Payback arising from research funding: evaluation of the Arthritis Research Campaign.

OBJECTIVES Using a structured evaluation framework to systematically review and document the outputs and outcomes of research funded by the Arthritis Research Campaign in the early 1990s. To illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of different modes of research funding. METHODS The payback framework was applied to 16 case studies of research grants funded in the early 1990s. Case study methodology included bibliometric analysis, literature and archival document review and key informant interviews. RESULTS A range of research paybacks was identified from the 16 research grants. The payback included 302 peer-reviewed papers, postgraduate training and career development, including 28 PhD/MDs, research informing recommendations in clinical guidelines, improved quality of life for people with RA and the reduction of the likelihood of recurrent miscarriage for women with antiphospholipid syndrome. The payback arising from project grants appeared to be similar to that arising from other modes of funding that were better resourced. CONCLUSIONS There is a wide diversity of research payback. Short focused project grants seem to provide value for money.

[1]  R. Yin Yin, Robert K., Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1994. , 1994 .

[2]  J. Woody,et al.  Randomised double-blind comparison of chimeric monoclonal antibody to tumour necrosis factor α (cA2) versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis , 1994, The Lancet.

[3]  Robert Cottrell,et al.  Evaluating “payback” on biomedical research from papers cited in clinical guidelines: applied bibliometric study , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  G. Lewison,et al.  Bibliometric methods for the evaluation of arthritis research. , 1999, Rheumatology.

[5]  M. Buxton,et al.  Routine monitoring of performance: what makes health research and development different? , 2001, Journal of health services research & policy.

[6]  M. Buxton,et al.  Getting Reearch into Practice: Assessing Benefits from Department of Health and National Health Service Research & Development , 2000 .

[7]  H. Lyndon,et al.  Research into practice , 1989 .

[8]  B. Martin,et al.  Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy , 1983 .

[9]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[10]  P. Lipsky,et al.  Infliximab (chimeric anti-tumour necrosis factor α monoclonal antibody) versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving concomitant methotrexate: a randomised phase III trial , 1999, The Lancet.

[11]  Steven Wooding,et al.  Proposed methods for reviewing the outcomes of health research: the impact of funding by the UK's 'Arthritis Research Campaign' , 2004, Health research policy and systems.

[12]  Douglas R. Williams,et al.  Measuring the economic benefits of research and development: The current state of the art , 1998 .

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

[14]  G. B. Moore,et al.  Lessons on the utilization of research from nine case experiences in the natural hazards field , 1988 .

[15]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  R&D value mapping: A new approach to case study-based evaluation , 1997 .

[16]  Richard Smith,et al.  Measuring the social impact of research , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  John Lavis,et al.  Measuring the impact of health research , 2003, Journal of health services research & policy.

[18]  M. Buxton,et al.  Academic medicine: time for reinvention , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  M. Mcgregor,et al.  Assessing the Impact of Health Technology Assessment , 1997, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[20]  Martin J Buxton,et al.  The utilisation of health research in policy-making : concepts , examples and methods of assessment , 2003 .

[21]  Stephen Hanney,et al.  The Returns from Arthritis Research Volume 1: Approach, Analysis and Recommendations , 2004 .