Quality of life returns from basic research

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Assessing the consequences of research is an increasingly important task in research and innovation policy. This paper takes a broader view of those consequences than the conventional economic approach, placing researchers and their activities in the centre of the assessment process and examining results for professional practice and general education as well as contributions to knowledge.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The paper uses historical and documentary analysis to illustrate the approach, focusing on U.S. biomedicine over the past century. At aggregate level, the analysis attributes portions of the change in aggregate health indicators to research and research-based institutions, through several available types of logic: either through correlations between timing of institutional changes and changes in the indicators or through direct or indirect causal connections.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The analysis shows that while biomedical research has certainly contributed to improved health in the United States, other factors have also contributed. In some ways the institutional structure of science-based medicine has worked against creating benefits for some groups in U.S. society.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The paper concludes with a call for more strategic attention to dimensions of impact other than knowledge outcomes and for participatory planning for research.</p

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

© 2014 Bunn 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: There has been a growing emphasis on evidence-informed decision making in health care. Systematic reviews, such as those produced by the Cochrane Collaboration, have been a key component of this movement. The UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Systematic Review Programme currently supports 20 Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs). The aim of this study was to identify the impacts of Cochrane reviews published by NIHR funded CRGs during the years 2007-11. Methods: We sent questionnaires to CRGs and review authors, interviewed guideline developers 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. We used a framework with four categories (knowledge production, research targeting, informing policy development, and impact on practice/services). Results: A total of 1502 new and updated reviews were produced by the 20 NIHR funded CRGs between 2007-11. The clearest impacts were on policy with a total of 483 systematic reviews cited in 247 sets of guidance; 62 were international, 175 national (87 from the UK) and 10 local. Review authors and CRGs provided some examples of impact on practice or services, for example safer use of medication, the identification of new effective drugs or treatments and potential economic benefits through the reduction in the use of unproven or unnecessary procedures. However, such impacts are difficult to objectively document and the majority of reviewers were unsure if their review had produced specific impacts. Qualitative data suggested that Cochrane reviews often play an instrumental role in informing guidance although a poor fit with guideline scope or methods, reviews being out of date and a lack of communication between CRGs and guideline developers were barriers to their use. Conclusions: Health and economic impacts of research are generally difficult to measure. We found that to be the case with this evaluation. Impacts on knowledge production and clinical guidance were easier to identify and substantiate than those on clinical practice. Questions remain about how we define and measure impact and more work is needed to develop suitable methods for impact analysis.Peer reviewe

Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences

The hypothesis of a Hierarchy of the Sciences, first formulated in the 19(th) century, predicts that, moving from simple and general phenomena (e.g. particle dynamics) to complex and particular (e.g. human behaviour), researchers lose ability to reach theoretical and methodological consensus. This hypothesis places each field of research along a continuum of complexity and "softness", with profound implications for our understanding of scientific knowledge. Today, however, the idea is still unproven and philosophically overlooked, too often confused with simplistic dichotomies that contrast natural and social sciences, or science and the humanities. Empirical tests of the hypothesis have usually compared few fields and this, combined with other limitations, makes their results contradictory and inconclusive. We verified whether discipline characteristics reflect a hierarchy, a dichotomy or neither, by sampling nearly 29,000 papers published contemporaneously in 12 disciplines and measuring a set of parameters hypothesised to reflect theoretical and methodological consensus. The biological sciences had in most cases intermediate values between the physical and the social, with bio-molecular disciplines appearing harder than zoology, botany or ecology. In multivariable analyses, most of these parameters were independent predictors of the hierarchy, even when mathematics and the humanities were included. These results support a "gradualist" view of scientific knowledge, suggesting that the Hierarchy of the Sciences provides the best rational framework to understand disciplines' diversity. A deeper grasp of the relationship between subject matter's complexity and consensus could have profound implications for how we interpret, publish, popularize and administer scientific research

Evaluating Research and Impact: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research by the NIH/NIAID HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials Networks

Evaluative bibliometrics uses advanced techniques to assess the impact of scholarly work in the context of other scientific work and usually compares the relative scientific contributions of research groups or institutions. Using publications from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) HIV/AIDS extramural clinical trials networks, we assessed the presence, performance, and impact of papers published in 2006–2008. Through this approach, we sought to expand traditional bibliometric analyses beyond citation counts to include normative comparisons across journals and fields, visualization of co-authorship across the networks, and assess the inclusion of publications in reviews and syntheses. Specifically, we examined the research output of the networks in terms of the a) presence of papers in the scientific journal hierarchy ranked on the basis of journal influence measures, b) performance of publications on traditional bibliometric measures, and c) impact of publications in comparisons with similar publications worldwide, adjusted for journals and fields. We also examined collaboration and interdisciplinarity across the initiative, through network analysis and modeling of co-authorship patterns. Finally, we explored the uptake of network produced publications in research reviews and syntheses. Overall, the results suggest the networks are producing highly recognized work, engaging in extensive interdisciplinary collaborations, and having an impact across several areas of HIV-related science. The strengths and limitations of the approach for evaluation and monitoring research initiatives are discussed

Contribution mapping: a method for mapping the contribution of research to enhance its impact.

Background: At a time of growing emphasis on both the use of research and accountability, it is important for research funders, researchers and other stakeholders to monitor and evaluate the extent to which research contributes to better action for health, and find ways to enhance the likelihood that beneficial contributions are realized. Past attempts to assess research 'impact' struggle with operationalizing 'impact', identifying the users of research and attributing impact to research projects as source. In this article we describe Contribution Mapping, a novel approach to research monitoring and evaluation that aims to assess contributions instead of impacts. The approach focuses on processes and actors and systematically assesses anticipatory efforts that aim to enhance contributions, so-called alignment efforts. The approach is designed to be useful for both accountability purposes and for assisting in better employing research to contribute to better action for health.Methods: Contribution Mapping is inspired by a perspective from social studies of science on how research and knowledge utilization processes evolve. For each research project that is assessed, a three-phase process map is developed that includes the main actors, activities and alignment efforts during research formulation, production and knowledge extension (e.g. dissemination and utilization). The approach focuses on the actors involved in, or interacting with, a research project (the linked actors) and the most likely influential users, who are referred to as potential key users. In the first stage, the investigators of the assessed project are interviewed to develop a preliminary version of the process map and first estimation of research-related contributions. In the second stage, potential key-users and other informants are interviewed to trace, explore and triangulate possible contributions. In the third stage, the presence and role of alignment efforts is analyzed and the preliminary results are shared with relevant stakeholders for feedback and validation. After inconsistencies are clarified or described, the results are shared with stakeholders for learning, improvement and accountability purposes.Conclusion: Contribution Mapping provides an interesting alternative to existing methods that aim to assess research impact. The method is expected to be useful for research monitoring, single case studies, comparing multiple cases and indicating how research can better be employed to contribute to better action for health. © 2012 Kok and Schuit; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Reflections on the entrepreneurial state, innovation and social justice

The state and its role in technological innovation and social justice have become, once again, fashionable topics of political and economic debate. A number of innovation theorists argue that never more than today, it is necessary to rethink the state’s entrepreneurial role in society and welfare. Their argument provides justification for the existence of the state, going beyond classical political theory and especially contractarian accounts of legitimacy and obligation. It emphasises the ability and willingness of the state to take risks and reduce uncertainty of economic agents for the sake of innovation that can make everyone better off. This paper insists that although the risk-taking argument of innovation theorists deserves further attention and analysis, it should not be abstracted from a holistic politico-theoretical approach to the state. Such an approach is necessary for a critical understanding of the complex set of predominantly political institutions which compose the state and which have been historically developed to guarantee social evolution. Any risk-taking for innovative enterprise and mission-oriented investment ought to be justified and legitimised on the grounds of principled democratic procedures. This implies that innovation itself is a value-laden political process, requiring participation in the decision-making and standards of fairness