The document discusses various impact models and frameworks for assessing the impact of health research. It outlines criteria that effective impact models should meet, such as accommodating evidence collection for patient benefit, supporting engagement of end users throughout the research process, and enabling planning while allowing for specific adaptation. Several impact models and frameworks are described briefly, including the Knowledge to Action Cycle, Payback Model, Canadian Academy of Health Sciences Research Impact Assessment Framework, and co-produced pathway to impact model. The document advocates that impact planning must be tailored to each specific case while using generic frameworks as a starting point.

1. Are you having an impact on impact?
Julie Bayley (Coventry University) &
David Phipps (York University, Canada)
@researchimpact

2. 2
After much angst and debate, be it resolved that…
1. Impact is a permanent feature of the academic research enterprise
2. Impact is important beyond the managerial/accounting imperative
3. Impact must be patient centric in health research
4. Impact models must be scalable
5. Impact models must be more than conceptual frameworks
6. Impact models must span the processes from research to impact
including an uptake/adoption phase
7. Impact planning must be specific to each case, generic frameworks
are only the beginning

3. 3
Now therefore, does your impact model…
1. Accommodate and enable collection of evidence for patient benefit?
2. Support engagement of end users (incl. patients, policy, service
providers) throughout?
3. Work at the level of the project, the program, the organization, the
system?
4. Enable planning by providing general logic informing specific
adaptation?
5. Drive uptake/adoption?

4. 4
Mountain Quest Institute Model

5. 5
Knowledge to Action Cycle
1. Accommodate and enable collection of evidence for patient benefit
2. Support engagement of end users (incl. patients, policy, service providers) throughout
3. Work at the level of the project, the program, the organization, the system
4. Enable planning by providing general logic informing specific adaptation
5. Drive uptake/adoption

6. 6
Payback Model
(see CAHS framework, “son of Payback”)

7. 7
Canadian Academy of Health Sciences (CAHS)
Research Impact Assessment Framework
1. Accommodate and enable collection of evidence for patient benefit
2. Support engagement of end users (incl. patients, policy, service providers) throughout
3. Work at the level of the project, the program, the organization, the system
4. Enable planning by providing general logic informing specific adaptation
5. Drive uptake/adoption

8. 8
Co produced pathway to impact
1. Accommodate and enable collection of evidence for patient benefit
2. Support engagement of end users (incl. patients, policy, service providers) throughout
3. Work at the level of the project, the program, the organization, the system
4. Enable planning by providing general logic informing specific adaptation
5. Drive uptake/adoption

9. 9
January 2005: Inclusivity Summit
May 2005: HSPC adopted and
launched IAP
November 2007: IAP Evaluation
Launched (Michaela Hynie and Mina
Singh: York University + HSPC)
December 2007: KM Unit approved
matching funding: policy briefs and
best practice models
February 2008: Evaluation Report
presented to IAP Steering Committee
→ rec. to York Region Council invest
+$20M in 5 new Welcome Centres,
create 86 jobs, +48,000 newcomer
services delivered
York Region Inclusivity Action Plan
Hynie & Singh (2008) The
International Journal of
Diversity in Organisations,
Communities and Nations,
Volume 8, Issue 4, pp.117-
124.
→

10. 10
PREVNet

11. 11
1. Accommodate and enable collection of evidence for patient benefit
2. Support engagement of end users (incl. patients, policy, service providers) throughout
3. Work at the level of the project, the program, the organization, the system
4. Enable planning by providing general logic informing specific adaptation
5. Drive uptake/adoption

12. 12
Thank you