Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://buratest.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/12714
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGreenhalgh, T-
dc.contributor.authorRaftery, J-
dc.contributor.authorHanney, S-
dc.contributor.authorGlover, M-
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-03T12:25:19Z-
dc.date.available2016-05-23-
dc.date.available2016-06-03T12:25:19Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationBMC Medicine, 14: 78, (2016)en_US
dc.identifier.issn1741-7015-
dc.identifier.urihttp://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0620-8-
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/12714-
dc.description.abstractImpact occurs when research generates benefits (health, economic, cultural) in addition to building the academic knowledge base. Its mechanisms are complex and reflect the multiple ways in which knowledge is generated and utilised. Much progress has been made in measuring both the outcomes of research and the processes and activities through which these are achieved, though the measurement of impact is not without its critics. We review the strengths and limitations of six established approaches (Payback, Research Impact Framework, Canadian Academy of Health Sciences, monetisation, societal impact assessment, UK Research Excellence Framework) plus recently developed and largely untested ones (including metrics and electronic databases). We conclude that (1) different approaches to impact assessment are appropriate in different circumstances; (2) the most robust and sophisticated approaches are labour-intensive and not always feasible or affordable; (3) whilst most metrics tend to capture direct and proximate impacts, more indirect and diffuse elements of the research-impact link can and should be measured; and (4) research on research impact is a rapidly developing field with new methodologies on the horizon.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis paper is largely but not entirely based on a systematic review funded by the NIHR HTA Programme, grant number 14/72/01.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_US
dc.subjectResearch impacten_US
dc.subjectKnowledge translationen_US
dc.subjectImplementation scienceen_US
dc.subjectResearch utilizationen_US
dc.subjectPayback Frameworken_US
dc.subjectMonetisationen_US
dc.subjectResearch accountabilityen_US
dc.subjectHealth gainsen_US
dc.titleResearch impact: A narrative reviewen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0620-8-
dc.relation.isPartOfBMC Medicine-
pubs.issue1-
pubs.publication-statusPublished online-
pubs.volume14-
Appears in Collections:Health Economics Research Group (HERG)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Fulltext.pdf2.54 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


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