Assessing the impact of England's National Health Service R&amp;D Health Technology Assessment program using the “payback” approach

Raftery, James; Hanney, Stephen; Green, Colin; Buxton, Martin

doi:10.1017/s0266462309090011

Cited by 25 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…because descriptive, [15] or dealing with prioritization of research topics rather than impact [16,17]. We included 22 publications, referring to 18 studies: four SRs [12,18-21] and 14 primary studies [8,9,22-36]. For each study, we synthesized the overall objective, scientific area evaluated, country and setting, and the time lag of the evaluation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews

Banzi¹,

Moja

Pistotti³

et al. 2011

Health Res Policy Sys

123

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHow to assess the impact of research is of growing interest to funders, policy makers and researchers mainly to understand the value of investments and to increase accountability. Broadly speaking the term "research impact" refers to the contribution of research activities to achieve desired societal outcomes. The aim of this overview is to identify the most common approaches to research impact assessment, categories of impact and their respective indicators.MethodsWe systematically searched the relevant literature (PubMed, The Cochrane Library (1990-2009)) and funding agency websites. We included systematic reviews, theoretical and methodological papers, and empirical case-studies on how to evaluate research impact. We qualitatively summarised the included reports, as well the conceptual frameworks.ResultsWe identified twenty-two reports belonging to four systematic reviews and 14 primary studies. These publications reported several theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches (bibliometrics, econometrics, ad hoc case studies). The "payback model" emerged as the most frequently used. Five broad categories of impact were identified: a) advancing knowledge, b) capacity building, c) informing decision-making, d) health benefits, e) broad socio-economic benefits. For each proposed category of impact we summarized a set of indicators whose pros and cons are presented and briefly discussed.ConclusionsThis overview is a comprehensive, yet descriptive, contribution to summarize the conceptual framework and taxonomy of an heterogeneous and evolving area of research. A shared and comprehensive conceptual framework does not seem to be available yet and its single components (epidemiologic, economic, and social) are often valued differently in different models.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews

Banzi¹,

Moja

Pistotti³

et al. 2011

Health Res Policy Sys

123

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Beispielsweise erhebt Blancquaert [10] die Wirkung, die wissenschaftliche Institutionen auf die Politik sowie auf den thematischen Diskurs aus ü ben. Die Studien von Oortwijn et al [11] und Raftery et al [12] ermitteln den Impact des nationalen HTA-Programms auf das Gesundheitswesen der Niederlande bzw. in Gro ß britannien und wenden hierbei ein breites Spektrum an Indikatoren an.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Nach der stattgefundenen Dissemination entstehen " secondary outputs " wie Entscheidungen von nationalen und internationalen Institutionen, gefolgt von " fi nal outcomes " , die den Zugewinn an Gesundheit, Gleichheit und ö konomische Eff ekte beschreiben. W ä hrend sich Raftery et al [12] direkt an den Erhebungsmethoden des Payback-Modells orientieren, sowie die AutorInnen ü ber den bekannten Impact ihrer Arbeit befragen, setze Oortwijn [11] In Abh ä ngigkeit der Impact-Stufen werden geeignete Indikatoren zur Beschreibung des " Eff ektes " aus der Literatur ü bersicht zugeordnet. Diese sind je nach betroff ener Zielgruppe und Systemebene anzupassen und f ü r eine valide Messung zu operationalisieren.…”

Section: Indikatorenunclassified

Wie kann der Impact von Health Technology Assessment (HTA) im österreichischen Gesundheitssystem ermittelt werden? Die Entwicklung eines Analyseinstruments

Schumacher¹,

Zechmeister²

2011

Gesundheitswesen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the considerable investment in health-related research, assessing its impact should ensure accountability, help identify ways to maximize impact and justify funding [25]. Scientific community often fails to reach a consensus around what is ''valuable research''.…”

Section: Insight On the Stroke Unit Cochrane Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the impact of evidence: the Cochrane systematic review of organised stroke care

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2007, the first commentary hosted by this Cochrane's Corner focussed on stroke units and discussed the principle that a valid combination of results from a series of unbiased primary studies can provide influential information that would not be otherwise available by individual studies [1]. We now present a case study of the role played by the stroke unit Cochrane review in the complicated process that led to changes in clinical practice and health policy. Our hypothesis is that the theoretical and pragmatic value of this systematic review goes beyond the mere increase in the number of patients considered in one study: robust results from a methodologically sound systematic review including trials performed in different setting and with different standards can increase the applicability of the conclusion. Insight on the stroke unit Cochrane reviewThe Stroke Unit Trialists' Collaboration is an international, collaborative group of trialists who (since 1984) committed themselves to systematically reviewing the field. In fact, the role of stroke unit has been controversial for over 30 years [2]. A complete systematic review was published in 1995 and 1997 in the Cochrane Library and the BMJ, respectively [3,4]. This review can be consider as the benchmark of evidence availability on stroke unit. As any other Cochrane's review, its regular updating guarantees a cumulative assessment of information: the last update published in 2007 includes 31 trials, involving 6,936 participants, and showed that patients who receive this care are more likely to survive their stroke, return home and become independent in looking after themselves [5]. Stroke unit care reduces the odds of death or institutionalised care (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.73-0.92; P = 0.0006) and death or dependency (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.73-0.92; P = 0.001). This effect remains of moderate statistical significance for case fatality (median 1 year follow-up OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.76-0.98; P = 0.02). The sensitivity analysis based on those trials which used an unequivocally blinded assessment suggested that such bias has not seriously influenced the results. Finally, the review highlighted the particular problems related to the complex and heterogeneous nature of the interventions and its potential interaction with other aspects of care: the review was unable to disentangle precisely what confers to stroke units an advantage (i.e. early mobilisation, better diagnostic procedures, prevention of complications, etc.) in improving patient outcomes.

show abstract

Assessing the impact of England's National Health Service R&D Health Technology Assessment program using the “payback” approach

Cited by 25 publications

References 17 publications

Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews

Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews

Wie kann der Impact von Health Technology Assessment (HTA) im österreichischen Gesundheitssystem ermittelt werden? Die Entwicklung eines Analyseinstruments

Measuring the impact of evidence: the Cochrane systematic review of organised stroke care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About