The Conceptualization and Measurement of Research Impact in Primary Health Care: Protocol for a Rapid Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The generation of research evidence and knowledge in primary health care (PHC) is crucial for informing the development and implementation of interventions and innovations and driving health policy, health service improvements, and potential societal changes. PHC research has broad effects on patients, practices, services, population health, community, and policy formulation. The in-depth exploration of the definition and measures of research impact within PHC is essential for broadening our understanding of research impact in the discipline and how it compares to other health services research. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the study are (1) to understand the conceptualizations and measures of research impact within the realm of PHC and (2) to identify methodological frameworks for evaluation and research impact and the benefits and challenges of using these approaches. The forthcoming review seeks to guide future research endeavors and enhance methodologies used in assessing research impact within PHC. METHODS: The protocol outlines the rapid review and environmental scan approach that will be used to explore research impact in PHC and will be guided by established frameworks such as the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences Impact Framework and the Canadian Health Services and Policy Research Alliance. The rapid review follows scoping review guidelines (PRISMA-ScR; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews). The environmental scan will be done by consulting with professional organizations, academic institutions, information science, and PHC experts. The search strategy will involve multiple databases, citation and forward citation searching, and manual searches of gray literature databases, think tank websites, and relevant catalogs. We will include gray and scientific literature focusing explicitly on research impact in PHC from high-income countries using the World Bank classification. Publications published in English from 1978 will be considered. The collected papers will undergo a 2-stage independent review process based on predetermined inclusion criteria. The research team will extract data from selected studies based on the research questions and the CRISP (Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care) protocol statement. The team will discuss the extracted data, enabling the identification and categorization of key themes regarding research impact conceptualization and measurement in PHC. The narrative synthesis will evolve iteratively based on the identified literature. RESULTS: The results of this study are expected at the end of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The forthcoming review will explore the conceptualization and measurement of research impact in PHC. The synthesis will offer crucial insights that will guide subsequent research, emphasizing the need for a standardized approach that incorporates diverse perspectives to comprehensively gauge the true impact of PHC research. Furthermore, trends and gaps in current methodologies will set the stage for future studies aimed at enhancing our understanding and measurement of research impact in PHC. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/55860.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.247 | 0.310 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.107 | 0.026 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".