KP Knowledge production RTCB Research targeting & capacity building

1. Objectives Using a structured evaluation framework, to systematically review and document the outputs and outcomes of research funded by the UK’s Arthritis Research Campaign (arc) in the early 1990s. To illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of different modes of research funding (Wooding et al, 2005). Methods Application of the HERG payback framework to 16 case studies of research grants funded in the early 1990s. Careful selection of grants ensured the inclusion of different modes of funding (responsive mode projects, programmes, fellowships and centres) and different types of research (basic, clinical and allied health professional). Case study methodology included bibliometric analysis, literature and archival document review and key informant interviews. Members of the research team scored each case study on each of the five payback categories. These were then presented as payback profiles, or spidergrams (see Figure 1). For each group of grants the profiles were overlaid thus enabling a picture to be presented of the payback from each mode of funding etc. Figure 1: An illustrative payback profile for a single grant Results A range of research paybacks was identified from the 16 research grants. A two-volume report sets out the results along with descriptions of the case studies that were compiled as part of this evaluation (Wooding et al, 2004). Payback arising from research funding:Evaluation of the Arthritis Research CampaignSteven Wooding1, Stephen Hanney2, Martin Buxton2 and Jonathan Grant11RAND Europe, Cambridge,2Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH (UK) stephen.hanney@brunel.ac.uk The payback included: • 302 peer reviewed papers, some very highly cited; • postgraduate training and career development, including 28 PhD/MDs, and targeting of further research including a £2m> MRC study of treatments for low back pain; • research informing recommendations in clinical guidelines and the development of anti-TNF drugs for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA); • improved quality of life for people with RA, and the reduction of the likelihood of recurrent miscarriage for women with APS. When the payback profiles were produced the payback arising from project grants appeared to be similar to that arising from other modes of funding that were better resourced (see Figure 2). Figure 2: Comparison of payback profiles for grants from different modes of funding Conclusions There is a wide diversity of research payback from arc-funded research. Short focussed project grants seem to provide value for money. The payback framework could be operationalised and embedded by arc. • KP Knowledge production • RTCB Research targeting & capacity building • IPPD Informing policy & product development • HB Health & health sector benefits • BEB Broader economic benefits References  Hanney, S, Grant, J, Wooding, S and Buxton, MJ (2004) Proposed methods for reviewing the long-term outcomes of research: the impact of funding by the UK's Arthritis Research Campaign. Health Research Policy and Systems, 2 (4). Wooding S, Hanney S, Buxton M and Grant J (2005) Payback arising from research funding: evaluation of the Arthritis Research Campaign. Rheumatology, 44:1145-1156. Wooding S, Hanney S, Buxton M and Grant J. (2004) The returns from arthritis research. Volume 1: Approach, analysis and recommendations. Cambridge, RAND Europe. Wooding S, Anton S, Grant J, Hanney S, Hoorens S, Lierens A and Shergold. M (2004) The returns from arthritis research. Volume 2: Case studies. Cambridge, RAND Europe.