Exploring research impact models: A systematic scoping review

Abstract

This article explores the models and frameworks developed on “research impact’. We aim to provide a comprehensive overview of related literature through scoping study method. The present research investigates the nature, objectives, approaches, and other main attributes of the research impact models. It examines to analyze and classify models based on their characteristics. Forty-seven studies and 10 reviews published between 1996 and 2020 were included in the analysis. The majority of models were developed for the impact assessment and evaluation purposes. We identified three approaches in the models, namely outcome-based, process-based, and those utilized both of them, among which the outcome-based approach was the most frequently used by impact models and evaluation was considered as the main objective of this group. The process-based ones were mainly adapted from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation logic model and were potentially eligible for impact improvement. We highlighted the scope of processes and other specific features for the recent models. Given the benefits of the process-based approach in enhancing and accelerating the research impact, it is important to consider such approach in the development of impact models. Effective interaction between researchers and stakeholders, knowledge translation, and evidence synthesis are the other possible driving forces contributing to achieve and improve impact.

How to strengthen societal impact of research and innovation? Lessons learned from assessing participatory knowledge infrastructures funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development

“…Several frameworks have been developed (e.g., payback model, (hybrid) Research Impact Framework, health economics models, contribution mapping) [4,5,6,7,8] and several studies have been conducted to assess the societal impact of research and innovation, e.g., [9,10,11]. From these studies it is known that successful knowledge utilisation involves so-called productive interactions [12].…”

What funders are doing to assess the impact of their investments in health and biomedical research

“…Within the field of RIA, there have been several published reviews on the value of RIA and available RIA frameworks [9,10,[18][19][20][21], and formative guidelines from the International School on Research Impact Assessment (ISRIA) on how to produce an effective RIA [8] have recently been published. Impact assessment can be performed by a variety of actors including researchers, universities and funders, and while previous work in this field has often grouped these actors together, it is important to emphasize that the needs and goals for impact evaluation for the groups may be quite different [22].…”

“…While the availability of diverse models for RIA have been discussed at length in other reviews [ 9 , 10 , 18 – 21 ], less attention has been paid to the practical implementation of such RIA frameworks and models by research funders. Today, research funders have more RIA models at their disposal than ever [ 22 ], including but not limited to the Payback Framework [ 23 ], Canadian Academy of Health Sciences (CAHS) Framework [ 24 ], Canadian Health Services and Policy Research Alliance (CHSPRA) Informing Decision-Making Impact Framework [ 25 ], Research Impact Framework [ 26 ], Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational Health Research (FAIT) [ 27 ], Stryer’s four types of impact model [ 28 ], also known as the AHRQ impact model, Weiss’s Framework [ 29 ], Becker Medical Library Model [ 30 ], Social Impact Assessment Methods for Productive Interactions (SIAMPI) [ 31 , 32 ] and Contribution Mapping [ 32 ].…”

“…Amidst a background of competitive [1][2][3] and often political [4,5] pressures to maximize research funding, biomedical research funders are increasingly asked to demonstrate the longer-term and real-world (health, economic and social) impacts of their research [6][7][8][9]. Consumers are eager to see value for money spent [10][11][12] and research gains translated into actionable and fully adopted policies that are evidence-informed and responsive to the needs of patients and the wider public [13,14].…”

Co-creation and societal impact: Toward a generic framework for research impact assessment

“…Whereas the categories and conceptualizations of aspired benefits are broadly similar, discord prevails when defining societal impact itself (Pedersen et al, 2020). When clarifying terms, Razmgir et al (2021) adopt a broad definition of societal impact, where societal impact is seen as "all means by which research can benefit society (. .…”