Understanding the contribution of UK public health research to clinical guidelines: a bibliometric analysis.

Background: There is an increasing need to understand the wider impacts of research on society and the economy. For health research, a key focus is understanding the impact of research on practice and ultimately on patient outcomes. This can be challenging to measure, but one useful proxy for changes in practice is impact on guidelines. Methods: The aim of this study is to map the contribution of UK research and UK research funders to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) public health guidelines, understanding areas of strengths and weakness and the level of collaboration and coordination across countries and between funders. The work consisted of two main elements: analysis of the references cited on NICE guidelines and interviews with experts in public health. Results: Across the papers cited on 62 NICE public health guidelines, we find that 28% of the papers matched include at least one UK affiliation, which is relatively high when compared to other health fields. In total, 165 unique funders were identified with more than three acknowledgements, based in 20 countries. 68% of papers which acknowledge funding cite at least one UK funder, and NIHR is the most highly cited funder in the sample.   Conclusions: The UK makes an important contribution to public health research cited on NICE PH guidelines, although the research does not appear to be bibliometrically distinct from other research sectors, other than having a relatively low level of international collaboration. However, the extent to which NICE public health guidelines reflect practice at the local authority level is less clear. More research is needed to understand the sources of evidence to support public health decision making at the local level and how NICE guidance can be made more applicable, timely and accessible in this new context.

Assessing and Communicating the Value of Biomedical Research: Results From a Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: Assessing the impact of research requires an approach that is sensitive both to the context of the research and the perspective of the stakeholders trying to understand its benefits. Here, the authors report on a pilot that applied such an approach to research conducted at the Collaborative Center for Health Equity (CCHE) of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. METHOD: The pilot assessed the academic impact of CCHE's work; the networks between CCHE and community partners; and the reach of CCHE's programs, including an attempt to estimate return on investment (ROI). Data included bibliometrics, findings from a stakeholder survey and in-depth interviews, and financial figures. RESULTS: The pilot illustrated how CCHE programs increase the capacity of community partners to advocate for their communities and engage with researchers to ensure that research benefits the community. The results illustrate the reach of CCHE's programs into the community. The authors produced an estimate of the ROI for one CCHE program targeting childhood obesity, and values ranged from negative to positive. CONCLUSIONS: The authors experienced challenges using novel assessment techniques at a small scale including the lack of comparator groups and the scarcity of cost data for estimating ROI. This pilot demonstrated the value of research from a variety of perspectives-from academic to community. It illustrates how metrics beyond grant income and publications can capture the outputs of an academic health center in a way that may better align with the aims of the center and stakeholders.

Leadership as a Health Research Policy Intervention: An Evaluation of the NIHR Leadership Programme (Phase 2).

In early 2012, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) leadership programme was re-commissioned for a further three years following an evaluation by RAND Europe. During this new phase of the programme, we conducted a real-time evaluation, the aim of which was to allow for reflection on and adjustment of the programme on an on-going basis as events unfold. This approach also allowed for participants on the programme to contribute to and positively engage in the evaluation. The study aimed to understand the outputs and impacts from the programme, and to test the underlying assumptions behind the NIHR Leadership Programme as a science policy intervention. Evidence on outputs and impacts of the programme were collected around the motivations and expectations of participants, programme design and individual-, institutional- and system-level impacts.

The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative's Capacity Building Activities in East Africa: Evaluating Progress and Impacts in Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda.

The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) is one of a number of Product Development Partnerships created to bridge the gap between scientific and technological potential and the needs of low income populations in low and middle income countries. Specifically IAVI is focused on creating a preventative vaccine for HIV/AIDS. Whilst the remit of IAVI is to create new science, technology and products, its work necessarily involves a wide range of stakeholders and different constituencies in industrially developing and developed countries. Its capacity building activities relate to strengthening the ability to conduct clinical trials and are broad based, spanning scientific and technological capacity through to organisational, advocacy and broader development capabilities. The aim of this study was to deepen IAVI's understanding of how it contributes to capacity building activities in East Africa (Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda), spanning scientific and technological capacity through to organisational, advocacy and broader development capabilities. IAVI's mission to develop an HIV vaccine has become increasingly connected to wider health systems strengthening, through its clinical research activities in East Africa. Since it began its operations in the region, IAVI has made a significant contribution to training interventions to support scientific excellence and good clinical practice and invested in infrastructure and laboratories at Clinical Research Centres in East Africa. Although clear challenges still exist with ensuring sustained investment, accessing marginalized populations and demonstrating progress in capacity building, the experiences of IAVI to date suggest that substantial progress is being made towards wider health systems strengthening in the region.

Galvanising the NHS to Adopt Innovation: The Feasibility and Practicality of Recommendations from the Interim Report of the Accelerated Access Review.

The Department of Health and the Wellcome Trust, in co-operation with NHS England, asked RAND Europe to conduct a limited consultation with key stakeholders about the practicality of measures and incentives proposed as part of the NHS Accelerated Access Review (AAR), which aims to assess the pathways for the development, assessment, and adoption of innovative medicines and medical technology. Through a focused engagement exercise with key healthcare stakeholders this project explored the implications of selected interim AAR propositions and feasibility of implementation for key actors, in primary and secondary care as well as commissioners and academia. Specifically, the project investigated the feasibility of implementation of three specific propositions including: a new earmarked fund to encourage AHSNs and other key innovation actors to re-design systems to embrace innovation; mobilising the influence of clinical system leaders to champion change; and encouraging secondary care organisations to take on "innovation champion" roles linked to financial incentives and a new emphasis on accountable care organisations. Data was collected on the feasibility of the three AAR propositions from a workshop with AHSN CEOs and Commercial Directors and interviews with senior NHS staff in three AHSN regions (South West, University College London Partners, and North East, North Cumbria). The study concludes with reflections on the feasibility of each recommendation and identifies factors expected to facilitate or challenge their implementation, as well as considering the wider cross cutting issues that may influence the adoption and diffusion of innovation in the NHS.

Mapping the Global Mental Health Research Funding System.

This study maps the global funding of mental health research between 2009 and 2014. It builds from the bottom up a picture of who the major funders are, what kinds of research they support and how their strategies relate to one another. It uses the funding acknowledgements on journal papers as a starting point for this. The study also looks to the future, considering some of the areas of focus, challenges and opportunities which may shape the field in the coming few years.

Mental Health Retrosight: Understanding the Returns From Research (Lessons From Schizophrenia): Policy Report.

This study examines the impacts arising from neuroscience and mental health research going back 20-25 years, and identifies attributes of the research, researchers or research setting that are associated with translation into patient benefit, in the particular case of schizophrenia. The study combined two methods: forward-tracing case studies to examine where scientific advances of 20 years ago have led to impact today; and backward-tracing perspectives to identify the research antecedents of today's interventions in schizophrenia. These research and impact trails are followed principally in Canada, the UK and the USA. The headline findings are as follows: The case studies and perspectives support the view that mental health research has led to a diverse and beneficial range of academic, health, social and economic impacts over the 20 years since the research was undertaken.Clinical research has had a larger impact on patient care than basic research has over the 20 years since the research was undertaken.Those involved in mental health research who work across boundaries are associated with wider health and social benefits.Committed individuals, motivated by patient need, who effectively champion research agendas and/or translation into practice are key in driving the development and implementation of interventions.This study provides an overview of the methods and presents the full set of findings, with the policy provocations they raise, and an emerging research agenda. It has been written for funders of biomedical and health research and health services, health researchers, and policymakers in those fields. It will also be of interest to those involved in research and impact evaluation.

Supporting the Development of a New Health R&D Strategy: A Rapid Review of International Theory and Practice for Norway's HelseOmsorg21.

The HelseOmsorg21 initiative was set up by the Ministry of Health and Care Services to develop a new research and innovation strategy for health and care services in Norway. The HelseOmsorg21 Strategy Group, through the Research Council of Norway which is providing the secretariat for the strategy development, asked RAND Europe to support the strategic review process. RAND Europe's role was to conduct a series of rapid evidence reviews around the recommendations arising from the five working groups that comprise the initiative. The reviews were conducted around networks and collaboration, data linkage and exchange, culture, values and leadership, and incentives for innovation, while capacity building was a recurrent theme throughout. This study presents the rapid evidence reviews, summarising relevant literature and highlighting international examples of particularly relevant or innovative approaches. The issues and ideas identified around each theme are then pulled together in a suggested conceptual representation of the Norwegian health and care research system.