The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Describing the impact of health research: a Research Impact Framework
Open accessAbstract
Background: Researchers are increasingly required to describe the impact of their work, e.g. in grant proposals, project reports, press releases and research assessment exercises. Specialised impact assessment studies can be difficult to replicate and may require resources and skills not available to individual researchers. Researchers are often hard-pressed to identify and describe research impacts and ad hoc accounts do not facilitate comparison across time or projects. Methods: The Research Impact Framework was developed by identifying potential areas of health research impact from the research impact assessment literature and based on research assessment criteria, for example, as set out by the UK Research Assessment Exercise panels. A prototype of the framework was used to guide an analysis of the impact of selected research projects at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Additional areas of impact were identified in the process and researchers also provided feedback on which descriptive categories they thought were useful and valid vis-à-vis the nature and impact of their work. Results: We identified four broad areas of impact: I. Research-related impacts; II. Policy impacts; III. Service impacts: health and intersectoral and IV. Societal impacts. Within each of these areas, further descriptive categories were identified. For example, the nature of research impact on policy can be described using the following categorisation, put forward by Weiss: Instrumental use where research findings drive policy-making; Mobilisation of support where research provides support for policy proposals; Conceptual use where research influences the concepts and language of policy deliberations and Redefining/wider influence where research leads to rethinking and changing established practices and beliefs. Conclusion: Researchers, while initially sceptical, found that the Research Impact Framework provided prompts and descriptive categories that helped them systematically identify a range of specific and verifiable impacts related to their work (compared to ad hoc approaches they had previously used). The framework could also help researchers think through implementation strategies and identify unintended or harmful effects. The standardised structure of the framework facilitates comparison of research impacts across projects and time, which is useful from analytical, management and assessment perspectives.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations
GREENHALGH, T., ROBERT, G., MACFARLANE, F., BATE, P., & KYRIAKIDOU, O. (2004) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x · Cited by 7,448
Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion
Committee on Health Literacy, Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, & Institute of Medicine (2004) · doi:10.17226/10883 · Cited by 3,444
Gramsci's Relevance for the Study of Race and Ethnicity
Hall, S. (1986) · Journal of Communication Inquiry · doi:10.1177/019685998601000202 · Cited by 1,617
Manandhar, D. S., Osrin, D., Shrestha, B. P., Mesko, N., Morrison, J., Tumbahangphe, K. M., Tamang, S., Thapa, S., Shrestha, D., Thapa, B., et al. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)17021-9 · Cited by 847
Knowledge Creep and Decision Accretion
Weiss, C. H. (1980) · Knowledge · doi:10.1177/107554708000100303 · Cited by 669
Oliver, S., Clarke-Jones, L., Rees, R., Milne, R., Buchanan, P., Gabbay, J., Gyte, G., Oakley, A., & Stein, K. (2004) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta8150 · Cited by 400
The Endless Frontier, Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research
Bush, V. (1945) · doi:10.21236/ada361303 · Cited by 228
Cited by
Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: Review and Synthesis of the Literature
MITTON, C., ADAIR, C. E., MCKENZIE, E., PATTEN, S. B., & PERRY, B. W. (2007) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00506.x · Cited by 1,050
What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey
Bornmann, L. (2013) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22803 · Cited by 731
Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review
Penfield, T., Baker, M. J., Scoble, R., & Wykes, M. C. (2014) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvt021 · Cited by 573
Bainbridge, R., Tsey, K., McCalman, J., Kinchin, I., Saunders, V., Watkin Lui, F., Cadet-James, Y., Miller, A., & Lawson, K. (2015) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2052-3 · Cited by 259
Luke, D. A., Sarli, C. C., Suiter, A. M., Carothers, B. J., Combs, T. B., Allen, J. L., Beers, C. E., & Evanoff, B. A. (2018) · Clinical and Translational Science · doi:10.1111/cts.12495 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Kuruvilla, S., Mays, N., Pleasant, A., & Walt, G.
- Venue
- BMC Health Services Research
- Published
- 2006-12
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 134-134
- ISSN
- 1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1531031760
- Cited by
- 204
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 6.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Describing the impact of health research: a Research Impact Framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1472-6963-6-134
- The paper
- Kuruvilla, S., Mays, N., Pleasant, A., & Walt, G. (2006). Describing the impact of health research: a Research Impact Framework. BMC Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-134
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.