Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://buratest.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/9227
Title: Understanding factors associated with the translation of cardiovascular research: A multinational case study approach
Authors: Wooding, S
Hanney, SR
Pollitt, A
Grant, J
Buxton, MJ
Keywords: Benefits from research;Cardiovascular research;Multinational case studies;Pathways towards impact;Payback framework;Research impact;Research returns;Research translation;Stroke research
Issue Date: 2014
Publisher: BioMed Central Ltd.
Citation: Implementation Science, 9(47), (2014)
Abstract: Background: Funders of health research increasingly seek to understand how best to allocate resources in order to achieve maximum value from their funding. We built an international consortium and developed a multinational case study approach to assess benefits arising from health research. We used that to facilitate analysis of factors in the production of research that might be associated with translating research findings into wider impacts, and the complexities involved. Methods: We built on the Payback Framework and expanded its application through conducting co-ordinated case studies on the payback from cardiovascular and stroke research in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. We selected a stratified random sample of projects from leading medical research funders. We devised a series of innovative steps to: minimize the effect of researcher bias; rate the level of impacts identified in the case studies; and interrogate case study narratives to identify factors that correlated with achieving high or low levels of impact. Results: Twenty-nine detailed case studies produced many and diverse impacts. Over the 15 to 20 years examined, basic biomedical research has a greater impact than clinical research in terms of academic impacts such as knowledge production and research capacity building. Clinical research has greater levels of wider impact on health policies, practice, and generating health gains. There was no correlation between knowledge production and wider impacts. We identified various factors associated with high impact. Interaction between researchers and practitioners and the public is associated with achieving high academic impact and translation into wider impacts, as is basic research conducted with a clinical focus. Strategic thinking by clinical researchers, in terms of thinking through pathways by which research could potentially be translated into practice, is associated with high wider impact. Finally, we identified the complexity of factors behind research translation that can arise in a single case. Conclusions: We can systematically assess research impacts and use the findings to promote translation. Research funders can justify funding research of diverse types, but they should not assume academic impacts are proxies for wider impacts. They should encourage researchers to consider pathways towards impact and engage potential research users in research processes. © 2014 Wooding et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
Description: 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 credited.
This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.
URI: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/9227
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-47
ISSN: 1748-5908
Appears in Collections:Brunel OA Publishing Fund
Health Economics Research Group (HERG)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Fulltext.pdf268.33 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.