The size and diversity of mental health research is significant, but it remains a loosely defined field in which funders tend not to spell out what counts as mental health. An outline of the current state of mental health research funding worldwide helps to address the huge challenges of mental illness.
This report celebrates 100 examples of positive change arising from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)'s support of research over the last 10 years, highlighting how it has transformed R&D in and for the NHS and the people it serves.
Funding decisions in the UK direct the flow of billions of pounds of public and philanthropic funding but there is little evidence to suggest how to allocate grants to researchers to increase the chances that the work they support changes lives and improves society. New research helps inform funders' strategies.
This study estimates the magnitude of the effect of government and charity biomedical and health research expenditure in the United Kingdom (UK), separately and in total, on subsequent private pharmaceutical sector R&D expenditure in the UK.
This study maps the global funding of mental health research between 2009 and 2014. It builds from the bottom up a picture of who the major funders are, what kinds of research they support and how their strategies relate to one another.
In 2014, the research of 154 UK universities was evaluated, accounting for the efforts of 52,061 academic staff members. For the first time, the impact that the research had on wider society was part of the assessment. As we approach the next assessment period, there is opportunity for discussion to tweak and refine future measures of impact.
In the UK, research outputs from universities are assessed every five years to determine future funding allocations from government. In 2014, for the first time, the Research Excellence Framework included an assessment of research impact. Research users played key roles throughout the process.
As part of a review of the preparation process for the impact element of the REF 2014 within UK higher education institutions to assess the process and identify future improvements, this report summarises the approach and describes the key findings and observations.
As part of a review of the preparation process for the impact element of the REF 2014 within UK higher education institutions to assess the process and identify future improvements, this report provides an in-depth analysis of the gathered data.
Peer review is considered the gold standard for reviewing research proposals, but it is not always the best method for every research funding process. RAND Europe has updated its folio of cards highlighting a set of established approaches that offer unique alternatives to traditional peer review.
The Australian Technology Network of Universities asked RAND Europe to review the Excellence in Innovation for Australia (EIA) Impact Assessment Trial ('the EIA Trial'), in order to assess how well universities identified and demonstrated impact, as well as how the process could be further improved.
Impact now plays a role in the allocation of research funding to UK universities through the Research Excellence Framework (REF), presenting universities with a new challenge: how best to capture research results and construct submissions to the REF. ImpactFinder is an analysis and advice package to help senior research leaders determine how best to identify research with the greatest impact and present it to the REF panels.
Project Retrosight analyzed 29 case studies of cardiovascular and stroke research in Australia, Canada, and the UK, and found that clinical research has greater societal impact over a 15–20 year timescale, while basic research has greater academic impact.
A paper on the allocation challenges facing funders in the area mental health research. It provides an overview of research policy in the last 20-25 years and considers what approaches could build an evidence base to support future decisions.
To help inform the development of its Research Excellence Framework the Higher Education Funding Council for England asked RAND Europe to review of how different countries evaluate the impact of university research. The RAND Europe study suggested that Australia's case-study approach to impact assessment may be best suited to HEFCE's needs. The report also describes challenges, lessons, and observations from international practice, to help HEFCE develop its framework.
This report presents findings from a literature review to evaluate grant peer review in the health sciences. Research for the report was conducted with funding support from the Department of Health (England). The report is available in English only.