Research impact in the community-based health sciences: an analysis of 162 case studies from the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework
Research impact in the community-based health sciences: an analysis of 162 case studies from the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12916-015-0467-4
复制
发表时间：
2015-09-21
期刊：
影响因子：
9.3
通讯作者：
Fahy, Nick
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Greenhalgh, Trisha;Fahy, Nick
背景：2014年英国卓越研究框架（REF2014）产生了一个独特的影响案例研究数据库，每个案例都描述了一个研究机构和学术界以外的影响。我们试图在这些样本中探索影响的性质和机制。方法：研究设计是对大样本的影响案例研究进行手工内容分析（主要产生定量数据），加上对较小的子样本进行深入的解释分析（用于定性细节），从而产生广度和深度。对于REF2014中提交给A2分小组的所有162个影响案例研究，我们提取了有关研究设计、陈述影响和受众、影响机制和实现影响的努力的数据。我们深入分析了四个案例研究（作为影响方法范围的范例），包括与作者联系，了解他们对影响努力的叙述。结果：大多数影响案例研究描述了定量研究（最常见的是试验），并描述了研究与影响之间的直接线性联系。据说研究影响了122项案例研究的指导方针，改变了88项政策，改变了84项做法，改善了44项发病率，降低了25项死亡率。定性和参与性研究设计很少，只有一个案例研究描述了影响的合作生产模型。82个案例研究描述了与政策制定者的密切和持续的联系，但只有38个案例研究描述了有针对性的知识翻译活动。在40个案例研究中，没有描述为产生影响而作出的积极努力。良好执行实践模式的特点是研究人员的道德承诺、强有力的机构支持和积极主动的跨学科方法来开展影响活动。结论：REF2014启发并记录了英国研究人员为实现影响力所做的重大努力。但是，与已发表的研究影响的证据（描述的是通过非线性机制间接发生的）相比，该小组似乎主要捕获了直接和相对短期的影响，而这些影响与患者的结果仅一步之遥。对发病率和死亡率的影响有限，研究人员对间接影响可能发生的过程和相互作用的重视程度相对较低，这些都是值得关注的。这些发现对建立在非线性影响模型上的多利益相关者研究合作具有启示意义，例如英国国家卫生研究合作研究所在应用卫生研究和护理方面的领导作用。
Background: The 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework (REF2014) generated a unique database of impact case studies, each describing a body of research and impact beyond academia. We sought to explore the nature and mechanism of impact in a sample of these.Methods: The study design was manual content analysis of a large sample of impact case studies (producing mainly quantitative data), plus in-depth interpretive analysis of a smaller sub-sample (for qualitative detail), thereby generating both breadth and depth. For all 162 impact case studies submitted to sub-panel A2 in REF2014, we extracted data on study design(s), stated impacts and audiences, mechanisms of impact, and efforts to achieve impact. We analysed four case studies (selected as exemplars of the range of approaches to impact) in depth, including contacting the authors for their narratives of impact efforts.Results: Most impact case studies described quantitative research (most commonly, trials) and depicted a direct, linear link between research and impact. Research was said to have influenced a guideline in 122 case studies, changed policy in 88, changed practice in 84, improved morbidity in 44 and reduced mortality in 25. Qualitative and participatory research designs were rare, and only one case study described a co-production model of impact. Eighty-two case studies described strong and ongoing linkages with policymakers, but only 38 described targeted knowledge translation activities. In 40 case studies, no active efforts to achieve impact were described. Models of good implementation practice were characterised by an ethical commitment by researchers, strong institutional support and a proactive, interdisciplinary approach to impact activities.Conclusion: REF2014 both inspired and documented significant efforts by UK researchers to achieve impact. But in contrast with the published evidence on research impact (which depicts much as occurring indirectly through non-linear mechanisms), this sub-panel seems to have captured mainly direct and relatively short-term impacts one step removed from patient outcomes. Limited impacts on morbidity and mortality, and researchers' relatively low emphasis on the processes and interactions through which indirect impacts may occur, are concerns. These findings have implications for multi-stakeholder research collaborations such as UK National Institute for Health Research Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, which are built on non-linear models of impact.