The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

The impact on healthcare, policy and practice from 36 multi-project research programmes: findings from two reviews

The impact on healthcare, policy and practice from 36 multi-project research programmes: findings from two reviews
The impact on healthcare, policy and practice from 36 multi-project research programmes: findings from two reviews

BACKGROUND: We sought to analyse the impacts found, and the methods used, in a series of assessments of programmes and portfolios of health research consisting of multiple projects.

METHODS: We analysed a sample of 36 impact studies of multi-project research programmes, selected from a wider sample of impact studies included in two narrative systematic reviews published in 2007 and 2016. We included impact studies in which the individual projects in a programme had been assessed for wider impact, especially on policy or practice, and where findings had been described in such a way that allowed them to be collated and compared.

RESULTS: Included programmes were highly diverse in terms of location (11 different countries plus two multi-country ones), number of component projects (8 to 178), nature of the programme, research field, mode of funding, time between completion and impact assessment, methods used to assess impact, and level of impact identified. Thirty-one studies reported on policy impact, 17 on clinician behaviour or informing clinical practice, three on a combined category such as policy and clinician impact, and 12 on wider elements of impact (health gain, patient benefit, improved care or other benefits to the healthcare system). In those multi-programme projects that assessed the respective categories, the percentage of projects that reported some impact was policy 35% (range 5-100%), practice 32% (10-69%), combined category 64% (60-67%), and health gain/health services 27% (6-48%). Variations in levels of impact achieved partly reflected differences in the types of programme, levels of collaboration with users, and methods and timing of impact assessment. Most commonly, principal investigators were surveyed; some studies involved desk research and some interviews with investigators and/or stakeholders. Most studies used a conceptual framework such as the Payback Framework. One study attempted to assess the monetary value of a research programme's health gain.

CONCLUSION: The widespread impact reported for some multi-project programmes, including needs-led and collaborative ones, could potentially be used to promote further research funding. Moves towards greater standardisation of assessment methods could address existing inconsistencies and better inform strategic decisions about research investment; however, unresolved issues about such moves remain.

Journal Article
1478-4505
26
Hanney, Steve
7de69786-9f68-4c45-9581-6949378f8a03
Greenhalgh, Trisha
bdd27a5d-1fdb-453b-9c12-28241cf5dcdc
Blatch-Jones, Amanda
6bb7aa9c-776b-4bdd-be4e-cf67abd05652
Glover, Matthew
2fc20d71-01a2-4097-ba03-ee006681e767
Raftery, James
27c2661d-6c4f-448a-bf36-9a89ec72bd6b
Hanney, Steve
7de69786-9f68-4c45-9581-6949378f8a03
Greenhalgh, Trisha
bdd27a5d-1fdb-453b-9c12-28241cf5dcdc
Blatch-Jones, Amanda
6bb7aa9c-776b-4bdd-be4e-cf67abd05652
Glover, Matthew
2fc20d71-01a2-4097-ba03-ee006681e767
Raftery, James
27c2661d-6c4f-448a-bf36-9a89ec72bd6b

Hanney, Steve, Greenhalgh, Trisha, Blatch-Jones, Amanda, Glover, Matthew and Raftery, James (2017) The impact on healthcare, policy and practice from 36 multi-project research programmes: findings from two reviews. Health Research Policy and Systems, 15 (1), 26. (doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0191-y).

Record type: Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We sought to analyse the impacts found, and the methods used, in a series of assessments of programmes and portfolios of health research consisting of multiple projects.

METHODS: We analysed a sample of 36 impact studies of multi-project research programmes, selected from a wider sample of impact studies included in two narrative systematic reviews published in 2007 and 2016. We included impact studies in which the individual projects in a programme had been assessed for wider impact, especially on policy or practice, and where findings had been described in such a way that allowed them to be collated and compared.

RESULTS: Included programmes were highly diverse in terms of location (11 different countries plus two multi-country ones), number of component projects (8 to 178), nature of the programme, research field, mode of funding, time between completion and impact assessment, methods used to assess impact, and level of impact identified. Thirty-one studies reported on policy impact, 17 on clinician behaviour or informing clinical practice, three on a combined category such as policy and clinician impact, and 12 on wider elements of impact (health gain, patient benefit, improved care or other benefits to the healthcare system). In those multi-programme projects that assessed the respective categories, the percentage of projects that reported some impact was policy 35% (range 5-100%), practice 32% (10-69%), combined category 64% (60-67%), and health gain/health services 27% (6-48%). Variations in levels of impact achieved partly reflected differences in the types of programme, levels of collaboration with users, and methods and timing of impact assessment. Most commonly, principal investigators were surveyed; some studies involved desk research and some interviews with investigators and/or stakeholders. Most studies used a conceptual framework such as the Payback Framework. One study attempted to assess the monetary value of a research programme's health gain.

CONCLUSION: The widespread impact reported for some multi-project programmes, including needs-led and collaborative ones, could potentially be used to promote further research funding. Moves towards greater standardisation of assessment methods could address existing inconsistencies and better inform strategic decisions about research investment; however, unresolved issues about such moves remain.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 12 March 2017
e-pub ahead of print date: 28 March 2017
Keywords: Journal Article

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 414120
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/414120
ISSN: 1478-4505
PURE UUID: 5c7e2943-6a3c-4df0-81ef-347cc3728865
ORCID for Amanda Blatch-Jones: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-1486-5561

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 14 Sep 2017 16:32
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 03:31

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Steve Hanney
Author: Trisha Greenhalgh
Author: Matthew Glover
Author: James Raftery

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×