The impact of a regionally based translational cancer research collaborative in Australia using the FAIT methodology.
Cancer research
Consumer involvement
Impact assessment
Rural and regional health
Translational research
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Mar 2024
11 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
20
04
2023
accepted:
02
02
2024
medline:
11
3
2024
pubmed:
11
3
2024
entrez:
11
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Translating research, achieving impact, and assessing impact are important aspirations for all research collaboratives but can prove challenging. The Hunter Cancer Research Alliance (HCRA) was funded from 2014 to 2021 to enhance capacity and productivity in cancer research in a regional centre in Australia. This study aimed to assess the impact and benefit of the HCRA to help inform future research investments of this type. The Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) was selected as the preferred methodology. FAIT incorporates three validated methodologies for assessing impact: 1) Modified Payback; 2) Economic Analysis; and 3) Narrative overview and case studies. All three FAIT methods are underpinned by a Program Logic Model. Data were collected from HCRA and the University of Newcastle administrative records, directly from HCRA members, and website searches. In addition to advancing knowledge and providing capacity building support to members via grants, fellowships, scholarships, training, events and targeted translation support, key impacts of HCRA-member research teams included: (i) the establishment of a regional biobank that has distributed over 13,600 samples and became largely self-sustaining; (ii) conservatively leveraging $43.8 M (s.a.$20.5 M - $160.5 M) in funding and support from the initial $9.7 M investment; (iii) contributing to clinical practice guidelines and securing a patent for identification of stem cells for endometrial cell regeneration; (iv) shifting the treatment paradigm for all tumour types that rely on nerve cell innervation, (v) development and implementation of the world's first real-time patient treatment verification system (Watchdog); (vi) inventing the effective 'EAT' psychological intervention to improve nutrition and outcomes in people experiencing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer; (vi) developing effective interventions to reduce smoking rates among priority groups, currently being rolled out to disadvantaged populations in NSW; and (vii) establishing a Consumer Advisory Panel and Consumer Engagement Committee to increase consumer involvement in research. Using FAIT methodology, we have demonstrated the significant impact and downstream benefits that can be achieved by the provision of infrastructure-type funding to regional and rural research collaboratives to help address inequities in research activity and health outcomes and demonstrates a positive return on investment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Translating research, achieving impact, and assessing impact are important aspirations for all research collaboratives but can prove challenging. The Hunter Cancer Research Alliance (HCRA) was funded from 2014 to 2021 to enhance capacity and productivity in cancer research in a regional centre in Australia. This study aimed to assess the impact and benefit of the HCRA to help inform future research investments of this type.
METHOD
METHODS
The Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) was selected as the preferred methodology. FAIT incorporates three validated methodologies for assessing impact: 1) Modified Payback; 2) Economic Analysis; and 3) Narrative overview and case studies. All three FAIT methods are underpinned by a Program Logic Model. Data were collected from HCRA and the University of Newcastle administrative records, directly from HCRA members, and website searches.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In addition to advancing knowledge and providing capacity building support to members via grants, fellowships, scholarships, training, events and targeted translation support, key impacts of HCRA-member research teams included: (i) the establishment of a regional biobank that has distributed over 13,600 samples and became largely self-sustaining; (ii) conservatively leveraging $43.8 M (s.a.$20.5 M - $160.5 M) in funding and support from the initial $9.7 M investment; (iii) contributing to clinical practice guidelines and securing a patent for identification of stem cells for endometrial cell regeneration; (iv) shifting the treatment paradigm for all tumour types that rely on nerve cell innervation, (v) development and implementation of the world's first real-time patient treatment verification system (Watchdog); (vi) inventing the effective 'EAT' psychological intervention to improve nutrition and outcomes in people experiencing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer; (vi) developing effective interventions to reduce smoking rates among priority groups, currently being rolled out to disadvantaged populations in NSW; and (vii) establishing a Consumer Advisory Panel and Consumer Engagement Committee to increase consumer involvement in research.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Using FAIT methodology, we have demonstrated the significant impact and downstream benefits that can be achieved by the provision of infrastructure-type funding to regional and rural research collaboratives to help address inequities in research activity and health outcomes and demonstrates a positive return on investment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38462610
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-10680-2
pii: 10.1186/s12913-024-10680-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
320Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, Colombet M, Mery L, Piñeros M, et al. Global Cancer observatory: Cancer today. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2020.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australian burden of disease study: impact and causes of illness and death in Australia 2018 - summary report. Canberra, Australia: AIHW; 2021.
Cancer Institute NSW. Cancer statistics NSW. NSW Government; 2022. https://www.cancer.nsw.gov.au/research-and-data/cancer-data-and-statistics/data-available-now/cancer-statistics-nsw . Accessed 9 Feb 2023.
Bergin RJ, Emery J, Bollard RC, Falborg AZ, Jensen H, Weller D, et al. Rural–Urban Disparities in Time to Diagnosis and Treatment for Colorectal and Breast Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2018;27(9):1036–46.
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-0210
pubmed: 29987098
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer in Australia 2021. Canberra, Australia: AIHW; 2021.
Slattery P, Saeri AK, Bragge P. Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):1–13.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0528-9
Halpern MT, Spain P, Holden DJ, Stewart A, McNamara EJ, Gay G, et al. Improving quality of cancer care at community hospitals: impact of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer centers program pilot. J Oncol Pract. 2013;9(6):e298–304.
doi: 10.1200/JOP.2013.000937
pubmed: 23943902
pmcid: 5812352
Calvo F, Apolone G, Baumann M, Caldas C, Celis JE, de Lorenzo F, et al. Cancer Core Europe: a European cancer research alliance realizing a research infrastructure with critical mass and programmatic approach to cure cancer in the 21st century. Eur J Cancer. 2018;103:155–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.08.023
pubmed: 30241002
Anderson WP, Papadakis EM. Research to improve health practice and policy. MJA. 2009;191(11):646–7.
pubmed: 20028292
Cooksey D. A review of UK health research funding. Norwich, UK: The Stationary Office; 2006.
National Health and Medical Research Council. Report of the review of public Health Research funding in Australia. Australia: Canberra; 2009.
Australian Governement Department of Health and Aging. Strategic review of health and medical research in Australia - better health through research. Australia: Canberra; 2013.
Australian medical research advisory board. Medical research future fund: Australian medical research and innovation strategy 2016–2021. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia,; 2016 9 November 2020.
Milat AJ, Bauman AE, Redman S. A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13(1):1–7.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-015-0003-1
Searles A, Doran C, Attia J, Knight D, Wiggers J, Deeming S, et al. An approach to measuring and encouraging research translation and research impact. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14(1):1–13.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0131-2
Donovan C, Hanney S. The ‘payback framework’explained. Res Eval. 2011;20(3):181–3.
doi: 10.3152/095820211X13118583635756
Hanna CR, Gatting LP, Boyd KA, Robb KA, Jones RJ. Evidencing the impact of cancer trials: insights from the 2014 UK research excellence framework. Trials. 2020;21(1):1–13.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04425-9
Hanna CR, Boyd KA, Jones RJ. Evaluating cancer research impact: lessons and examples from existing reviews on approaches to research impact assessment. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021;19(1):1–45.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-00658-x
Buxton MJ, Hanney S. Developing and applying the payback framework to assess the socioeconomic impact of health research. Med Clin (Barc). 2008;131:36–41.
doi: 10.1016/S0025-7753(08)76405-4
pubmed: 19631821
Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Saloman J, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation (2nd ed). Oxford: Oxford Academic; 2016.
doi: 10.1093/med/9780198725923.001.0001
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product [Internet]. Canberra: ABS; 2021. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/national-accounts/australian-national-accounts-national-income-expenditure-and-product/mar-2022 . Accessed 2 Mar 2022.
Syed SM, Kumar M, Ghosh A, Tomasetig F, Ali A, Whan RM, et al. Endometrial Axin2+ cells drive epithelial homeostasis, regeneration, and Cancer following oncogenic transformation. Cell Stem Cell. 2020;26(1):64–80.e13.
doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2019.11.012
pubmed: 31883834
March B, Faulkner S, Jobling P, Steigler A, Blatt A, Denham J, et al. Tumour innervation and neurosignalling in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2020;17(2):119–30.
doi: 10.1038/s41585-019-0274-3
pubmed: 31937919
Fuangrod T, Greer PB, Woodruff HC, Simpson J, Bhatia S, Zwan B, et al. Investigation of a real-time EPID-based patient dose monitoring safety system using site-specific control limits. Radiat Oncol. 2016;11(1):1–10.
Lim S, Tsai C, Yu Y, Greer P, Fuangrod T, Hwang K, et al. Investigation of a novel decision support metric for head and neck adaptive radiation therapy using a real-time in vivo portal dosimetry system. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2019;18:1533033819873629.
doi: 10.1177/1533033819873629
pubmed: 31551011
pmcid: 6763934
Woodruff HC, Fuangrod T, Van Uytven E, McCurdy BM, van Beek T, Bhatia S, et al. First experience with real-time EPID-based delivery verification during IMRT and VMAT sessions. IJROBP. 2015;93(3):516–22.
Britton B, Baker AL, Wolfenden L, Wratten C, Bauer J, Beck AK, et al. Eating as treatment (EAT): a stepped-wedge, randomized controlled trial of a health behavior change intervention provided by dietitians to improve nutrition in patients with head and neck Cancer undergoing radiation therapy (TROG 12.03). IJROBP. 2019;103(2):353–62.
Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. 2011;104(12):510–20.
doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180
pubmed: 22179294
pmcid: 3241518
Bauer MS, Kirchner J. Implementation science: what is it and why should I care? Psychiatry Res. 2020;283:112376.
doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.04.025
pubmed: 31036287
Cancer Institute NSW. What works best when establishing a translational cancer research Centre: final research report. Sydney, Australia: CINSW; 2015.