Understanding the relative valuation of research impact: a best-worst scaling experiment of the general public and biomedical and health researchers.
Understanding the relative valuation of research impact: a best-worst scaling experiment of the general public and biomedical and health researchers.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010916
复制
发表时间：
2016-08-18
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Grant J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Pollitt A;Potoglou D;Patil S;Burge P;Guthrie S;King S;Wooding S;Wooding S;Grant J
(1)测试最佳-最差尺度(BWS)实验在评估不同类型的生物医学和健康研究影响方面的使用，以及(2)探索不同类型的研究影响如何被不同的利益相关者群体评估。基于调查的BWS实验和离散选择建模。英国。现任和最近的英国医学研究理事会拨款获得者和从在线小组招募的具有代表性的普通公众样本。关于本研究的两个目标：(1)我们展示了BWS方法在定量评估和评估研究影响中的应用。(2)普通公众和研究人员对延长预期寿命、创造就业机会和降低保健费用等研究影响的评价类似，但对商业能力发展、培训和传播等其他影响，两组之间的共识较少。这是第二次使用离散选择实验来评估普通公众和研究人员如何评估不同类型的研究影响，也是第一次使用BWS来引发这些选择。虽然这两个小组以不同的方式评价不同的研究影响，但我们注意到，在他们一致的情况下，这通常是关于似乎更重要并与更广泛的社会效益相关的事情，而不是发生在研究系统内的影响。这些发现是探索研究受益者和生产者如何评估不同类型影响的第一步，鉴于越来越重视根据(潜在)影响为研究提供资金和评估研究，这是一个重要的考虑因素。未来的研究应该完善和复制目前的研究和Miller等人在其他国家和学科的研究。
(1) To test the use of best–worst scaling (BWS) experiments in valuing different types of biomedical and health research impact, and (2) to explore how different types of research impact are valued by different stakeholder groups. Survey-based BWS experiment and discrete choice modelling. The UK. Current and recent UK Medical Research Council grant holders and a representative sample of the general public recruited from an online panel. In relation to the study's 2 objectives: (1) we demonstrate the application of BWS methodology in the quantitative assessment and valuation of research impact. (2) The general public and researchers provided similar valuations for research impacts such as improved life expectancy, job creation and reduced health costs, but there was less agreement between the groups on other impacts, including commercial capacity development, training and dissemination. This is the second time that a discrete choice experiment has been used to assess how the general public and researchers value different types of research impact, and the first time that BWS has been used to elicit these choices. While the 2 groups value different research impacts in different ways, we note that where they agree, this is generally about matters that are seemingly more important and associated with wider social benefit, rather than impacts occurring within the research system. These findings are a first step in exploring how the beneficiaries and producers of research value different kinds of impact, an important consideration given the growing emphasis on funding and assessing research on the basis of (potential) impact. Future research should refine and replicate both the current study and that of Miller et al in other countries and disciplines.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
Netten, A.;Burge, P.;Wall, B.
通讯作者：
Wall, B.
根据改善健康成果的净价值，估计对英国公开资助的与癌症相关的研究的回报。
影响因子：
9.3
作者：
Glover M;Buxton M;Guthrie S;Hanney S;Pollitt A;Grant J
通讯作者：
Grant J
影响因子：
4
作者：
Flynn TN;Louviere JJ;Peters TJ;Coast J
通讯作者：
Coast J
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Coast, Joanna;Flynn, Terry N.;Peters, Tim J.
通讯作者：
Peters, Tim J.
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Flynn, Terry N.;Louviere, Jordan J.;Coast, Joanna
通讯作者：
Coast, Joanna