Retrospective Impact Evaluation Continuing to Prove Challenging Irrespective of Setting: A Study of Research Impact Enablers and Challenges Cloaked as an Impact Evaluation?; Comment on “‘We’re Not Providing the Best Care If We Are Not on the Cutting Edge of Research’: A Research Impact Evaluation at a Regional Australian Hospital and Health Service”

Document Type : Commentary

Author

1 Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

2 College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Abstract

The original article provides a detailed and insightful presentation of enablers and detractors for research participation, translation, and impact, at a regional Australian hospital and health service. This information builds on existing knowledge, from the perspective of a non-metropolitan healthcare organisation. It stands to inform all healthcare organisations keen to embed research into their institutions. However, what the article fails to do is present the results of the research impact evaluation in a systematic and useful way for the reader to assess the benefits of research investment by a healthcare organisation including delivery of better quality care and improved patient outcomes. This commentary suggests why such information is critical to justify continued research investment by healthcare organisations and to showcase the potential benefits of the embedded research model. It also discusses the limitations of undertaking impact evaluation retrospectively and suggests that a prospective approach coupled with proper data collection systems and processes upfront could help future reporting of organisational research impact.

Keywords

References

  1. Brown A, Edelman A, Pain T, Larkins S, Harvey G. "We're not providing the best care if we are not on the cutting edge of research": a research impact evaluation at a regional Australian hospital and health service. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(12):3000-3011. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.6529
  2. Damschroder LJ, Knighton AJ, Griese E, et al. Recommendations for strengthening the role of embedded researchers to accelerate implementation in health systems: findings from a state-of-the-art (SOTA) conference workgroup. Healthc (Amst). 2021;8(Suppl 1):100455. doi:1016/j.hjdsi.2020.100455
  3. Gould MK, Sharp AL, Nguyen HQ, et al. Embedded research in the learning healthcare system: ongoing challenges and recommendations for researchers, clinicians, and health system leaders. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(12):3675-3680. doi:1007/s11606-020-05865-4
  4. Vindrola-Padros C, Pape T, Utley M, Fulop NJ. The role of embedded research in quality improvement: a narrative review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(1):70-80. doi:1136/bmjqs-2015-004877
  5. Barnett AG, Campbell MJ, Shield C, et al. The high costs of getting ethical and site-specific approvals for multi-centre research. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016;1:16. doi:1186/s41073-016-0023-6
  6. Rush A, Ling R, Carpenter JE, Carter C, Searles A, Byrne JA. Research governance review of a negligible-risk research project: too much of a good thing? Res Ethics. 2017;14(3):1-12. doi:1177/1747016117739937
  7. Horenberg F, Lungu DA, Nuti S. Measuring research in the big data era: the evolution of performance measurement systems in the Italian teaching hospitals. Health Policy. 2020;124(12):1387-1394. doi:1016/j.healthpol.2020.10.002
  8. Graham ID, McCutcheon C, Kothari A. Exploring the frontiers of research co-production: the Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network concept papers. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):88. doi:1186/s12961-019-0501-7
  9. Oliver K, Kothari A, Mays N. The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? Health Res Policy Syst. 2019;17(1):33. doi:1186/s12961-019-0432-3
  10. August DL. Neonatal Skin Injuries from Mechanical Forces: A Multicentre, Mixed Methods Study [thesis]. Townsville: James Cook University; 2022. Retrieved from: https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/75549/1/JCU_75549_August_2022_thesis.pdf.
  11. Greenhalgh T, Raftery J, Hanney S, Glover M. Research impact: a narrative review. BMC Med. 2016;14:78. doi:1186/s12916-016-0620-8
  12. Cruz Rivera S, Kyte DG, Aiyegbusi OL, Keeley TJ, Calvert MJ. Assessing the impact of healthcare research: a systematic review of methodological frameworks. PLoS Med. 2017;14(8):e1002370. doi:1371/journal.pmed.1002370
  13. Deeming S, Searles A, Reeves P, Nilsson M. Measuring research impact in Australia's medical research institutes: a scoping literature review of the objectives for and an assessment of the capabilities of research impact assessment frameworks. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):22. doi:1186/s12961-017-0180-1
  14. Searles A, Doran C, Attia J, et al. An approach to measuring and encouraging research translation and research impact. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14(1):60. doi:1186/s12961-016-0131-2

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 09 October 2022
  • Revise Date: 13 December 2022
  • Accept Date: 18 December 2022
  • First Publish Date: 19 December 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics