Assessing and Communicating the Value of Biomedical Research: Results From a Pilot Study

Research Metrics for Health Science Schools: A Conceptual Exploration and Proposal

Research is a critical component of the public health enterprise, and a key component of universities and schools of public health and medicine. To satisfy varying levels of stakeholders in the field of public health research, accurately measuring the return on investment (ROI) is important; unfortunately, there is no approach or set of defined metrics that are universally accepted for such assessment. We propose a research metrics framework to address this gap in higher education. After a selected review of existing frameworks, we identified seven elements of the generic research lifecycle (five internal to an institution and two external). A systems approach was then used to broadly define four parts of each element: inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes (or impacts). Inputs include variables necessary to execute research activities such as human capital and finances. Processes are the pathways of measurement to track research performance through all phases of a study. Outputs entail immediate products from research; and outcomes/impacts demonstrate the contribution research makes within and beyond an institution. This framework enables the tracking and measurement of research investments to outcomes. We acknowledge some of the challenges in applying this framework including the lack of standardization in research metrics, disagreement on defining impact among stakeholders, and limitations in resources for implementing the framework and collecting relevant data. However, we suggest that this proposed framework is a systematic way to raise awareness about the role of research and standardize the measurement of ROI across health science schools and universities.

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

Assessing and communicating the full value of biomedical research is essential to answer calls from the government and the public demanding accountability for the spending of public funds. In academic settings, however, research success is measured largely in terms of grant funding received or the number of peer-reviewed publications produced. These credible and time-tested metrics miss the full picture of the scientific process, which continues to confer benefits to patients, communities, and the health care system well after an article is published. In this context, in 2012, the Association of American Medical Colleges, in collaboration with RAND Europe, initiated a program to provide resources and guidance for leaders of medical schools and teaching hospitals interested in evaluating-in novel ways complementary to traditional methods-the outcomes and impacts of the research that emanates from their institutions. This Perspective provides context for this initiative and delineates the process through which researchers, evaluation experts, and other stakeholders-including legislators, health system leaders, and community members-identified and vetted novel "metrics that matter" in advance of a pilot test at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which sought to assess and communicate its community-engaged science and scholarship.

The Health Equity Leadership Institute (HELI): Developing workforce capacity for health disparities research

Introduction

Efforts to address health disparities and achieve health equity are critically dependent on the development of a diverse research workforce. However, many researchers from underrepresented backgrounds face challenges in advancing their careers, securing independent funding, and finding the mentorship needed to expand their research.

Methods

Faculty from the University of Maryland at College Park and the University of Wisconsin-Madison developed and evaluated an intensive week-long research and career-development institute—the Health Equity Leadership Institute (HELI)—with the goal of increasing the number of underrepresented scholars who can sustain their ongoing commitment to health equity research.

Results

In 2010-2016, HELI brought 145 diverse scholars (78% from an underrepresented background; 81% female) together to engage with each other and learn from supportive faculty. Overall, scholar feedback was highly positive on all survey items, with average agreement ratings of 4.45-4.84 based on a 5-point Likert scale. Eighty-five percent of scholars remain in academic positions. In the first three cohorts, 73% of HELI participants have been promoted and 23% have secured independent federal funding.

Conclusions

HELI includes an evidence-based curriculum to develop a diverse workforce for health equity research. For those institutions interested in implementing such an institute to develop and support underrepresented early stage investigators, a resource toolbox is provided.