Assessing benefits from health research projects: Can we use questionnaires instead of case studies?

Research Evaluation

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 189-199

  Hanney, Steve ^a   Davies, Andrew ^a   Buxton, Martin ^a  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0141759490     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/147154499781777469     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Laurent Bach and Luke Georghiou (1998), "The nature and scope of RTD impact measurement", discussion paper for the International Workshop on Measurement of RTD Results/Impacts, Brussels, 28-29 May.
2. Martin Bland and Douglas Altman (1997), "Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha", British Medical Journal, 314, page 572.
3. B S Bloom (1966), "Twenty-five years of educational research", American Educational Research Journal, 3, page 218.
4. Martin Buxton, Rachel Elliott, Steve Hanney, Mary Henkel, Justin Keen, Mark Sculpher and Penny Youll (1994). Assessing Payback from Department of Health Research and Development: vol 2 : Eight Case Studies. Research Report No 19 (HERG, Brunel University, Uxbridge).
5. Martin Buxton and Steve Hanney (1994), Assessing Payback from Department of Health Research & Development: vol 1: The Main Report. Research Report No 19(HERG, Brunel University, Uxbridge).
6. Martin Buxton and Steve Hanney (1996), "How can payback from health services research be assessed?" Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 1(1), pages 35-43.
7. Martin Buxton and Steve Hanney (1997), Assessing Payback from Department of Health Research & Development: Second Report: vol 1: Main Report. Research Report No 24 (HERG, Brunel University, Uxbridge).
8. Martin Buxton and Steve Hanney (1998), "Evaluating the NHS Research and Development Programme: will the programme give value for money?", Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 91(suppl 35), pages 2-6.
9. Martin Buxton, Steve Hanney, Tim Packwood, Simon Roberts and Penny Youll (1999), Assessing the Benefits from North Thames Research and Development. Research Report No 25 (HERG, Brunel University, Uxbridge).
10. Martin Cave and Steve Hanney (1990), "Performance indicators for higher education and research", in M Cave, M Kogan and R Smith (editors), Output and Performance Measurement in Government (Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London).
11. Martin Cave, Steve Hanney, Mary Henkel and Maurice Kogan (1997), The Use of Performance Indicators In Higher Education (Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London, third edition).
12. Graham Dawson, Bridgit Lucocq, Rob Cotterell, and Grant Lewison (1998), Mapping the Landscape: National Biomedical Research Outputs 1988-95. Policy Report No. 9 (PRISM, The Wellcome Trust, London).
13. Michael Gibbons and Luke Georghiou (1987), Evaluation of Research - A selection of Current Practices (OECD, Paris).
14. Jonathan Grant (1999), "Evaluating the outcomes of biomedical research on health care", Research Evaluation, 8(1), April, pages 33-38.
15. Steve Hanney and Martin Buxton (editors) (1997), Assessing Payback from Department of Health Research & Development: Second Report: vol 2. Ten further Case Studies. Research Report No 24 (HERG, Brunel University, Uxbridge).
16. ISI, Institute for Scientific Information (1997), Journal Citations Reports: a Bibliometric Analysis of Science Journals in the ISI Database (ISI, Philadelphia, Penn).
17. Rudolf Klein and Neil Carter (1988), "Performance measurement: a review of concepts and issues", in D Beeton (editor), Performance Measurement: Getting the Concepts Right (Public Finance Foundation, London).
18. Maurice Kogan and Mary Henkel (1983), Government and Research: The Rothschild Experiment in a Government Department (Heinemann, London).
19. NIH, National Institutes of Health (1993), Cost Savings Resulting from NIH Research Support (NIH, Bethesda, MD, second edition).
20. OST and PREST, Office of Science and Technology and Programme for Policy Research in Engineering Science and Technology (1993), Returns to Research and Development Spending (HMSO, London).
21. Michael Peckham (1994), "Evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology", Medical Research and the NHS Reforms, HL Paper 12-1, Session 1994-1995 (HMSO, London).
22. Michael Peckham and Richard Smith (editors) (1996), Scientific Basis of Health Services (BMJ Publishing Group, London).
23. D Robertson (1995), Ex-Post Evaluation of Selected Transport Research Projects. Research Report No 86 (Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne).
24. Jack Spaapen and Christian Sylvain (1993), "Assessing the value of research for society", Research Evaluation, 3(2), August, pages 117-126.
25. Carol Weiss (1980), "Knowledge creep and decision accretion", Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilisation, 1(3), March, pages 381-404.
26. Douglas Williams and A Dennis Rank (1998), "Measuring the economic benefits of research and development: the current state of the art", Research Evaluation, 7(1), April, pages 17-30.
27. Gareth Williams (1998), "Misleading unscientific, and unjust: the United Kingdom's research assessment exercise", British Medical Journal, 316, pages 1079-1082.
28. Robert Yin (1994), Case Study Research (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).