Download eBook for Free

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 1.8 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Summary Only

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.2 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

There is increasing pressure for research funders to demonstrate, and seek to maximise, the payback from the research they fund. This report, prepared for and funded by the Arthritis Research Campaign (arc), presents the results of an evaluation of 16 research grants awarded by arc in the early 1990s. The main objective was to develop a system for evaluating arthritis research, with a view to allowing arc to stimulate and manage the exploitation of research advances so that they translate into outcomes of practical benefit to people with arthritis.

Volume 2 of the report presents a collection of the case studies used in the study. These case studies all follow a similar format based on the conceptual model and provide a rich and detailed narrative on the payback of each research grant.

Volume 1 of the report presents a framework that conceptualises the relationship between research inputs, process, output and outcomes. Using this framework, we catalogue a diverse range of research output and outcomes arising from these 16 grants and make a series of quantitative and qualitative assessments comparing, for example, payback from project grants versus programme grants. In conclusion, we make six observations:

  • There is a diversity of research payback.
  • The researcher is the key driver of research translation.
  • Short, focused project grants seem to provide value for money.
  • Intended and unintended flexibility in funding is used advantageously.
  • Referees’ contributions to the peer-review process are of variable benefit.
  • The payback framework could be operationalised and embedded by arc.

Table of Contents

  • Chapter One

    Introduction

  • Chapter Two

    Case Study A: Back Pain in Primary Care — Assessment of Exercise-Based Management

  • Chapter Three

    Case Study B: Occupational Activity and Hip Osteoarthritis — A Case Control Study

  • Chapter Four

    Case Study C: A Comparison of the Tissue Inhibitors of Metalloproteases TIMPs 1 and 2 by Biochemical and Biological Approaches

  • Chapter Five

    Case Study E: Osteoarthritis of the Knee Joint — Risk Factors, Process and Outcome

  • Chapter Six

    Case Study F: The Molecular and Cell Biology of Collagen X and Its Relation to Human Disease

  • Chapter Seven

    Case Study G: Interaction between Complement, Immune Complexes and the Mononuclear Phagocytic System

  • Chapter Eight

    Case Study H: Lymphocyte Differentiation and Function in Rheumatoid Arthritis

  • Chapter Nine

    Case Study I: The Pathophysiology of Muscle in Osteoarthritis

  • Chapter Ten

    Case Study J: Proprioceptive Rehabilitation of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Deficient Patient

  • Chapter Eleven

    Case Study K: A Prospective Randomised Theraputic Trial of Lowdose Aspirin Versus Aspirin Plus Low-Dose Subcutaneous Heparin

  • Chapter Twelve

    Case Study L: The Kennedy Institute Core Grant

  • Chapter Thirteen

    Case Study M: Mapping and Characterisation of the Genes Involved in Rheumatoid Arthritis

  • Chapter Fourteen

    Case Study N: The Kennedy Institute Core Grant

  • Chapter Fifteen

    Case Study O: Identification of Non-HLA Rheumatoid Arthritis Susceptibility Gene

  • Chapter Sixteen

    Case Study P: The Norfolk Arthritis Register (NOAR)

  • Appendix A

    Bibliometrics Results Tables

  • Appendix B

    Assessors’ Report Form

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was prepared for and funded by the Arthritis Research Campaign (arc) and performed by RAND Europe.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. RAND technical reports may include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope or intended for a narrow audience; present discussions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality and objectivity.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.