Tracking funded health intervention research.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the research publication outputs from intervention research funded by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of descriptive data and data on publication outputs collected between 23 July 2012 and 10 December 2013 relating to health intervention research project grants funded between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stages of development of intervention studies (efficacy, effectiveness, replication, adaptation or dissemination of intervention); types of interventions studied; publication output per NHMRC grant; and whether interventions produced statistically significant changes in primary outcome variables. RESULTS: Most of the identified studies tested intervention efficacy or effectiveness in clinical or community settings, with few testing the later stages of intervention development, such as replication, adaptation or dissemination. Studies focused largely on chronic disease treatment and management, and encompassed various medical and allied health disciplines. Equal numbers of studies had interventions that produced statistically significant results on primary outcomes, (27) and those that did not (27). The mean number of total published articles per grant was 3.3, with 2.0 articles per grant focusing on results, and the remainder covering descriptive, exploratory or methodological aspects of intervention research. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides a benchmark for the publication outputs of NHMRC-funded health intervention research in Australia. Research productivity is particularly important for intervention research, where findings are likely to have more immediate and direct applicability to health policy and practice. Tracking research outputs in this way provides information on whether current research investment patterns match the need for evidence about health care interventions.

A mixed methods study of the factors that influence whether intervention research has policy and practice impacts: perceptions of Australian researchers.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate researchers' perceptions about the factors that influenced the policy and practice impacts (or lack of impact) of one of their own funded intervention research studies. DESIGN: Mixed method, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Intervention research conducted in Australia and funded by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council between 2003 and 2007. PARTICIPANTS: The chief investigators from 50 funded intervention research studies were interviewed to determine if their study had achieved policy and practice impacts, how and why these impacts had (or had not) occurred and the approach to dissemination they had employed. RESULTS: We found that statistically significant intervention effects and publication of results influenced whether there were policy and practice impacts, along with factors related to the nature of the intervention itself, the researchers' experience and connections, their dissemination and translation efforts, and the postresearch context. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that sophisticated approaches to intervention development, dissemination actions and translational efforts are actually widespread among experienced researches, and can achieve policy and practice impacts. However, it was the links between the intervention results, further dissemination actions by researchers and a variety of postresearch contextual factors that ultimately determined whether a study had policy and practice impacts. Given the complicated interplay between the various factors, there appears to be no simple formula for determining which intervention studies should be funded in order to achieve optimal policy and practice impacts.

Does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts: testing a new impact assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing emphasis on the importance of research having demonstrable public benefit. Measurements of the impacts of research are therefore needed. We applied a modified impact assessment process that builds on best practice to 5 years (2003-2007) of intervention research funded by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council to determine if these studies had post-research real-world policy and practice impacts. METHODS: We used a mixed method sequential methodology whereby chief investigators of eligible intervention studies who completed two surveys and an interview were included in our final sample (n = 50), on which we conducted post-research impact assessments. Data from the surveys and interviews were triangulated with additional information obtained from documentary analysis to develop comprehensive case studies. These case studies were then summarized and the reported impacts were scored by an expert panel using criteria for four impact dimensions: corroboration; attribution, reach, and importance. RESULTS: Nineteen (38%) of the cases in our final sample were found to have had policy and practice impacts, with an even distribution of high, medium, and low impact scores. While the tool facilitated a rigorous and explicit criterion-based assessment of post-research impacts, it was not always possible to obtain evidence using documentary analysis to corroborate the impacts reported in chief investigator interviews. CONCLUSIONS: While policy and practice is ideally informed by reviews of evidence, some intervention research can and does have real world impacts that can be attributed to single studies. We recommend impact assessments apply explicit criteria to consider the corroboration, attribution, reach, and importance of reported impacts on policy and practice. Impact assessments should also allow sufficient time between impact data collection and completion of the original research and include mechanisms to obtain end-user input to corroborate claims and reduce biases that result from seeking information from researchers only.