Bibliometric results showed thematic variability and heterogeneity regarding the production, researchers, and methodologies that are used to study PT. The systematic results highlight three main fields of PT research: preventive and screening behaviors, promotion of healthy habits, and COVID-related decision making. Personal and contextual factors which alter the usual pattern specified by PT are also described. To conclude, PT currently has an interdisciplinary character suitable for health promotion, with recent studies broadening its applicability

Project Retrosight. Understanding the returns from cardiovascular and stroke research: Case Studies

Copyright @ 2011 RAND Europe. All rights reserved. The full text article is available via the link below.This project explores the impacts arising from cardiovascular and stroke research funded 15-20 years ago and attempts to draw out aspects of the research, researcher or environment that are associated with high or low impact. The project is a case study-based review of 29 cardiovascular and stroke research grants, funded in Australia, Canada and UK between 1989 and 1993. The case studies focused on the individual grants but considered the development of the investigators and ideas involved in the research projects from initiation to the present day. Grants were selected through a stratified random selection approach that aimed to include both high- and low-impact grants. The key messages are as follows: 1) The cases reveal that a large and diverse range of impacts arose from the 29 grants studied. 2) There are variations between the impacts derived from basic biomedical and clinical research. 3) There is no correlation between knowledge production and wider impacts 4) The majority of economic impacts identified come from a minority of projects. 5) We identified factors that appear to be associated with high and low impact. This report presents the key observations of the study and an overview of the methods involved. It has been written for funders of biomedical and health research and health services, health researchers, and policy makers in those fields. It will also be of interest to those involved in research and impact evaluation.This study was initiated with internal funding from RAND Europe and HERG, with continuing funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. The UK Stroke Association and the British Heart Foundation provided support in kind through access to their archives

The Special Sauce of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network: 20 Years of Lessons Learned in Developing the Evidence Base, Building Community Capacity, and Translating Research into Practice

PURPOSE: The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a national network focused on accelerating the translation of cancer prevention and control research evidence into practice through collaborative, multicenter projects in partnership with diverse communities. From 2003 to 2022, the CPCRN included 613 members. METHODS: We: (1) characterize the extent and nature of collaborations through a bibliometric analysis of 20 years of Network publications; and (2) describe key features and functions of the CPCRN as related to organizational structure, productivity, impact, and focus on health equity, partnership development, and capacity building through analysis of 22 in-depth interviews and review of Network documentation. RESULTS: Searching Scopus for multicenter publications among the CPCRN members from their time of Network engagement yielded 1,074 collaborative publications involving two or more members. Both the overall number and content breadth of multicenter publications increased over time as the Network matured. Since 2004, members submitted 123 multicenter grant applications, of which 72 were funded (59%), totaling more than $77 million secured. Thematic analysis of interviews revealed that the CPCRN\u27s success-in terms of publication and grant productivity, as well as the breadth and depth of partnerships, subject matter expertise, and content area foci-is attributable to: (1) its people-the inclusion of members representing diverse content-area interests, multidisciplinary perspectives, and geographic contexts; (2) dedicated centralized structures and processes to enable and evaluate collaboration; and (3) focused attention to strategically adapting to change. CONCLUSION: CPCRN\u27s history highlights organizational, strategic, and practical lessons learned over two decades to optimize Network collaboration for enhanced collective impact in cancer prevention and control. These insights may be useful to others seeking to leverage collaborative networks to address public health problems

Priorities for cancer research in low- and middle-income countries: a global perspective

Cancer research currently is heavily skewed toward high-income countries (HICs), with little research conducted in, and relevant to, the problems of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This regional discordance in cancer knowledge generation and application needs to be rebalanced. Several gaps in the research enterprise of LMICs need to be addressed to promote regionally relevant research, and radical rethinking is needed to address the burning issues in cancer care in these regions. We identified five top priorities in cancer research in LMICs based on current and projected needs: reducing the burden of patients with advanced disease; improving access and affordability, and outcomes of cancer treatment; value-based care and health economics; quality improvement and implementation research; and leveraging technology to improve cancer control. LMICs have an excellent opportunity to address important questions in cancer research that could impact cancer control globally. Success will require collaboration and commitment from governments, policy makers, funding agencies, health care organizations and leaders, researchers and the public

Access Denied: How the Gun Lobby is Depriving Police, Policy Makers, and the Public of the Data We Need to Prevent Gun Violence

"In God we trust," the saying goes, "all others bring data." The free flow of information is central to the American idea. It fuels our economy, keeps our elected officials accountable, and guides our public policy choices.But not always. Since the 1990s, the Washington gun lobby has led an aggressive effort to limit what we know about firearms. And it has largely succeeded.Americans murder each other with guns at a rate nearly 20 times higher than people in other high-income countries.Among a group of 32 comparable nations, the United States accounts for 30 percent of the population, but 90 percent of the gun homicides.Despite this epidemic, the federal government conducts almost no scientific research on how criminals get and misuse guns, or what policies are effective at stopping them. Law enforcement officials are prohibited from sharing their analyses of crime gun trace data with policymakers and the press. And military leaders and pediatricians have been barred from discussing the subject with those under their command or care.This report describes the many ways in which the Washington gun lobby has kept the country in the dark about gun violence, and the dire consequences for public health and public safety