Literature DB >> 28083434

A 'DECISIVE' Approach to Research Funding: Lessons from Three Retrosight Studies.

Susan Guthrie, Anne Kirtley, Bryn Garrod, Alexandra Pollitt, Jonathan Grant, Steven Wooding.   

Abstract

The Retrosight approach consists of looking at research that was conducted in the past and, using Payback case studies, tracing that research through to the present day to understand both the extent to which the research has had impacts, within academia and more widely, and how these impacts came about. RAND Europe has conducted three studies based on this approach in different research fields: arthritis research, cardiovascular research and mental health research. Each drew out a set of observations and recommendations for policymakers and research funders in those research fields. By reviewing and comparing the findings of the three studies, we have identified eight lessons which combine to provide a "DECISIVE" approach to biomedical and health research funding: Different skills: Fund researchers with more than just research skills-individuals are key when it comes to translation of research into wider impact. Engaged: Support your researchers to engage with non-academic stakeholders to help their work have a wider impact. Clinical: For greater impact on patient care within 10-20 years, fund clinical rather than basic research. Impact on society: If you want to have a wider impact, don't just fund for academic excellence. Size: Bigger isn't necessarily better when it comes to the size of a research grant. International: For high academic impact, fund researchers who collaborate internationally and support them to do so. Variety: Simple metrics will only capture some of the impact of your research. Expectations: Most broader social and economic impact will come from just a few projects.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 28083434      PMCID: PMC5158270     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rand Health Q        ISSN: 2162-8254


  1 in total

1.  Project hindsight. A Defense Department study of the utility of research.

Authors:  C W Sherwin; R S Isenson
Journal:  Science       Date:  1967-06-23       Impact factor: 47.728

  1 in total
  4 in total

1.  ISRIA statement: ten-point guidelines for an effective process of research impact assessment.

Authors:  Paula Adam; Pavel V Ovseiko; Jonathan Grant; Kathryn E A Graham; Omar F Boukhris; Anne-Maree Dowd; Gert V Balling; Rikke N Christensen; Alexandra Pollitt; Mark Taylor; Omar Sued; Saba Hinrichs-Krapels; Maite Solans-Domènech; Heidi Chorzempa
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2018-02-08

2.  Mechanisms and pathways to impact in public health research: a preliminary analysis of research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

Authors:  Harriet Boulding; Adam Kamenetzky; Ioana Ghiga; Becky Ioppolo; Facundo Herrera; Sarah Parks; Catriona Manville; Susan Guthrie; Saba Hinrichs-Krapels
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 4.615

3.  Global priorities for research and the relative importance of different research outcomes: an international Delphi survey of malaria research experts.

Authors:  Jo-Ann Mulligan; Lesong Conteh
Journal:  Malar J       Date:  2016-12-06       Impact factor: 2.979

4.  Optimisation: defining and exploring a concept to enhance the impact of public health initiatives.

Authors:  Luke Wolfenden; Katarzyna Bolsewicz; Alice Grady; Sam McCrabb; Melanie Kingsland; John Wiggers; Adrian Bauman; Rebecca Wyse; Nicole Nathan; Rachel Sutherland; Rebecca Kate Hodder; Maria Fernandez; Cara Lewis; Natalie Taylor; Heather McKay; Jeremy Grimshaw; Alix Hall; Joanna Moullin; Bianca Albers; Samantha Batchelor; John Attia; Andrew Milat; Andrew Bailey; Chris Rissel; Penny Reeves; Joanie Sims-Gould; Robyn Mildon; Chris Doran; Sze Lin Yoong
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2019-12-30
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.