A rapid evidence assessment exploring whether antimicrobial resistance complicates non-infectious health conditions and healthcare services, 2010-20.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the greatest public health threats at this time. While there is a good understanding of the impacts of AMR on infectious diseases, an area of less focus is the effects AMR may be having on non-communicable health conditions (such as cancer) and healthcare services (such as surgery). Therefore, this study aimed to explore what impact AMR is currently having on non-communicable health conditions, or areas of health services, where AMR could be a complicating factor impacting on the ability to treat the condition and/or health outcomes. To do this, a rapid evidence assessment of the literature was conducted, involving a systematic approach to searching and reviewing the evidence. In total, 101 studies were reviewed covering surgery, organ transplants, cancer, ICUs, diabetes, paediatric patients, immunodeficiency conditions, liver and kidney disease, and physical trauma. The results showed limited research in this area and studies often use a selective population, making the results difficult to generalize. However, the evidence showed that for all health conditions and healthcare service areas reviewed, at least one study demonstrated a higher risk of death for patients with resistant infections, compared with no or drug-susceptible infections. Poor health outcomes were also associated with resistant infections in some instances, such as severe sepsis and failure of treatments, as well as a greater need for invasive medical support. While there are gaps in the evidence base requiring further research, efforts are also needed within policy and practice to better understand and overcome these challenges.

Mechanisms and pathways to impact in public health research: a preliminary analysis of research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

BACKGROUND: The mechanisms and pathways to impacts from public health research in the UK have not been widely studied. Through the lens of one funder (NIHR), our aims are to map the diversity of public health research, in terms of funding mechanisms, disciplinary contributions, and public health impacts, identify examples of impacts, and pathways to impact that existing reporting mechanisms may not otherwise have captured, and provide illustrations of how public health researchers perceive the generation of non-academic impact from their work. METHODS: A total of 1386 projects were identified as 'public health research' by the NIHR and listed in the NIHR Public Health Overview database (2000-2016). From these, a subset of 857 projects were matched as potentially having begun reporting impacts via an external data-gathering platform (Researchfish). Data on the 857 projects were analyzed quantitatively, and nine projects were selected to investigate further through semi-structured interviews with principal investigators. Two workshops took place to validate emerging and final findings and facilitate analysis. RESULTS: In addition to the NIHR School for Public Health Research and the NIHR Public Health Research Programme, 89% of projects contained in the NIHR Public Health Overview portfolio as 'public health research' are funded via other NIHR research programmes, suggesting significant diversity in disciplines contributing to public health research and outcomes. The pathways to impact observed in our in-depth case studies include contributing to debates on what constitutes appropriate evidence for national policy change, acknowledging local 'unintended' impacts, building trusted relationships with stakeholders across health and non-health sectors and actors, collaborating with local authorities, and using non-academic dissemination channels. CONCLUSIONS: Public health as a discipline contributes substantially to impact beyond academia. To support the diversity of these impacts, we need to recognise localized smaller-scale impacts, and the difference in types of evidence required for community and local authority-based impacts. This will also require building capacity and resources to enable impact to take place from public health research. Finally, support is required for engagement with local authorities and working with non-health sectors that contribute to health outcomes.

Understanding mental health in the research environment: A Rapid Evidence Assessment.

This study aimed to establish what is known about the mental health of researchers based on the existing literature. There is limited published evidence on the prevalence of specific mental health conditions among researchers. The majority of the identified literature on prevalence relates to work-related stress among academic staff and postgraduate students in university settings. Survey data indicate that the majority of university staff find their job stressful. Levels of burnout appear higher among university staff than in general working populations and are comparable to "high-risk" groups such as healthcare workers. The proportions of both university staff and postgraduate students with a risk of having or developing a mental health problem, based on self-reported evidence, were generally higher than for other working populations. Large proportions (>40 per cent) of postgraduate students report symptoms of depression, emotion or stress-related problems, or high levels of stress. Factors including increased job autonomy, involvement in decision making and supportive management were linked to greater job satisfaction among academics, as was the amount of time spent on research. Opportunities for professional development were also associated with reduced stress. UK higher education (HE) and research staff report worse wellbeing, as compared to staff in other sectors, in most aspects of work that can affect workers' stress levels. The evidence around the effectiveness of interventions to support the mental health of researchers specifically is thin. Few interventions are described in the literature and even fewer of those have been evaluated.

Estimating the returns to United Kingdom publicly funded musculoskeletal disease research in terms of net value of improved health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Building on an approach applied to cardiovascular and cancer research, we estimated the economic returns from United Kingdom public- and charitable-funded musculoskeletal disease (MSD) research that arise from the net value of the improved health outcomes in the United Kingdom. METHODS: To calculate the economic returns from MSD-related research in the United Kingdom, we estimated (1) the public and charitable expenditure on MSD-related research in the United Kingdom between 1970 and 2013; (2) the net monetary benefit (NMB), derived from the health benefit in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) valued in monetary terms (using a base-case value of a QALY of £25,000) minus the cost of delivering that benefit, for a prioritised list of interventions from 1994 to 2013; (3) the proportion of NMB attributable to United Kingdom research; and (4) the elapsed time between research funding and health gain. The data collected from these four key elements were used to estimate the internal rate of return (IRR) from MSD-related research investments on health benefits. We analysed the uncertainties in the IRR estimate using a one-way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Expressed in 2013 prices, total expenditure on MSD-related research from 1970 to 2013 was £3.5 billion, and for the period used to estimate the rate of return, 1978-1997, was £1.4 billion. Over the period 1994-2013 the key interventions analysed produced 871,000 QALYs with a NMB of £16 billion, allowing for the net NHS costs resulting from them and valuing a QALY at £25,000. The proportion of benefit attributable to United Kingdom research was 30% and the elapsed time between funding and impact of MSD treatments was 16 years. Our best estimate of the IRR from MSD-related research was 7%, which is similar to the 9% for CVD and 10% for cancer research. CONCLUSIONS: Our estimate of the IRR from the net health gain to public and charitable funding of MSD-related research in the United Kingdom is substantial, and justifies the research investments made between 1978 and 1997. We also demonstrated the applicability of the approach previously used in assessing the returns from cardiovascular and cancer research. Inevitably, with a study of this kind, there are a number of important assumptions and caveats that we highlight, and these can inform future research.

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.

Understanding the relative valuation of research impact: a best-worst scaling experiment of the general public and biomedical and health researchers.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To test the use of best-worst scaling (BWS) experiments in valuing different types of biomedical and health research impact, and (2) to explore how different types of research impact are valued by different stakeholder groups. DESIGN: Survey-based BWS experiment and discrete choice modelling. SETTING: The UK. PARTICIPANTS: Current and recent UK Medical Research Council grant holders and a representative sample of the general public recruited from an online panel. RESULTS: In relation to the study's 2 objectives: (1) we demonstrate the application of BWS methodology in the quantitative assessment and valuation of research impact. (2) The general public and researchers provided similar valuations for research impacts such as improved life expectancy, job creation and reduced health costs, but there was less agreement between the groups on other impacts, including commercial capacity development, training and dissemination. CONCLUSIONS: This is the second time that a discrete choice experiment has been used to assess how the general public and researchers value different types of research impact, and the first time that BWS has been used to elicit these choices. While the 2 groups value different research impacts in different ways, we note that where they agree, this is generally about matters that are seemingly more important and associated with wider social benefit, rather than impacts occurring within the research system. These findings are a first step in exploring how the beneficiaries and producers of research value different kinds of impact, an important consideration given the growing emphasis on funding and assessing research on the basis of (potential) impact. Future research should refine and replicate both the current study and that of Miller et al in other countries and disciplines.

Returns on Research Funded Under the NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme: Economic Analysis and Case Studies.

The Department of Health (England) requested that RAND Europe conduct an economic analysis of the impact of the HTA Programme. This article describes the results of that work, which consisted of analysis of the potential economic benefits of a sample of HTA funded studies and comparison to programme costs, supplemented by a set of short case studies exploring the impacts of the HTA Programme on policy and practice. Based on our analysis, if 12 per cent of the potential net benefit of implementing the findings of this sample of 10 studies for one year was realised, it would cover the cost of the HTA Programme from 1993 to 2012. Drawing on the case studies and the economic analysis, we have also made a number of observations that could help ensure that the HTA Programme maximises the likelihood of findings being adopted.

The impact of the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, 2003-13: a multimethod evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme supports research tailored to the needs of NHS decision-makers, patients and clinicians. This study reviewed the impact of the programme, from 2003 to 2013, on health, clinical practice, health policy, the economy and academia. It also considered how HTA could maintain and increase its impact. METHODS: Interviews (n = 20): senior stakeholders from academia, policy-making organisations and the HTA programme. Bibliometric analysis: citation analysis of publications arising from HTA programme-funded research. Researchfish survey: electronic survey of all HTA grant holders. Payback case studies (n = 12): in-depth case studies of HTA programme-funded research. RESULTS: We make the following observations about the impact, and routes to impact, of the HTA programme: it has had an impact on patients, primarily through changes in guidelines, but also directly (e.g. changing clinical practice); it has had an impact on UK health policy, through providing high-quality scientific evidence - its close relationships with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC) contributed to the observed impact on health policy, although in some instances other organisations may better facilitate impact; HTA research is used outside the UK by other HTA organisations and systematic reviewers - the programme has an impact on HTA practice internationally as a leader in HTA research methods and the funding of HTA research; the work of the programme is of high academic quality - the Health Technology Assessment journal ensures that the vast majority of HTA programme-funded research is published in full, while the HTA programme still encourages publication in other peer-reviewed journals; academics agree that the programme has played an important role in building and retaining HTA research capacity in the UK; the HTA programme has played a role in increasing the focus on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in medicine - it has also contributed to increasingly positive attitudes towards HTA research both within the research community and the NHS; and the HTA focuses resources on research that is of value to patients and the UK NHS, which would not otherwise be funded (e.g. where there is no commercial incentive to undertake research). The programme should consider the following to maintain and increase its impact: providing targeted support for dissemination, focusing resources when important results are unlikely to be implemented by other stakeholders, particularly when findings challenge vested interests; maintaining close relationships with NICE and the NSC, but also considering other potential users of HTA research; maintaining flexibility and good relationships with researchers, giving particular consideration to the Technology Assessment Report (TAR) programme and the potential for learning between TAR centres; maintaining the academic quality of the work and the focus on NHS need; considering funding research on the short-term costs of the implementation of new health technologies; improving the monitoring and evaluation of whether or not patient and public involvement influences research; improve the transparency of the priority-setting process; and continuing to monitor the impact and value of the programme to inform its future scientific and administrative development.

Care staff perceptions of choking incidents: what details are reported?

BACKGROUND: Following a series of fatal choking incidents in one UK specialist service, this study evaluated the detail included in incident reporting. This study compared the enhanced reporting system in the specialist service with the national reporting and learning system. METHODS: Eligible reports were selected from a national organization and a specialist service using search terms relevant to adults with intellectual disability and/or mental ill health. Qualitative analysis was completed with comparison of themes identified in both sets of reports. FINDINGS: The numbers of choking incidents identified in national reports suggest underreporting compared with the specialist service and varying levels of severity. Themes included trends in timing, care setting and food textures as perceived by staff. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates paucity of detail in reporting in systems without additional question prompts. Adding these questions requires staff to include greater detail which enables learning and risk mitigation to take place.

Estimating the returns to UK publicly funded cancer-related research in terms of the net value of improved health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Building on an approach developed to assess the economic returns to cardiovascular research, we estimated the economic returns from UK public and charitable funded cancer-related research that arise from the net value of the improved health outcomes. METHODS: To assess these economic returns from cancer-related research in the UK we estimated: 1) public and charitable expenditure on cancer-related research in the UK from 1970 to 2009; 2) net monetary benefit (NMB), that is, the health benefit measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) valued in monetary terms (using a base-case value of a QALY of GB£25,000) minus the cost of delivering that benefit, for a prioritised list of interventions from 1991 to 2010; 3) the proportion of NMB attributable to UK research; 4) the elapsed time between research funding and health gain; and 5) the internal rate of return (IRR) from cancer-related research investments on health benefits. We analysed the uncertainties in the IRR estimate using sensitivity analyses to illustrate the effect of some key parameters. RESULTS: In 2011/12 prices, total expenditure on cancer-related research from 1970 to 2009 was £15 billion. The NMB of the 5.9 million QALYs gained from the prioritised interventions from 1991 to 2010 was £124 billion. Calculation of the IRR incorporated an estimated elapsed time of 15 years. We related 17% of the annual NMB estimated to be attributable to UK research (for each of the 20 years 1991 to 2010) to 20 years of research investment 15 years earlier (that is, for 1976 to 1995). This produced a best-estimate IRR of 10%, compared with 9% previously estimated for cardiovascular disease research. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated the importance of smoking reduction as a major source of improved cancer-related health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated a substantive IRR from net health gain to public and charitable funding of cancer-related research in the UK, and further validated the approach that we originally used in assessing the returns from cardiovascular research. In doing so, we have highlighted a number of weaknesses and key assumptions that need strengthening in further investigations. Nevertheless, these cautious estimates demonstrate that the returns from past cancer research have been substantial, and justify the investments made during the period 1976 to 1995.