A Systematic Evaluation of Payback of Publicly Funded Health Research in Hong Kong Since 1993
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Rationale: There is a need to demonstrate accountability of public funding for health research. Objectives: To quantify the outcomes of completed research projects supported by the Health and Health Services Research Fund (HHSRF), and to explore factors associated with the impact of research outcomes on health policy and provider behaviour Methods: Based on the widely adopted payback evaluation framework, we sent questionnaires to the principal investigators of all projects completed (n=205/235; 87%, total funding USD9.4 million; since the fund inception in 1993. The questionnaire gathered information in 6 outcome areas: a) knowledge production, b) use of research in the research system, c) use of research project findings in health system policy/decision making d) application of the research findings through changed behaviour, e) factors influencing the utilisation of research and f) health /health service/ economic benefits. The number of publications, promotions and post-graduate qualifications attained, policies influenced, and behaviours changed were counted. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with the uptake of research to inform policy, or that led to behavioural change and health service benefit. To account for over dispersion in the data, a negative binomial regression was used to estimate the impact of the funding award, project duration, years from project completion and administering institution on publication of peer-reviewed papers. Results: Of the 205 questionnaires sent, 178 (86.7%) were completed and returned for analysis. Among projects with completed questionnaires, 86% resulted in research publications (mean number of publication = 5.4). Career advancement, acquisition of higher qualifications and subsequent research were attributed to 50%, 38% and 34% of the projects, respectively. 35% of projects reported use of findings in policy making and product development, 49% in changing the behaviour of health service providers or general public, 42% in producing health service benefits. These outcomes compared favourably with those of research funds of similar nature in the UK and Canada. The number of peer-reviewed papers published per project was positively associated with the amount of funding award but not with the project duration or the type of research institution. Liaison with potential users of the research and participation in health related policy/advisory committees were significantly associated with reporting of health services benefit (ORparticipation=2.9, 95% CI 1.3-6.4; ORliaison=2.0, 95% CI 1.0-4.0), impact on policy and decision-making (ORparticipation=10.7, 95% CI 4.2-27.5; ORliaison=2.5, 95% CI 1.2-5.3), and on change in behaviour (ORparticipation=3.7, 95% CI 1.5-8.8). A significantly higher number of peer-reviewed papers published were associated with the funding award but not with the project duration, time from project completion or administering institution. Conclusions: Outcomes of the HHSRF compared favourably with those of overseas research funds of similar nature, demonstrating the 'value for money' investment in the fund. Liaison with potential users of the research and participation in related policy/advisory committees increase the chance of impacting on health policy and behaviour. Further studies are needed to better understand factors and to develop interventions that may facilitate the knowledge translation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,286 | 0,399 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,019 | 0,020 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».