What is the societal impact of university research? A policy-oriented review to map approaches, identify monitoring methods and success factors

The discussion on the 'societal impact of university research' has emerged within the recent decade with different utilisation from the British REF impact stories to the EU Framework Programmes' criteria. The fundamental idea is that (university) research should contribute to addressing societal challenges, such as climate change, and not just pursue 'scientific excellence'. Several approaches have been developed, from case studies of the 'productive interactions' that co-create knowledge with societal stakeholders to the so-called 'altmetrics' tracking online dissemination of research outputs. Nonetheless, these experiences do not always point in the same direction, and the notion of 'societal impact' seems still unclearly defined. Given the growing policy pressure on universities to address societal challenges, this paper reviews the scientific literature on the so-called 'societal impact' of university research. By querying three scientific archives (Web of Science, Scopus and ScienceDirect), 135 relevant scientific publications are selected and discussed, looking for conceptualisations, monitoring methods and success factors. The review maps a value-laden discussion arguing for longer-term, multi-dimensional perspectives on university research impacts beyond bibliometric indicators. Findings highlight a progressive shift from 'attribution', i.e., looking for causal relationships between research and societal changes, to 'contribution', acknowledging researchers' efforts to engage with societal challenges.

Productive interactions in digital training partnerships: Lessons learned for regional development and university societal impact assessment

In development, social, and management theories, universities have gained increasing relevance as engines of growth and innovation. Alongside companies, universities engage in a collaborative exploration for a shared knowledge base that does not pursue immediate exploitation. Drawing on research evaluation and the regional and entrepreneurial studies on University-Industry Collaborations (UICs) and knowledge ecosystems, this article assesses the digital training partnerships the University of Naples in Italy has established with some global technology and advanced manufacturing companies. By examining their innovative performance, the case study evaluation explores university-business 'productive interactions,' highlighting such critical issues as the management and risks of co-innovation, the attraction of talents, and the development of human capital in a peripheral and moderate innovative region. The article critically discusses the regional development outcomes and the evaluation designs to assess the societal impact of university research and education.

Research impact as understood by two funders of agricultural research in South Africa

Impact literacy is the understanding of research impact in terms of a junction of three elements: ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘who’. ‘What’ refers to impact endpoints, that is, the medium- to long-term impacts or even short-term effects that occur during or immediately after research. ‘How’ refers to the understanding of how impact is created, in other words the interactions required. ‘Who’ focuses on which stakeholders need to be integrated into a network of interactions to contribute to impact. This study focused on the ‘what’ of impact, specifically on the understanding of research impact by two funders of agricultural research in South Africa. Members of specialist committees at the two funding organizations were asked, through a survey, to rate several structured items mapped on a research impact classification scheme. They could also provide their own ideas on what impact is. Committee members from both organizations viewed research impact primarily as an effect on the individuals and groups in the industry that they represent. They generally did not consider research impact as an effect on researchers, nor did they place specific emphasis on the societal effects of research. The ‘what’ of research impact was found to imply a series of effects, where the different effects build on each other. Linking these effects to the ‘how’ and ‘who’ of impact will require the construction of impact pathways. Funders should take responsibility for pushing research results to a distal level by planning ‘who’ will do the push, ‘how’ it will be done and managed, and to ‘what’ final aim.

How do information flows affect impact from environmental research? - An analysis of a science-policy network

Evidence of the impact arising from environmental research is increasingly demanded. Exchanges between science providers and actors that use scientific knowledge to address environmental problems are recognized as a key component of the mechanisms through which impact occurs. Yet, the role of interactions between science and policy actors in delivering and shaping research impact is not well established. We aim to better understand how transfer of science in a science-policy network generates impact. Our approach relies on an exploratory social network analysis (SNA), applied to a network of organisations working on land and water management in a catchment in the UK. We analyse flows of scientific information across these organisations and how those contribute to impact, which we conceptualized as change in organisations at three levels: increased awareness, operational change and strategic change. We find that organisations occupying central positions in the network facilitate the transfer of science and influence the level of change achieved. We also find that the effectiveness of the flows of information and impact delivery depends on boundary organisations, in particular public regulatory bodies, that connect agents with others. Moreover, intended change reported by science providers does not often transform directly into change as reported by the receivers of the information. We conclude that both exchanges between researchers and research users and the role of boundary organisations are key to impact delivery and making change possible. This is valuable for understanding where improvements to information flows between organisations might enhance impact.

Social effects of joint R&D: the role of learning and accumulation of capacities

Purpose

Joint research is pointed out by the literature as a potentially virtuous cooperation scheme to generate learning in the public sphere and beneficial effects in society. The purpose of this study, based on the Argentine experience in the COVID-19 pandemic, is to analyze the network of capacities, relationships and effects generated, over time, by a series of projects financed by the State in 2010, to clarify the link between learning effects and social effects.

Design/methodology/approach

A qualitative methodology focused on the multiple case study method was used. Each case covers joint R&D projects financed 10 years ago by the state that subsequently led to different solutions for COVID-19.

Findings

The work identifies a public learning process that integrates both industry’s contributions and the intellectual dimension of economic benefits and their translation into specific capabilities; conceptualizes the capacities accumulation process as a multiplier of social effects (direct and indirect) that emerge as knowledge is reused; identifies the articulation between different schemes as a condition for learning effects and social effects to manifest over time.

Originality/value

An aspect not studied in the literature is addressed, the relationship between the learning process induced by joint research, in terms of capabilities, and the social effects specifically generated over time. This is taking place in a context, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, where calls from the scientific and academic community to promote science–industry cooperation are multiplying.

A value creation model from science-society interconnections: Archetypal analysis combining publications, survey and altmetric data

The interplay between science and society takes place through a wide range of intertwined relationships and mutual influences that shape each other and facilitate continuous knowledge flows. Stylised consequentialist perspectives on valuable knowledge moving from public science to society in linear and recursive pathways, whilst informative, cannot fully capture the broad spectrum of value creation possibilities. As an alternative we experiment with an approach that gathers together diverse science-society interconnections and reciprocal research-related knowledge processes that can generate valorisation. Our approach to value creation attempts to incorporate multiple facets, directions and dynamics in which constellations of scientific and societal actors generate value from research. The paper develops a conceptual model based on a set of nine value components derived from four key research-related knowledge processes: production, translation, communication, and utilization. The paper conducts an exploratory empirical study to investigate whether a set of archetypes can be discerned among these components that structure science-society interconnections. We explore how such archetypes vary between major scientific fields. Each archetype is overlaid on a research topic map, with our results showing the distinctive topic areas that correspond to different archetypes. The paper finishes by discussing the significance and limitations of our results and the potential of both our model and our empirical approach for further research.

Societal impact of university research in the written press: media attention in the context of SIUR and the open science agenda among social scientists in Flanders, Belgium

Transferring scientific knowledge to non-academic audiences is an essential aspect of the open science agenda, which calls for scholars to pursue a popularization of their research. Accordingly, purposefully introducing scientific insights to the public at large is almost univocally deemed commendable. Indeed, in today’s models of research evaluation, the objects and activities considered are being extended beyond peer-reviewed journal articles to include non-scholarly popular communication. Although altmetrics offer one instrumental way to count some interactions with lay audiences, their reliance on social media makes them susceptible to manipulation, and mostly reflect circulation among niche audiences. In comparison, attention from non-scholarly media like newspapers and magazines seems a more relevant pathway to effectuate societal impact, due to its recognition in qualitative assessment tools and its broad, societal reach. Based on a case study of social scientists’ attention by newspapers and magazines in Flanders (northern Dutch-speaking region of Belgium) in 2019, this paper highlights that frequent participation in the public debate is reserved for high-status researchers only. Results show highly skewed media appearance patterns in both career position and gender, as eight male professors accounted for almost half of all 2019 media attention for social scientists. Because media attention is highly subject-dependent moreover, certain disciplines and fields offer easier pathways to popularization in media than others. Both the open science agenda and research assessment models value presence of researchers in popular media, adding written press attention to existing evaluation assessments however would disproportionately disadvantage early career researchers and exacerbate existing inequalities in academia.

Research knowledge utilisation for societal impact: Information practices based on abductive topic modelling

Information science researchers are increasingly seeking to understand the utilisation of knowledge generated through scientific research outside of academia. Although the conceptual levels of knowledge utilisation are well established, our understanding of the various information practices for knowledge utilisation employed by researchers remains limited. This study identified such information practices by text-mining 6637 case studies documented under the United Kingdom’s Research Excellence Framework. The results were augmented with expert judgement to develop a framework consisting of nine types based on the theoretical framework of research knowledge utilisation. Three emerging types were identified: deliberation, co-creation and foresighting. They indicate the rise of information practices leveraging social media and analytical capabilities to engage potential beneficiaries in using and realising the value of research.

Role of the Universities as Drivers of Social Innovation

The role of universities as drivers of good practices and learning has changed radically in recent years. The strategic plan of the Comillas Pontifical University establishes the obligation of a learning and service subject in all degree programs as a way to put what has been learned during the university years at the service of society and as a vehicle for promoting the Sustainable Development Goals set by the 2030 Agenda. In this article we will present the theoretical framework on which the project has been developed, including the university context in which it fits, to analyze the process of design and implementation of a service-learning course in engineering degrees, selecting as case studies two examples of projects in which the social impact was high. As conclusions we will present the strengths and weaknesses of the implementation process, as well as the students’ learning based on their experiences.

A Research Pathway Model for evaluating the implementation of practice-based research: The case of self-management health innovations

This study explores the evaluation of research pathways of self-management health innovations from discovery to implementation in the context of practice-based research. The aim is to understand how a new process model for evaluating practice-based research provides insights into the implementation success of innovations. Data were collected from nine research projects in the Netherlands. Through document analysis and semi-structured interviews, we analysed how the projects start, evolve, and contribute to the healthcare practice. Building on previous research evaluation approaches to monitor knowledge utilization, we developed a Research Pathway Model. The model’s process character enables us to include and evaluate the incremental work required throughout the lifespan of an innovation project and it helps to foreground that innovation continues during implementation in real-life settings. We found that in each research project, pathways are followed that include activities to explore a new solution, deliver a prototype and contribute to theory. Only three projects explored the solution in real life and included activities to create the necessary changes for the solutions to be adopted. These three projects were associated with successful implementation. The exploration of the solution in a real-life environment in which users test a prototype in their own context seems to be a necessary research activity for the successful implementation of self-management health innovations.

Systematizing societal effects of transdisciplinary research

Over the past decade, transdisciplinary research has been faced with increasing demands by research policy and funding bodies to make its contribution to dealing with complex societal problems more transparent. In the literature, there is a range of methodological attempts to trace and describe the effects of transdisciplinary research, but these are characterized by inconsistent definitions regarding the scope and different forms of effects. This article aims to systematize the proposed categories and introduces a heuristic that can be used as a tool to sensitize researchers to intended effects ex ante and throughout the research process, as well as to reflect on the achieved effects ex post. The heuristic includes the temporal and spatial dimension of occurring effects (first-, second- and third-order) and characterizes possible forms of effects. It is validated and differentiated based on a multi-method empirical study involving 16 completed transdisciplinary research projects in different thematic areas. We propose a differentiation of frequently used categories, such as ‘learning effects’, and operationalize second- and third-order effects with the aim of ensuring a more consistent use of terminology in the transdisciplinary research community. We also specify methodical steps for a facilitated self-reflective application of the tool ex ante, supporting the research process, or ex post.

Exploring research impact models: A systematic scoping review

This article explores the models and frameworks developed on “research impact’. We aim to provide a comprehensive overview of related literature through scoping study method. The present research investigates the nature, objectives, approaches, and other main attributes of the research impact models. It examines to analyze and classify models based on their characteristics. Forty-seven studies and 10 reviews published between 1996 and 2020 were included in the analysis. The majority of models were developed for the impact assessment and evaluation purposes. We identified three approaches in the models, namely outcome-based, process-based, and those utilized both of them, among which the outcome-based approach was the most frequently used by impact models and evaluation was considered as the main objective of this group. The process-based ones were mainly adapted from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation logic model and were potentially eligible for impact improvement. We highlighted the scope of processes and other specific features for the recent models. Given the benefits of the process-based approach in enhancing and accelerating the research impact, it is important to consider such approach in the development of impact models. Effective interaction between researchers and stakeholders, knowledge translation, and evidence synthesis are the other possible driving forces contributing to achieve and improve impact.

How do researchers approach societal impact?

Based on a communication-centered approach, this article examines how researchers approach societal impact, that is, what they think about societal impact in research governance, what their societal goals are, and how they use communication formats. Hence, this study offers empirical evidence on a group that has received remarkably little attention in the scholarly discourse on the societal impact of research-academic researchers. Our analysis is based on an empirical survey among 499 researchers in Germany conducted from April to June 2020. We show that most researchers regard societal engagement as part of their job and are generally in favor of impact evaluation. However, few think that societal impact is a priority at their institution, and even fewer think that institutional communication departments reach relevant stakeholders in society. Moreover, we show that researchers' societal goals and use of communication formats differ greatly between their disciplines and the types of organization that they work at. Our results add to the ongoing metascientific discourse on the relationship between science and society and offer empirical support for the hypothesis that assessment needs to be sensitive to disciplinary and organizational context factors.

The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods

Over the past two decades, several methods have been developed to evaluate the societal impact of research. Compared to the practical development of the field, the conceptual development is relatively weak. This review article contributes to the latter by elucidating the theoretical aspects of the dominant methods for evaluating societal impact of research, in particular, their presuppositions about the relationship between scientific and societal value of research. We analyse 10 approaches to the assessment of the societal impact of research from a constructivist perspective. The methods represent different understandings of knowledge exchange, which can be understood in terms of linear, cyclical, and co-production models. In addition, the evaluation methods use a variety of concepts for the societal value of research, which suggest different relationships with scientific value. While some methods rely on a clear and explicit distinction between the two types of value, other methods, in particular Evaluative Inquiry, ASIRPA, Contribution Mapping, Public Value Mapping, and SIAMPI, consider the mechanisms for producing societal value integral to the research process. We conclude that evaluation methods must balance between demarcating societal value as a separate performance indicator for practical purposes and doing justice to the (constructivist) science studies’ findings about the integration of scientific and societal value of research. Our analytic comparison of assessment methods can assist research evaluators in the conscious and responsible selection of an approach that fits with the object under evaluation. As evaluation actively shapes knowledge production, it is important not to use oversimplified concepts of societal value.

SSH researchers make an impact differently. Looking at public research from the perspective of users

With the rise of the impact assessment revolution, governments and public opinion have started to ask researchers to give evidence of their impact outside the traditional audiences, i.e. students and researchers. There is a mismatch between the request to demonstrate the impact and the current methodologies for impact assessment. This mismatch is particularly worrisome for the research in Social Sciences and Humanities. This paper gives a contribution by examining systematically a key element of impact, i.e. the social groups that are directly or indirectly affected by the results of research. We use a Text mining approach applied to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) collection of 6,637 impact case studies in order to identify social groups mentioned by researchers. Differently from previous studies, we employ a lexicon of user groups that includes 76,857 entries, which saturates the semantic field, permits the identification of all users and opens the way to normalization. We then develop three new metrics measuring Frequency, Diversity and Specificity of user expressions. We find that Social Sciences and Humanities exhibit a distinctive structure with respect to frequency and specificity of users.

Funding acknowledgements in scientific publications: A literature review

The topic of acknowledgements has produced abundant research since the 1970s, though, as previous studies point out, the value of acknowledgements has not yet been demonstrated and further research is limited by lack of conceptualization. This study focuses on funding acknowledgements (FAs), considering that funding represents an important input in the scientific process. In this context, 183 scientific publications retrieved from Scopus from the 1970s until June 2020 were analyzed, with the aim of systematizing conceptually this body of research and contributing to a theory of acknowledgements. Results are summarized into the following main themes: the meaning of FAs; data sources for acknowledgements; the process of funding; association of funding with productivity, impact, and collaboration; and other aspects affected by funding. The literature reviewed shows that a theory of acknowledgements based on the reward triangle, as in previous studies, is unable to capture the extreme complexity of the scientific activity affecting and being affected by FAs. Funding bodies appear as clear and influential actors in the scientific communication system, making important decisions on the research that is supported, and influencing the type of knowledge produced. Funding agencies hold a responsibility regarding the data that they may collect on their programs, as well as the normalization policies they need to develop so that funded authors can reference with less ambiguity the financial source of their projects. Finally, the need to assess the impact of research funding beyond the scientific community that is, the societal impact, is also addressed.

Impact for whom? Mapping the users of public research with lexicon-based text mining

We contribute to the debate on societal impact of SSH by developing a methodology that allows a fine-grained observation of social groups that make use, directly or indirectly, of the results of research. We develop a lexicon of users with 76,857 entries, which saturates the semantic field of social groups of users and allows normalization. We use the lexicon in order to filter text structures in the 6637 impact case studies collected under the Research Excellence Framework in the UK. We then follow the steps recommended by Börner et al. (Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol 37:179–255, 2003) to build up visual maps of science, using co-occurrence of words describing users of research. We explore the properties of this novel kind of maps, in which science is seen from the perspective of research users.

What are the social and scientific benefits of participating at academic conferences? Insights from a survey among doctoral students and postdocs in Germany

Academic conferences are global phenomena. As the coronavirus pandemic continues, many conferences now are being postponed or canceled. Usually, they bring together a complex network of academic and nonacademic professionals to discuss and disseminate new knowledge. The practice of ‘conferencing’ also includes activities that go far beyond the exchange of information. Conferences constitute social spaces where researchers encounter other researchers, establish new contacts, maintain old contacts, hold exploratory talks, and initiate collaborations. Academic conferences therefore can yield a plenitude of scientific and societal impacts. In the past, much progress has been made in measuring the impact of financial investments in science. There is, however, no shared understanding of how to measure the impact of academic conferences. Against the background of the time and money that is spent on both visiting and organizing conferences, it is important to understand the ways in which conferences generate impact. The coronavirus pandemic also shows that it is important to implement digital technologies like tools for virtual conferencing. This article uses qualitative and quantitative data to examine the conference activities of young scholars from German universities and to study how they profit from attending conferences. It is shown that conferences play a significant role in the qualification process. However, in terms of information and networking benefits, postdocs compared with doctoral students seem to profit more.

Beyond scientific contribution: Assessment of the societal impact of research and innovation to build a sustainable agri-food sector

Due to the climate change and increased attention toward environmental management issues, the agri-food sector has been extensively relying on research, development, and innovation (RDi) to transform conventional agricultural production into a sustainable and eco-friendly industry. While the academic contribution of research has been relatively easily identified in the literature, the assessment of its societal impact remains underdeveloped. Accordingly, this study employs mixed-method evaluation approaches, mainly ASIRPA framework and Impact Oriented Monitoring (IOM) model to better understand and measure the multi-dimensional impacts of RDi in the agri-food sector in Spain. The objective of this analysis is to identify the impact of research on the society and the ecosystem. An in-depth case study analysis is conducted to examine the "best practices" program to promote sustainable techniques in the rice cultivation. Empirical findings suggest a standardized index to measure the economic, socio-territorial, health, political, capacity building, and environmental impacts, involving the stakeholder-network evaluation. The study highlights important implications for firm management decisions monitoring research uptake and policy design in the agri-food sector.

Alternative Metrics for Assessing the Social Impact of Tourism Research

Alternative metrics are increasingly used to measure the social impact of research. This article seeks to analyze the social impact of research in the field of tourism. For this purpose, we will determine the extent to which the articles in this field reach society by examining the scores they achieve on social media and studying the correlation between scientific impact and social impact. Altmetric information will be used for data extraction and analysis. The results show a low correlation between citations and the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), as well as a presence that is not captured by most publications in the field of study. Interestingly, publications with higher AASs are concentrated in the same journals. The article concludes by determining that alternative metrics can be used to complement academic impact but cannot be a substitute for it. Further progress is needed in the development of a framework that unifies both impacts.

Normal versus extraordinary societal impact: how to understand, evaluate, and improve research activities in their relations to society?

Societal impact of research does not occur primarily as unexpected extraordinary incidents of particularly useful breakthroughs in science. It is more often a result of normal everyday interactions between organizations that need to create, exchange, and make use of new knowledge to further their goals. We use the distinctions between normal and extraordinary societal impact and between organizational- and individual-level activities and responsibilities to discuss how science–society relations can better be understood, evaluated, and improved by focusing on the organizations that typically interact in a specific domain of research.

The balancing role of evaluation mechanisms in organizational governance—The case of publicly funded research institutions

Evaluation taking place within publicly funded research institutions (PRIs) has been practiced as a useful instrument to justify PRIs’ public funding and to provide evidence for their internal decision-making. The role of evaluation in organizational governance is well-acknowledged as being important in PRIs’ management practices. However, it has not attracted much attention from research evaluation scholars. In this article, we propose that evaluation mechanisms perform a balancing role in organizational governance of PRIs with respect to three main aspects: strategy, funding, and operation, where governance tensions often occur between different stakeholders. This research attempts to contribute to a better understanding of why and how evaluation helps to deal with such governance tensions by looking at three case studies, namely the Max Planck Society (MPG), the Helmholtz Association (HGF), both in Germany, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). We illustrate the circumstances and conditions in which evaluation mechanisms, where evaluation procedures and culture are institutionalized and stakeholders’ interactions are facilitated, help indeed to mitigate the governance tensions.

Conceptualizing the societal impact of research in terms of elements of logic models: a survey of researchers in sub-Saharan Africa

This study addressed the conceptualization of the societal impact of research from the perspective of programme evaluation, by focusing on the three ‘result’ elements of logic models: outputs, outcomes, and impact. In research evaluation, the distinction could resemble a difference between product, use, and benefit. The study established whether researchers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), South Africa excluded, view societal impact as extending across all three elements or as confined to the last element only. A web survey of 485 SSA researchers was conducted, as researchers from this region are not yet bounded by policy definitions of impact. The survey imposed the three elements of logic models onto five hypothetical descriptions of ‘impactful’ research initiatives. Respondents rated each element in terms of how much it reflects the societal impact of research. For any initiative, use was more likely to be considered a strong example of societal impact compared to a product, but less likely so compared to benefit. Between 23% and 43% of respondents rated all three elements as strong examples of the societal impact of research. Responses were analyzed by SSA region and the research domain and years of research experience of survey participants. An open-ended question about own understandings of societal impact was included as well in the survey. The responses portrayed impact as a (generally) positive effect that contributes to change in the daily life of human kind. The expectation that research should have impact at an almost general level of aggregation could be unique to the SSA context.

Who benefits from ex ante societal impact evaluation in the European funding arena? A cross-country comparison of societal impact capacity in the social sciences and humanities

Increasingly, research funders include societal impact as a criterion in evaluation procedures. The European Commission is no exception to this trend. Societal impact determines one-third of a project’s success in receiving funding from the Societal Challenges in Horizon 2020 (H2020). Yet, there are large differences in terms of science and technology performance between countries that participate in the programme. In this article, we (1) compare societal impact practices in the social sciences and humanities in high-performing countries (HPCs) and low-performing countries (LPCs) to the evaluation of societal impact in funding procedures at the European level and (2) reflect upon consequences for the competition for research funding in the European funding arena. To this end, we introduce the concept of ‘societal impact capacity’ as well as a framework to analyse it. The analysis of 60 case studies from 16 countries across Europe shows that (1) researchers from HPCs have a higher impact capacity than those from LPCs and (2) researchers from HPCs report more details about impact than those from LPCs. This suggests that researchers from HPCs are better equipped to score well on the impact criterion when applying for funding than researchers from LPCs. We conclude with policy recommendations for the organization and evaluation of societal impact.

Processos e desafios da interação entre pesquisa e política na perspectiva dos pesquisadores

Resumo As políticas informadas por evidências podem produzir impactos sociais e econômicos e benefícios na equidade e na saúde. A interação dos pesquisadores na política depende de interesses dos atores sociais e de ambientes políticos favoráveis. Este artigo busca compreender os significados e as perspectivas de pesquisadores sobre os processos de interação entre cientistas e tomadores de decisão que influenciam o impacto da pesquisa na política de saúde. Trata-se de estudo qualitativo, realizado em 2014, de análise de conteúdo para identificar os núcleos de sentido e as relações entre a pesquisa e a política. Baseou-se na abordagem do programa RAPID da Overseas Development Institute. Foram entrevistados 14 pesquisadores de projetos sobre morbimortalidade materna e neonatal financiados pelo Ministério da Saúde. Os pesquisadores orientaram-se para a produção de conhecimentos, o fortalecimento de capacidades de pesquisa e a divulgação dos resultados. Participaram, em algumas ocasiões, da definição de políticas de cuidado clínico e desempenho dos serviços de saúde. Apontaram barreiras para interatuar e produzir impactos na política devido às tensões do contexto político, econômico e social, às mudanças institucionais e organizacionais no setor saúde, e ao sistema de avaliação acadêmica.

Impact of health research on advances in knowledge, research capacity-building and evidence-informed policies: a case study on maternal mortality and morbidity in Brazil

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

National health research systems aim to generate high-quality knowledge so as to maintain and promote the population's health. This study aimed to analyze the impact of maternal mortality/morbidity research funded by the Brazilian Ministry of Health and institutional partners, on the dimensions: advancing in knowledge, research capacity-building and informing decision-making, within the framework of the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Descriptive study based on secondary data, conducted at a public university.

METHODS

The advancing in knowledge dimension was estimated from the principal investigators' publication counts and h-index. Data on research capacity-building were obtained from the Ministry of Health's information system. The informing decision-making dimension was analyzed from citations in Stork Network (Rede Cegonha) documents.

RESULTS

Between 2002 and 2010, R$ 21.6 million were invested in 128 maternal mortality/morbidity projects. Over this period, the principal investigators published 174 articles, resulting in an h-index of 35, thus showing progress in the advancing in knowledge dimension. Within the research capacity-building dimension, training of 71 students (undergraduate/postgraduate) was observed. Progress in the informing decision-making dimension was modest: 73.5% of the 117 citations in the Stork Network documents were institutional documents and norms. One of the projects funded, the 2006/7 National Demography and Health Survey, was cited in program documents.

CONCLUSION

Impacts were shown in the advancing in knowledge and research capacity-building dimensions. The health research system needs to incorporate research for evidence-informed policies.