Identifying stakeholder preferences for communicating impact from medical research: a mixed methods study.
Communication
Impact case study
Medical research
Medical research council.
Research outcomes
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:
29 Oct 2024
29 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
20
03
2024
accepted:
26
09
2024
medline:
30
10
2024
pubmed:
30
10
2024
entrez:
30
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Documentation of research outcomes using impact case studies (ICS) is increasingly required to demonstrate the wider societal benefits of research. However, there is limited evidence of the best way to communicate research outcomes using ICS, especially when highlighting research impact that is not part of a research assessment programme. This study aims, for the first time, to analyse expectations, and methods of communicating impact from medical research across a varied set of stakeholders relevant to the Medical Research Council (MRC). Impact narratives about outcomes and impact from MRC research were evaluated using an online survey and in depth semi-structured interviews. Participants were recruited from internal MRC databases and included early career and senior management academics as well as representatives from industry, healthcare, charities, and the government. Informed consent was gained prior to data collection and the study was approved by the university's research ethics committee. Qualitative and quantitative analysis determined stakeholder preferences for ICS content, language and presentation as well as capturing themes and perspectives on the concept of research impact. 193 participants responded to the online survey exploring definitions of impact and methods of communicating medical research outcomes. The work uncovered expectations of improved health and wellbeing as well as knowledge generation via publications and citations. In depth interviews with sixteen participants demonstrated preferences for clear, easy to read content that focused on facts and evidence and avoided both academic and hyperbolic language. Emergent themes from this work revealed that ICS need to quickly capture imagination and grab attention, while the views and expectations are quite different to press releases and are audience specific. The content of ICS often focuses on non-academic impacts; however this work highlighted that evidence of academic impacts were outcomes highly valued by stakeholders relevant to the MRC. This work examined a new typology of ICS attributes, which emphasised that the language and presentation of impact narratives can influence the perception of research outcomes, providing useful information for individuals and organisations using ICS to showcase their research. It also shows that if ICS attempt to communicate challenges and issues around achieving impact from research, they may be more credible and useful to their intended audience.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Documentation of research outcomes using impact case studies (ICS) is increasingly required to demonstrate the wider societal benefits of research. However, there is limited evidence of the best way to communicate research outcomes using ICS, especially when highlighting research impact that is not part of a research assessment programme. This study aims, for the first time, to analyse expectations, and methods of communicating impact from medical research across a varied set of stakeholders relevant to the Medical Research Council (MRC).
METHODS
METHODS
Impact narratives about outcomes and impact from MRC research were evaluated using an online survey and in depth semi-structured interviews. Participants were recruited from internal MRC databases and included early career and senior management academics as well as representatives from industry, healthcare, charities, and the government. Informed consent was gained prior to data collection and the study was approved by the university's research ethics committee. Qualitative and quantitative analysis determined stakeholder preferences for ICS content, language and presentation as well as capturing themes and perspectives on the concept of research impact.
RESULTS
RESULTS
193 participants responded to the online survey exploring definitions of impact and methods of communicating medical research outcomes. The work uncovered expectations of improved health and wellbeing as well as knowledge generation via publications and citations. In depth interviews with sixteen participants demonstrated preferences for clear, easy to read content that focused on facts and evidence and avoided both academic and hyperbolic language. Emergent themes from this work revealed that ICS need to quickly capture imagination and grab attention, while the views and expectations are quite different to press releases and are audience specific.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The content of ICS often focuses on non-academic impacts; however this work highlighted that evidence of academic impacts were outcomes highly valued by stakeholders relevant to the MRC. This work examined a new typology of ICS attributes, which emphasised that the language and presentation of impact narratives can influence the perception of research outcomes, providing useful information for individuals and organisations using ICS to showcase their research. It also shows that if ICS attempt to communicate challenges and issues around achieving impact from research, they may be more credible and useful to their intended audience.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39472931
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11664-y
pii: 10.1186/s12913-024-11664-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1305Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
REF2021 Research. Excellence Framework. https://www.ref.ac.uk/ .
Grant J, Hinrichs S, Gill A. The nature, scale and beneficiaries of research impact: An initial analysis of Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 impact case studies. 2015.
Council AR. Engagement and impact assessment pilot 2017. Commonwealth of Australia Canberra; 2017.
Framework for Research Assessment. Exercise (RAE) 2020. 2020.
Derrick GE, Faria R, Benneworth P, Pedersen DB, Sivertsen G, editors. Towards characterising negative impact: Introducing Grimpact. 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators; 2018: Leiden University, CWTS.
Ravenscroft J, Liakata M, Clare A, Duma D. Measuring scientific impact beyond academia: an assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(3):e0173152.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173152
Terämä E, Smallman M, Lock SJ, Johnson C, Austwick MZ. Beyond academia – interrogating Research Impact in the Research Excellence Framework. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(12):e0168533.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168533
Press BU. Impact. 2023. https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/impact .
Council MR. Analysis of MRC-funded non-academic impacts submitted to REF2021. 2023.
Council MR. Impacts arising from MRC supported institutes and major investments. 2023.
AMRC. Research Impact. 2023. https://www.amrc.org.uk/pages/faqs/category/research-impact .
NIHR. Case Studies. 2024. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/case-studies/ .
UKRI. Medical Research Council. 2024. https://www.ukri.org/councils/mrc/ .
Medical Research Council Impact Case Study Database. 2023. https://airtable.com/apphE5kxzTlBpG1sj? .
UKRI. Reporting your project’s outcomes. 2024. https://www.ukri.org/manage-your-award/reporting-your-projects-outcomes/ .
Edwards DM, Meagher LR. A framework to evaluate the impacts of research on policy and practice: a forestry pilot study. For Policy Econ. 2020;114:101975.
doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.101975
Reichard B, Reed MS, Chubb J, Hall G, Jowett L, Peart A, et al. Writing impact case studies: a comparative study of high-scoring and low-scoring case studies from REF2014. Palgrave Commun. 2020;6(1):31.
doi: 10.1057/s41599-020-0394-7
Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(6pt2):2134–56.
doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12117
Likert R, Roslow S, Murphy G. A simple and reliable method of scoring the Thurstone attitude scales. J Soc Psychol. 1934;5(2):228–38.
doi: 10.1080/00224545.1934.9919450
Willits FK, Theodori GL, Luloff A. Another look at Likert scales. J Rural Social Sci. 2016;31(3):6.
England R. REF2021 Panel criteria and working methods (2019/02). Research England; 2019 2019. Contract No.: 2019/02.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
UKRI. About UK. Research and Innovation. 2023. https://engagementhub.ukri.org/about/#:~:text=Our%20mission%20is%20to%20be,to%20flourish%20in%20the%20UK .
Sumner P, Vivian-Griffiths S, Boivin J, Williams A, Venetis CA, Davies A, et al. The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study. BMJ. 2014;349:g7666.
Chapleo C. Exploring rationales for branding a university: should we be seeking to measure branding in UK universities? J Brand Manage. 2011;18:411–22.
doi: 10.1057/bm.2010.53
Winters M, Larsson A, Kowalski J, Sundberg CJ. The association between quality measures of medical university press releases and their corresponding news stories—important information missing. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(6):e0217295.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217295
Cairney P, Oliver K. Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):35.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0192-x
Brown Jarreau P. When quotes matter: impact of outside quotes in a science press release on news judgment. J Sci Communication. 2014;13(4):A02.
doi: 10.22323/2.13040202
Rigutto C. The landscape of online visual communication of science. JCOM. 2017;16(02):C06.
doi: 10.22323/2.16020306
Kappel K, Holmen SJ. Why Science Communication, and does it work? A taxonomy of Science Communication aims and a survey of the empirical evidence. Front Commun. 2019;4:55.
Brossard D, Lewenstein B. In: Kahlor L, Stout P, editors. A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: using practice to inform theory. New York: Taylor and Francis; 2010.
Bhabra M, Sparks F. Exploring research impact; why it matters? Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022;30(3):188–93.
doi: 10.1097/MOO.0000000000000801
Nisbet MC. Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. Understanding Sci New Agendas Sci Commun. 2009;40:67.
Jones D, Anderson Crow M. How can we use the ‘science of stories’ to produce persuasive scientific stories? Palgrave Commun. 2017;3(1):53.
doi: 10.1057/s41599-017-0047-7
Schroeder JC. Communicating science: press releases at EHP. Environ Health Perspect. 2010;118(2):A58.
doi: 10.1289/ehp.1001913
Hudson CG, Knight E, Close SL, Landrum JP, Bednarek A, Shouse B. Telling stories to understand research impact: narratives from the Lenfest Ocean Program. ICES J Mar Sci. 2022;80(2):394–400.
doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsac169
Stryker JE. Reporting medical information: effects of press releases and newsworthiness on medical journal articles’ visibility in the news media. Prev Med. 2002;35(5):519–30.
doi: 10.1006/pmed.2002.1102
Price JH, Murnan J. Research limitations and the necessity of reporting them. Am J Health Educ. 2004;35(2):66.
doi: 10.1080/19325037.2004.10603611
Pringle AK, Lozano N, Zwolinksy L. Evaluating interventions. In: D Hackfort RS, editor. The Routledge International Encyclopedia of Sport and Exercise psychology. Routledge; 2020;1:298-316.
Hopkins A, Oliver K, Boaz A, Guillot-Wright S, Cairney P. Are research-policy engagement activities informed by policy theory and evidence? 7 challenges to the UK impact agenda. Policy Des Pract. 2021;4(3):341–56.
Bandola-Gill J, Arthur M, Leng RI. What is co-production? Conceptualising and understanding co-production of knowledge and policy across different theoretical perspectives. Evid Policy. 2023;19(2):275–98.
doi: 10.1332/174426421X16420955772641
Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):2.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-2