Evaluating the Benefits from Health Research and Development Centres

The most appropriate criteria and the best approach for evaluating centres concerned with research into health and health services, are matters of academic and policy debate. There is interest in assessing the impact made by research on policy and practice as well as using more traditional peer review of the knowledge produced. In this context the article describes the development of a multidimensional categorization of benefits, or payback, from research and development (R&D) and a model for conducting evaluations of impact. This categorization and model were used during an assessment of two R&D centres funded by a regional office of the National Health Service in the UK. The acceptability of such an approach is discussed in the light of relevant proposals from other authors, changes in the nature of knowledge production and the consequent role of multiple stakeholders.

[1]  R. Smith,et al.  Scientific Basis of Health Services , 1997, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London.

[2]  Edwin Mansfield,et al.  Academic research and industrial innovation , 1991 .

[3]  M. Grossman.  Biomedical Research: Costs and Benefits , 1981 .

[4]  C. Weiss.  The many meanings of research utilization. , 1979 .

[5]  S. Nagel,et al.  The Aims and Outcomes of Social Policy Research , 1986 .

[6]  C. Weiss,et al.  TRUTH TESTS AND UTILITY TESTS: DECISION-MAKERS' FRAMES OF REFERENCE FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH* , 1980 .

[7]  R. Ball,et al.  Performance indicators in higher education , 1987 .

[8]  Steve Hanney,et al.  How Can Payback from Health Services Research Be Assessed? , 1996, Journal of health services research & policy.

[9]  N. Flynn.  Performance Measurement in Public Sector Services , 1986 .

[10]  John Sizer,et al.  The rôle of performance indicators in higher education , 1992 .

[11]  Jack H. Knott,et al.  If Dissemination Is the Solution, What Is the Problem ? , 1980 .

[12]  M. Koopmanschap,et al.  Indirect costs in economic studies: confronting the confusion. , 1993, PharmacoEconomics.

[13]  Tom Carney.  Fourth Generation Evaluation , 1991 .

[14]  N. Rosenberg.  Why do firms do basic research (with their own money) , 1990 .

[15]  Carol H. Weiss,et al.  Knowledge Creep and Decision Accretion , 1980 .

[16]  A. Gambardella.  Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: The US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s * , 1992 .

[17]  F. Mosteller,et al.  A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. , 1992, JAMA.

[18]  J. Ratcliffe,et al.  PATIENTS' PREFERENCES REGARDING THE PROCESS AND OUTCOMES OF LIFE-SAVING TECHNOLOGY , 1999, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[19]  P. Haas.  Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination , 1992, International Organization.

[20]  L. Georghiou,et al.  Evaluation of Research: A Selection of Current Practices , 1987 .

[21]  Zvi Griliches,et al.  Research Funding as an Investment: Can We Measure the Returns? , 1995 .

[22]  M. Henkel,et al.  Government and Research: The Rothschild Experiment in a Government Department , 1983 .

[23]  B. Godin.  Writing Performative History: , 1998 .

[24]  Burton A. Weisbrod,et al.  Economics and medical research , 1984 .

[25]  M. Buxton,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. , 1998, Health economics.

[26]  Thomas E. Backer.  Information Alchemy: Transforming Information Through Knowledge Utilization , 1993, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[27]  D I Robertson.  EX POST EVALUATION OF SELECTED TRANSPORT RESEARCH PROJECTS , 1995 .