IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v8y1999i3p189-199.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Steve Hanney
  • Andrew Davies
  • Martin Buxton

Abstract

An evaluative framework was developed by the Health Economics Research Group (HERG) for the UK's Department of Health (DH) to assess the benefits from DH-funded R&D. A questionnaire was devised to evaluate research funded by the North Thames National Health Service Executive: it was designed using the HERG multidimensional categorisation and model. Eighteen projects were the subject of more detailed case study analysis. The questionnaires provided a reasonably robust mechanism for routine monitoring; they could be strengthened in various ways in response to weaknesses exposed in the case studies. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Steve Hanney & Andrew Davies & Martin Buxton, 1999. "Assessing benefits from health research projects: can we use questionnaires instead of case studies?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 189-199, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:8:y:1999:i:3:p:189-199
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154499781777469
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dusan Lesjak, 2019. "Measuring Impacts of Science and Research on the Society: Development, Issues and Solutions," Management, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper, vol. 14(3), pages 219-236.
    2. Rachael L. Fleurence, 2007. "Setting priorities for research: a practical application of ‘payback’ and expected value of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1345-1357, December.
    3. Fleurence, Rachael L. & Torgerson, David J., 2004. "Setting priorities for research," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-10, July.
    4. J. Guinea & E. Sela & A. J. Gómez-Núñez & T. Mangwende & A. Ambali & N. Ngum & H. Jaramillo & J. M. Gallego & A. Patiño & C. Latorre & S. Srivanichakorn & B. Thepthien, 2015. "Impact oriented monitoring: A new methodology for monitoring and evaluation of international public health research projects," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 131-145.
    5. Aymerich, Marta & Carrion, Carme & Gallo, Pedro & Garcia, Maria & López-Bermejo, Abel & Quesada, Miquel & Ramos, Rafel, 2012. "Measuring the payback of research activities: A feasible ex-post evaluation methodology in epidemiology and public health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 505-510.
    6. Rachael L. Fleurence, 2007. "Setting priorities for research: a practical application of 'payback' and expected value of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1345-1357.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:8:y:1999:i:3:p:189-199. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.