How Can Payback from Health Services Research Be Assessed?

Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 35-43

  Buxton, Martin ^a   Hanney, Steve ^a  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REVIEW; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNITED KINGDOM; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EVALUATION STUDIES; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; MODELS, THEORETICAL; ORGANIZATIONAL CASE STUDIES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE);

EID: 0029677331     PISSN: 13558196     EISSN: 17581060     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/135581969600100107     Document Type: Review

References (70)

1. Department of Health. Research for health. London: Department of Health, 1993.
2. Culyer A. Supporting research and development in the NHS. A report to the Minister for Health by a research and development task force chaired by Professor Anthony Culyer. London: HMSO, 1994.
3. National Institutes of Health. Cost savings resulting from NIH research support 2nd edition. Bethesda: NIH, 1993.
4. Buxton M Hanney S. Assessing payback from Department of Health research and development: Preliminary report. Volume 1: The Main Report. Uxbridge: Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, 1994.
5. Office of Technology Assessment. Research funding as an investment: Can we measure the returns? Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1986.
6. Office of Science and Technology and Programme for Policy Research in Engineering Science and Technology. Returns to research and development spending. London: HMSO, 1993.
7. Richardson A Jackson C Sykes W. Taking research seriously. London: Department of Health, 1990.
8. Anderson J. New approaches to evaluation in UK research funding. Concept Paper No 9. London: Science Policy Support Group, 1989.
9. Cabinet Office. Research and development assessment. A guide for customers and managers of R and D. London: HMSO, 1989.
10. Cave M Hanney S Kogan M Trevett G. The use of performance indicators in higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley, 1988.
11. Commission of the European Communities. Patents as indicators of the utility of European Community R and D Programmes. Office for Official Publications of the European Community, 1991.
12. Thrift L. Research evaluation, social science and public policy: A critical overview. Review paper No 6. London: Science Policy Support Group, 1994.
13. Gordon M Meadows A. The dissemination of findings of DHSS funded research. Primary Communications Research Centre, Leicester: University of Leicester, 1981.
14. Chalmers I. Assessing the effects of health technologies. Report from the advisory group on health technology assessment chaired by Iain Chalmers. London: Department of Health, 1992.
15. Mushkin S. Biomedical research: Costs and benefits. Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger, 1979.
16. Vehorn C Landefeld J Wagner D, et al. Measuring the contribution of biomedical research to the production of health. Research Policy 1982; 11: 3–13.
17. Rosenburg N. Why do firms do basic research (with their own money). Research Policy 1990; 19: 165–174.
18. Gambardella A. Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: The US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s. Research Policy 1992; 21: 391–407.
19. Cave M Burningham D Buxton M Hanney S Pollitt C Scanlan M, et al. The valuation of changes in quality in the public services. London: HMSO, 1994.
20. Carr-Hill R Hardman G Martini S Peacock S Sheldon T Smith P. A formula for distributing NHS revenues based on small area use of hospital beds. York: University of York, 1994.
21. Mansfield E. Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy 1991; 20: 1–12.
22. Smith K. Economic returns to R&D: Methods, results and challenges. Review Paper No 3. London: Science Policy Support Group, 1991.
23. Hutton J Backhouse R. Payback from research and development: Final report. London: Battelle Medical Technology and Policy Research Centre, 1994.
24. IMPEL. Proposals for intellectual property handling and technology transfer in the National Health Services. A report prepared for the NHS Executive. London: IMPEL, 1993.
25. Weisbrod B. Economics and medical research. Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1983.
26. Koopmanschap M Rutten F. Indirect costs in economic studies: Confronting the confusion. Pharmaco-Economics 1993; 4: 446–454.
27. Drummond M Stoddart G Torrance G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
28. Weiss C, editor. Using social research in public policy making. Lexington, Mass: Lexington/Heath, 1977.
29. Weiss C. The many meanings of research utilisation. Public Administration Review 1979; 39: 426–431.
30. Kogan M Henkel M. Government and research: The Rothschild experiment in a government department. London: Heinemann, 1983.
31. Thomas P. The aims and outcomes of social policy research. London: Croom Helm, 1985.
32. Bulmer M, editor. Social science research and government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
33. Booth T. Developing policy research. Aldershot: Gower, 1988.
34. Yin R Moore G. Lessons on the utilisation of research from nine case experiences in the natural hazards field. Knowledge in Society 1988; 1: 25–44.
35. Rothschild Report. The organisation and management of government R&D, Cmnd 4814. London: HMSO, 1971.
36. Glaser E Taylor S. Factors influencing the success of applied research. American Psychologist 1973; 28: 140–146.
37. Yin R Gwaltney M. Knowledge utilisation as a networking process. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilisation. 1981; 2: 555–580.
38. Patton M Grimes P Guthrie K Brennan N French K Blyth D. In search of impact: An analysis of the utilisation of federal health evaluation research. In: Weiss C, editor. Using social research in public policy making. Lexington, Mass: Lexington/Heath, 1977.
39. Coyle D. Increasing the impact of economic evaluations on health-care decision-making. Discussion Paper 108. York: Centre for Health Economics, 1993.
40. Ginzberg E., (ed. ) Health services research: Key to health policy. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1991.
41. Greer A. The state of the art vs the state of the science: The diffusion of new medical technologies into practice. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1988; 4: 5–26.
42. Clark S Potter D McKinlay. Bringing social structures back into clinical decision making. Social Science and Medicine 1991; 32: 853–866.
43. Lomas J. Teaching old (and not so old) docs new tricks: Effective ways to implement research findings. CHEPA Working Paper No 93–94. Hamilton, Canada: McMaster University, 1993.
44. Antman E Lau J Kupelnick B Mosteller F Chalmers T. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomised control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. JAMA 1992; 268: 240–248.
45. Moss L. Some attitudes towards research. (Unpublished report to Department of Health and Social Security), 1977.
46. Robinson J Elkan R. Research for policy and policy for research: A review of selected DHSS-funded nurse education research 1975–1986. Coventry: Nursing Policy Studies Centre, University of Warwick, 1989.
47. Barton A. The contribution of research to policy development in HIV/AIDS. In: Department of Health, Yearbook of Research and Development. London: HMSO, 1990.
48. House of Lords Select Committee on science and technology. Priorities in medical research. Session 1987–88, 3rd Report, Fit Paper 54-I. London: HMSO, 1988.
49. Department of Health. Review of the role of Department of Health funded research units. London: Department of Health, 1992.
50. Flynn N. Performance measurement in public sector services. Policy and Politics 1986; 14: 389–404.
51. Klein R Carter N. Performance measurement: A review of concepts and issues. In: Beeton D, editor. Performance measurement: Getting the concepts right. London: Public Finance Foundation, 1988.
52. Cave M Hanney S. Performance indicators for higher education and research. In: Cave M Kogan M Smith R, editors. Output and performance measurement in government. London: Jessica Kingsley, 1990.
53. Standing Group on Health Technology. Standing Group on Health Technology: 1994 report. London: Department of Health, 1994.
54. Buxton M Elliott R Hanney S Henkel M Keen J Sculpher M, et al, Assessing payback from Department of Health research and development. Vol. 2: Eight Case Studies. Uxbridge: Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, 1994.
55. Allen I. Doctors and their careers. London: Policy Studies Institute, 1988.
56. Davies B Challis D. Matching resources to needs in community care. Aldershot: Gower, 1986.
57. Davies B. Case management, equity and efficiency: The international experience. Canterbury: Personnel Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, 1990.
58. Mugford M Piercy J Chalmers I. Cost implications of different approaches to the prevention of respiratory distress syndrome. Arch Dis Child 1991; 66: 757–764.
59. Packwood T Keen J Buxton M. Hospitals in transition: The resource management experiment. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1991.
60. Lowe R Gregory D Jeffery R Easty D. Patient perceptions and social impact. Preliminary results of the Bristol MRC Study. Eye 1991; 5: 373–378.
61. Lowe K Gregory D Jeffery R Easty D. Suitability for day-case cataract surgery. Eye 1992; 6: 506–509.
62. Buxton M Acheson R Caine N Gibson N Gibson S O'Brien B. Costs and benefits of the heart transplant programmes at Harefield and Papworth hospitals. DHSS Office of the Chief Scientist Research Report No 12, London: HMSO, 1985.
63. Youll P McCourt-Perring C. Raising voices: Ensuring quality in residential care, an evaluation of the caring in homes initiative. London: HMSO, 1993.
64. Rowan K Kerr J Major E McPherson K Short A Vessey M. Intensive care society's APACHE II study in Britain and Ireland I: Variations in case mix of adult admissions to general intensive care units and impact on outcome. BMJ 1993; 307: 972–977.
65. Rowan K Kerr J Major E McPherson K Short A Vessey M. Intensive care society's APACHE II study in Britain and Ireland II: Outcome comparisons of intensive care units after adjustment for case mix by the American APACHE II method. BMJ 1993; 307: 977–981.
66. Weiss C Bucuvalas M. Truth tests and utility tests: Decision-makers' frames of reference for social science. American Sociological Review 1980; 45: 302–313.
67. Detsky A. Are clinical trials a cost-effective investment? JAMA 1989; 262: 1795–1800.
68. Drummond M Davies L Ferris F. Assessing the costs and benefits of medical research: The diabetic retinopathy study. Social Science and Medicine 1992; 34: 973–981.
69. Eddy D. Selecting technologies for assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1989; 5: 485–501.
70. Institute of Medicine. Setting priorities for health technology assessment: A model process. Washington DC: National Academic Press, 1992.