|
Research team: Silvina Berra, Imma Guillamón, Raül Méndez-Vásquez, Eduard Suñen-Piñol, Emília Sánchez and Joan MV Pons
This study was elaborated by the Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment (CAHTA) in Catalonia at the request of the Patronage of the Fundació La Marató de TV3 (TV3 Telethon).
The objective of the study was to describe the impact or “payback” of the over 30 million Euros that the citizens of Catalonia donated to the TV3 Telethon in the course of its first 10 editions. (1)
This was an original challenge of the CAHTA as part of its mission for the assessment of biomedical research. During the last years have seen a major theoretical development and some rather innovative experiences that have helped us assess the “payback” obtained from research. The designed models are intended to measure not only the specific contribution to the body of knowledge in science (primary outputs) but also the advances made in the process of research, the benefits for the institutions dedicated to scientific activities, as well as the political, administrative, healthcare and economical paybacks. (2)
In accordance with the theoretical models followed, six dimensions of the research were defined, together with a series of indications that were gathered for each dimension (please, see table). For the collection of information, new instruments (questionnaires) were designed and several methods, and other data and strategies (annual reports, requests) were used. This information was useful to describe:
- The projects, equipment and institutions financed in 10 calls (from 1993 to 2002).
- The impact or “payback” of projects financed up by the TV3 Telethon up to December 2004 on the basis of an analysis of primary outputs, secondary outputs, and potential applications.
- The investment made by the TV3 Telethon in research as compared to other organisations.
- The general assessments made by the principal investigators regarding the TV3 Telethon research calls.
The model used provides an integral vision of the results from research, bringing to light frequently intangible results. Detailed information is also available on the potentiality of the outputs for the improvement of research, health procedures and/or the health of individuals, which may all in the future give rise to in-depth studies.
Table. Dimensions to study the impact of research
| Stages/Dimensions |
Indicators* (Type of answers) |
| Resources (inputs) |
| Previous capital and investment, structural components of scientific activity |
· Researchers and groups that received funding: total amount of projects, type of research (closed question and validation on the part of a study investigator), duration of the projects, characteristics of the principal investigators (age, credentials, category of the degree and credentials, number of investigators per category, type of institution.
· Funding: Amount of money granted each year, distribution by budget items (open field by item and validation in questionnaire |
| Research processes |
| Inter-institutional and international collaboration |
· Amount and characteristics of co-ordinated projects
· Multicentrism
· Groups of associations (ad hoc classification). |
| Primary outputs |
| Achieved outputs representing a contribution to scientific knowledge, as well as ideas or products likely to be patented |
· List of main outputs from projects per call (textual).
· Requested and granted patents (yes/no answer and textual). |
| Dissemination interface |
| Actions and strategies for the dissemination of outcomes |
· Bibliographic production
· Attendance to scientific meetings |
| Secondary outputs |
| Degree to which the dissemination of outputs contributes towards decision-making in political, administrative or clinical matters |
· Training of human resources: grant holders, minor theses, and read theses on the financed research projects
· New research projects (yes/no answer, number of new projects and textual answer)
· Development or implantation of networks (textual answer) |
| Application of the outputs |
| Utility of the outputs for the same research processes or for the improvement of clinical practice |
· General utilisation: Whether these outcomes have been used or taken into account, according to the investigators (yes/no answer and textual answer)
· Utilisation in research: Implementation of ideas, tools, or specific techniques by other investigators (yes/no answer and textual answer)
· Utilisation in clinical practice: possible influence and use of research in the improvement of clinical treatments, according to the investigators (yes/no answer and textual answer)
· General assessment of research by the investigators regarding the investigating institution, and also political, administrative, healthcare and economic benefits (5-option Likert rating scale) |
* Exhibit 1 of the report shows the data collected for the descriptive analysis of the financed projects and other relevant information.
References
- Berra S, Pons JMV, co-ordinators. Avaluació de l'impacte de La Marató de TV3 en la recerca biomèdica a Catalunya. Barcelona: Fundació La Marató de TV3. Agència d'Avaluació de Tecnologia i Recerca Mèdiques (AATRM); april 2006.
- Buxton M, Hanney S. How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1(1):35-43.
|
 Complete report available in Catalan
Executive summary in English
|
text size
