Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Mar 11;19(1):36.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-00658-x.

Evaluating cancer research impact: lessons and examples from existing reviews on approaches to research impact assessment

Catherine R Hanna  1 , Kathleen A Boyd  2 , Robert J Jones  3
Affiliations

Evaluating cancer research impact: lessons and examples from existing reviews on approaches to research impact assessment

Catherine R Hanna et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Abstract

Background: Performing cancer research relies on substantial financial investment, and contributions in time and effort from patients. It is therefore important that this research has real life impacts which are properly evaluated. The optimal approach to cancer research impact evaluation is not clear. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review of review articles that describe approaches to impact assessment, and to identify examples of cancer research impact evaluation within these reviews.

Methods: In total, 11 publication databases and the grey literature were searched to identify review articles addressing the topic of approaches to research impact assessment. Information was extracted on methods for data collection and analysis, impact categories and frameworks used for the purposes of evaluation. Empirical examples of impact assessments of cancer research were identified from these literature reviews. Approaches used in these examples were appraised, with a reflection on which methods would be suited to cancer research impact evaluation going forward.

Results: In total, 40 literature reviews were identified. Important methods to collect and analyse data for impact assessments were surveys, interviews and documentary analysis. Key categories of impact spanning the reviews were summarised, and a list of frameworks commonly used for impact assessment was generated. The Payback Framework was most often described. Fourteen examples of impact evaluation for cancer research were identified. They ranged from those assessing the impact of a national, charity-funded portfolio of cancer research to the clinical practice impact of a single trial. A set of recommendations for approaching cancer research impact assessment was generated.

Conclusions: Impact evaluation can demonstrate if and why conducting cancer research is worthwhile. Using a mixed methods, multi-category assessment organised within a framework, will provide a robust evaluation, but the ability to perform this type of assessment may be constrained by time and resources. Whichever approach is used, easily measured, but inappropriate metrics should be avoided. Going forward, dissemination of the results of cancer research impact assessments will allow the cancer research community to learn how to conduct these evaluations.

Keywords: Cancer; Evaluation; Impact; Methods; Oncology; Research; Trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Nil declared.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Search strategies for this study
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Categories of impact identified in the included literature reviews
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Suggestions for approaching cancer research impact evaluation. 1Thonon F, Boulkedid R, Teixeira M, Gottot S, Saghatchian M, Alberti C. Identifying potential indicators to measure the outcome of translational cancer research: a mixed methods approach. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:72
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. UK CR. CRUK: "Current clinical trial research". https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/our-research-by-cancer-topic/our-clinic.... Accessed 20th May 2019.
    1. UK CR. CRUK: "Cancer statistics for the UK.". https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics-f.... Accessed 20th May 2019.
    1. Cancer Research UK. Cancer risk statistics 2019. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/risk. Accessed 20th Dec 2019.
    1. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156–165. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166–175. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types