PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

S Hanney

Publications and source records attributed to S Hanney.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

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.

Arthritis↗
PubMed2001

Routine monitoring of performance: what makes health research and development different?

Increasing attention is being directed to measuring and monitoring the use of health-related R&D funding, partly to justify this expenditure and partly to ensure that R&D effort is directed to achieving the paybacks desired by funders. These paybacks include contributing to knowledge, contributing to R&D capacity, political benefits, benefits to the health service and to patients, and more general economic benefits. This paper addresses the issues that must be considered when designing a routine performance management system for health R&D. Conventional methods of routine performance management are often rendered inappropriate in this context by the intangible and unpredictable outcomes of research, which are heterogeneous across projects and programmes and which can be hard to attribute to particular R&D support. Instead, to be effective in this context, a routine system must combine quantitative and qualitative indicators, utilising information from a number of different sources. The system must achieve acceptable levels (defined by the funder) on each of the following criteria: it must measure those dimensions of payback that are valued by the funder; it must be decision-relevant; it must be consistent with truthful compliance; it must minimise perverse incentives; and it must have acceptable net costs. It is vitally important that the system itself generates a positive payback. We illustrate these issues by outlining a system that might be used to monitor the payback from government-funded R&D.

Financing, Organized↗
PubMed1996

How can payback from health services research be assessed?

Throughout the world there is a growing recognition that health care should be research-led. This strengthens the requirement for expenditure on health services research to be justified by demonstrating the benefits it produces. However, payback from health research and development is a complex concept and little used term. Five main categories of payback can be identified: knowledge; research benefits; political and administrative benefits; health sector benefits; and broader economic benefits. Various models of research utilization together with previous assessments of payback from research helped in the development of a new conceptual model of how and where payback may occur. The model combines an input-output perspective with an examination of the permeable interfaces between research and its environment. The model characterizes research projects in terms of Inputs, Processes, and Primary Outputs. The last consist of knowledge and research benefits. There are two interfaces between the project and its environment. The first (Project Specification, Selection and Commissioning) is the link with Research Needs Assessment. The second (Dissemination) should lead to Secondary Outputs (which are policy or administrative decisions), and usually Applications (which take the form of behavioural changes), from which Impacts or Final Outcomes result. It is at this final stage that health and wider economic benefits can be measured. A series of case studies were used to assess the feasibility both of applying the model and the payback categorization. The paper draws various conclusions from the case studies and identifies a range of issues for further work.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗