Conducting retrospective impact analysis to inform a medical research charity's funding strategies: the case of Asthma UK
Conducting retrospective impact analysis to inform a medical research charity's funding strategies: the case of Asthma UK
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1710-1492-9-17
复制
发表时间：
2013-05-07
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Metcalf, Leanne
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hanney, Stephen R.;Watt, Amanda;Metcalf, Leanne
背景：关于如何评估医学研究的全方位影响的辩论正在加剧。在评估资助者的多样化资金来源时，复杂性增加了，例如英国哮喘，这是一个慈善患者组织，支持医学研究，使哮喘患者受益。本文旨在描述从一系列英国哮喘研究中发现的各种影响，并探索英国哮喘如何利用成功的资助方法的特点来指导未来的研究战略。方法：我们采用了回报框架，在调查中使用它，并帮助构建访谈、文献分析和案例研究。我们向153名项目首席研究人员以及10名过去的研究员发送了调查问卷，并进行了14项详细的案例研究。这些项目包括九个项目和两个奖学金，此外还有关于教授教席的创新案例研究(自1988年以来得到资助)和关于哮喘过敏机制的MRC-哮喘英国中心(“中心”)，这两个中心共同促进了对整个供资组合的全面分析。我们组织了每个案例研究，以捕捉可能出现的任何学术和更广泛的社会影响(或回报)，考虑到不同的时间尺度，涉及的资金规模，以及英国哮喘基金对影响的贡献程度。结果：项目记录了平均四篇同行评议的期刊文章。主席们总共报告了500多篇论文。所有的资金来源都吸引了后续资金。每一种不同类别的社会影响都只产生于少数个别项目和研究金。一些研究组合正在影响与哮喘相关的临床指南，一些研究组合对产品开发做出了贡献。后者包括由大学衍生公司试验的哮喘疗法(免疫疗法和新的吸入性药物)的潜在重大突破。这种以研究为基础的指南和药物反过来可以促进健康状况的改善。结论：我们系统地证明了英国哮喘评估的所有类型的研究资助都在不同的水平上产生了影响，但项目和奖学金的主要社会影响来自于少数资助的项目和奖学金。英国哮喘协会利用这项研究的结果，特别是与该中心有关的结果，为促进实现IMPACT的研究资助战略提供了信息。
Background: Debate is intensifying about how to assess the full range of impacts from medical research. Complexity increases when assessing the diverse funding streams of funders such as Asthma UK, a charitable patient organisation supporting medical research to benefit people with asthma. This paper aims to describe the various impacts identified from a range of Asthma UK research, and explore how Asthma UK utilised the characteristics of successful funding approaches to inform future research strategies.Methods: We adapted the Payback Framework, using it both in a survey and to help structure interviews, documentary analysis, and case studies. We sent surveys to 153 lead researchers of projects, plus 10 past research fellows, and also conducted 14 detailed case studies. These covered nine projects and two fellowships, in addition to the innovative case studies on the professorial chairs (funded since 1988) and the MRC-Asthma UK Centre in Allergic Mechanisms of Asthma (the 'Centre') which together facilitated a comprehensive analysis of the whole funding portfolio. We organised each case study to capture whatever academic and wider societal impacts (or payback) might have arisen given the diverse timescales, size of funding involved, and extent to which Asthma UK funding contributed to the impacts.Results: Projects recorded an average of four peer-reviewed journal articles. Together the chairs reported over 500 papers. All streams of funding attracted follow-on funding. Each of the various categories of societal impacts arose from only a minority of individual projects and fellowships. Some of the research portfolio is influencing asthma-related clinical guidelines, and some contributing to product development. The latter includes potentially major breakthroughs in asthma therapies (in immunotherapy, and new inhaled drugs) trialled by university spin-out companies. Such research-informed guidelines and medicines can, in turn, contribute to health improvements. The role of the chairs and the pioneering collaborative Centre is shown as being particularly important.Conclusions: We systematically demonstrate that all types of Asthma UK's research funding assessed are making impacts at different levels, but the main societal impacts from projects and fellowships come from a minority of those funded. Asthma UK used the study's findings, especially in relation to the Centre, to inform research funding strategies to promote the achievement of impact.