From Inputs to Impacts: Assessing and Communicating the Full Value of Biomedical Research

Stem Cell Therapy and Rejuvenation, and Their Impact on Society

In his worldwide best-seller Homo Deus [...].

Recognizing Cross-Institutional Fiscal and Administrative Barriers and Facilitators to Conducting Community-Engaged Clinical and Translational Research

PURPOSE

This qualitative study examined fiscal and administrative (i.e., pre- and post-award grants process) barriers and facilitators to community-engaged research among stakeholders across 4 Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) institutions.

METHOD

A purposive sample of 24 key informants from 3 stakeholder groups-community partners, academic researchers, and research administrators-from the CTSA institutions at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Medical University of South Carolina, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and Yale University participated. Semistructured interviews were conducted in March-July 2018, including questions about perceived challenges and best practices in fiscal and administrative processes in community-engaged research. Transcribed interviews were independently reviewed and analyzed using the Rapid Assessment Process to facilitate key theme and quote identification.

RESULTS

Community partners were predominantly Black, academic researchers and research administrators were predominantly White, and women made up two-thirds of the overall sample. Five key themes were identified: level of partnership equity, partnership collaboration and communication, institutional policies and procedures, level of familiarity with varying fiscal and administrative processes, and financial management expectations. No stakeholders reported best practices for the institutional policies and procedures theme. Cross-cutting challenges included communication gaps between stakeholder groups; lack of or limits in supporting community partners' fiscal capacity; and lack of collective awareness of each stakeholder group's processes, procedures, and needs. Cross-cutting best practices centered on shared decision making and early and timely communication between all stakeholder groups in both pre- and post-award processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the importance of equitable processes, triangulated communication, transparency, and recognizing and respecting different financial management cultures within community-engaged research. This work can be a springboard used by CTSA institutions to build on available resources that facilitate co-learning and discussions between community partners, academic researchers, and research administrators on fiscal readiness and administrative processes for improved community-engaged research partnerships.

A Queensland research support network in emergency healthcare

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to describe the structure and impact of a Queensland Research Support Network (RSN) in emergency medicine (EM).

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

This paper presents a descriptive summary of EM networks, network evaluations and the structure and development of the Emergency Medicine Foundation's (EMF) RSN in Queensland, including an observational pre- and post-study of research metrics.

FINDINGS

In two years, the RSN supported 33 Queensland emergency departments (EDs), of which 14 developed research strategies. There was an increase in research active clinicians, from 23 in 2015 to 181 in 2017. Collaborator engagement increased from 9 in 2015 to 276 in 2017 as did the number of research presentations, from 6 in 2015 to 61 in 2017. EMF experienced a growth in new researchers, with new investigators submitting approximately 60 per cent of grant applications in 2016 and 2017. EMF also received new applications from a further three HHS (taking EMF-funded research activity from 8 to 11 HHS).

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

This paper describes changes in KPIs and research metrics, which the authors attribute to the establishment of the RSN. However, it is possible that attribution bias plays a role in the KPI improvements.

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

This network has actively boosted and expanded EM research capacity and capability in Queensland. It provides services, in the form of on-the-ground managers, to develop novice clinician-researchers, new projects and engage entire EDs. This model may be replicated nationwide but requires funding commitment.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

The RSN improves front-line clinician research capacity and capability and increases research activity and collaborations with clear community outcomes. Collaborations were extended to community, primary health networks, non-government organisations, national and international researchers and academic institutions. Evaluating and measuring a network's benefits are difficult, but it is likely that evaluations will help networks obtain funding.

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.