Institutional strategies for capturing socio-economic impact of academic research

Evaluation of socio-economic impact is an emerging theme for publicly-funded academic research. Within this context the paper suggests that the concept of institutional research capital be expanded to include the capture and evaluation of socio-economic impact. Furthermore, it argues that understanding the typology of impacts and the tracking from research to impact will assist the formulation of institutional strategies for capturing socio-economic impact. A three-stage approach is proposed for capturing and planning activities to enhance the generation of high-quality impact. Stage one outlines the critical role of user engagement that facilitates the tracking of such impact. Stage two employs an analytical framework based on the criteria of ‘depth’ and ‘spread’ to evaluate impacts that have been identified. Stage three utilizes the outcomes of the framework to devise strategies, consisting of either further research (to increase depth) or more engagement (to increase spread) that will improve the generation of higher quality impact

Estimating the returns to UK publicly funded cancer-related research in terms of the net value of improved health outcomes

© 2014 Glover et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background - Building on an approach developed to assess the economic returns to cardiovascular research, we estimated the economic returns from UK public and charitable funded cancer-related research that arise from the net value of the improved health outcomes. Methods - To assess these economic returns from cancer-related research in the UK we estimated: 1) public and charitable expenditure on cancer-related research in the UK from 1970 to 2009; 2) net monetary benefit (NMB), that is, the health benefit measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) valued in monetary terms (using a base-case value of a QALY of GB£25,000) minus the cost of delivering that benefit, for a prioritised list of interventions from 1991 to 2010; 3) the proportion of NMB attributable to UK research; 4) the elapsed time between research funding and health gain; and 5) the internal rate of return (IRR) from cancer-related research investments on health benefits. We analysed the uncertainties in the IRR estimate using sensitivity analyses to illustrate the effect of some key parameters. Results - In 2011/12 prices, total expenditure on cancer-related research from 1970 to 2009 was £15 billion. The NMB of the 5.9 million QALYs gained from the prioritised interventions from 1991 to 2010 was £124 billion. Calculation of the IRR incorporated an estimated elapsed time of 15 years. We related 17% of the annual NMB estimated to be attributable to UK research (for each of the 20 years 1991 to 2010) to 20 years of research investment 15 years earlier (that is, for 1976 to 1995). This produced a best-estimate IRR of 10%, compared with 9% previously estimated for cardiovascular disease research. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated the importance of smoking reduction as a major source of improved cancer-related health outcomes. Conclusions - We have demonstrated a substantive IRR from net health gain to public and charitable funding of cancer-related research in the UK, and further validated the approach that we originally used in assessing the returns from cardiovascular research. In doing so, we have highlighted a number of weaknesses and key assumptions that need strengthening in further investigations. Nevertheless, these cautious estimates demonstrate that the returns from past cancer research have been substantial, and justify the investments made during the period 1976 to 1995.Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, the National Institute of Health Research, and the Academy of Medical Sciences

Comparing research investment to United Kingdom institutions and published outputs for tuberculosis, HIV and malaria: A systematic analysis across 1997-2013

Background: The "Unfinished Agenda" of infectious diseases is of great importance to policymakers and research funding agencies that require ongoing research evidence on their effective management. Journal publications help effectively share and disseminate research results to inform policy and practice. We assess research investments to United Kingdom institutions in HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, and analyse these by numbers of publications and citations and by disease and type of science. Methods: Information on infection-related research investments awarded to United Kingdom institutions across 1997-2010 were sourced from funding agencies and individually categorised by disease and type of science. Publications were sourced from the Scopus database via keyword searches and filtered to include only publications relating to human disease and containing a United Kingdom-based first and/or last author. Data were matched by disease and type of science categories. Investment (United Kingdom pounds) and publications were compared to generate an 'investment per publication' metric; similarly, an 'investment per citation' metric was also developed as a measure of the usefulness of research. Results: Total research investment for all three diseases was £1.4 billion, and was greatest for HIV (£651.4 million), followed by malaria (£518.7 million) and tuberculosis (£239.1 million). There were 17,271 included publications, with 9,322 for HIV, 4,451 for malaria, and 3,498 for tuberculosis. HIV publications received the most citations (254,949), followed by malaria (148,559) and tuberculosis (100,244). According to UK pound per publication, tuberculosis (£50,691) appeared the most productive for investment, compared to HIV (£61,971) and malaria (£94,483). By type of science, public health research was most productive for HIV (£27,296) and tuberculosis (£22,273), while phase I-III trials were most productive for malaria (£60,491). According to UK pound per citation, tuberculosis (£1,797) was the most productive area for investment, compared to HIV (£2,265) and malaria (£2,834). Public health research was the most productive type of science for HIV (£2,265) and tuberculosis (£1,797), whereas phase I-III trials were most productive for malaria (£1,713). Conclusions: When comparing total publications and citations with research investment to United Kingdom institutions, tuberculosis research appears to perform best in terms of efficiency. There were more public health-related publications and citations for HIV and tuberculosis than other types of science. These findings demonstrate the diversity of research funding and outputs, and provide new evidence to inform research investment strategies for policymakers, funders, academic institutions, and healthcare organizations.Infectious Disease Research Networ

Societal output and use of research performed by health research groups

The last decade has seen the evaluation of health research pay more and more attention to societal use and benefits of research in addition to scientific quality, both in qualitative and quantitative ways. This paper elaborates primarily on a quantitative approach to assess societal output and use of research performed by health research groups (societal quality of research). For this reason, one of the Dutch university medical centres (i.e. the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC)) was chosen as the subject of a pilot study, because of its mission to integrate top patient care with medical, biomedical and healthcare research and education. All research departments were used as units of evaluation within this university medical centre

Editorial: Organising health research systems as a key to improving health: the World Health Report 2013 and how to make further progress

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.The World Health Report 2013 provides a major boost to the health research community and, in particular, to those who believe that health research will make its greatest impact on improving health when it is organised through a systems approach. The World Health Report 2013, Research for Universal Health Coverage, starts with three key messages. Firstly, that universal health coverage, with full access to high-quality services, needs research evidence if it is to be achieved; second, all nations should conduct and use research; and finally, the report states that systems are needed to develop national research agendas, to raise funds, to strengthen research capacity, and to make effective use of research findings. Each of these themes is elaborated in the report and supported by extensive references. In this editorial, we first outline the key messages from the World Health Report 2013 and highlight the contributions made by papers from our journal, Health Research Policy and Systems. In addition, we discuss very recent papers that advance some issues even further. In particular, we consider new evidence both on how to achieve financial protection for those who use health services, and on whether healthcare professionals and organisations who engage in research provide an improved healthcare performance. Finally, we propose additional perspectives that add to the impressive body of evidence and analyses presented in the report. Specifically, we suggest that considering the needs of various stakeholders, as attempted in the UK, in parallel with analysing how to fulfil essential functions, should boost the prospects of successfully building and strengthening health research systems. This is important because research is vital for achieving universal health coverage, and consequently for improving the health of millions of people