Volume 30, Issue 138 (January & February 2022)                   J Adv Med Biomed Res 2022, 30(138): 54-60 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Baradaran Eftekhari M, Ebadifar A, Falahat K. The Socioeconomic Impact of Health Research in Iranian Universities of Medical Sciences: An experiences from I.R.Iran. J Adv Med Biomed Res 2022; 30 (138) :54-60
URL: http://journal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-6253-en.html
The Socioeconomic Impact of Health Research in Iranian Universities of Medical Sciences: An experiences from I.R.Iran
Monir Baradaran Eftekhari1 , Asghar Ebadifar *2 , Katayoun Falahat1
1- Deputy for Research and Technology, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Tehran, Iran
2- Dentofacial Deformities Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , a.ebadifar@sbmu.ac.ir
Abstract:   (111762 Views)

Background and Objective: Socioeconomic impact evaluation is a systematic and data based analysis; it aims to determine the socioeconomic benefit of science in human life and health, organizational capabilities, decision making and so on.  In this study, we intended to present the results of socioeconomic impact assessment in Iranian Universities of Medical Sciences (IUMS).
Materials and Methods: Based on SciVal database, socioeconomic impact indicators consist of two categories: Citing – Patent Count (C-P), Patent-Cited Scholarly Output (P-CS), Patent-Citations Count (P-C) and Patent-Citations per Scholarly Output (P-C/S) for economic impact, and Mass Media (MM), Media Exposure (ME) and Field-Weighted Mass Media (F-WMM) for societal impact. Mentioned indicators were extracted for all of IUMS during 2015-2018. Preparation, extraction, weighting, scoring and ranking were the main performed steps in this study.
Results: Almost 64% of IUMS had research activities, reflected their socioeconomic impacts. The C-P was 242 in all IUMS. The number of P-CS and P-C was 165 and 255, respectively. Also, the average of P-C/S was 1.93 (Max=6.4, Min=0.5). Related to societal impact, only 1% of published articles had been presented in media by IUMS (Mass Exposure). The average of F-WMM was 0.03.
Conclusion: Socioeconomic impact evaluation is very complex; it involves a large scale of direct and indirect activities.  Therefore, evaluation with a limited number of indicators cannot provide a comprehensive view of impact. Quantity and quality of universities' research activities are likely matters in socioeconomic impact.

Keywords: University, Public Health, Research
Full-Text [PDF 308 kb]   (107566 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (1854 Views)  

✅ Socioeconomic impact evaluation is very complex; it involves a large scale of direct and indirect activities.  Therefore, evaluation with a limited number of indicators cannot provide a comprehensive view of impact. Quantity and quality of universities' research activities are likely matters in socioeconomic impact.


Type of Study: Original Research Article | Subject: Health Improvement Strategies
Received: 2020/10/6 | Accepted: 2021/03/14 | Published: 2021/10/17
References
1. Schoenefeld J, Jordan A. Governing policy evaluation? Towards a new typology. Evaluation. 2017;23(3):274-93. [DOI:10.1177/1356389017715366]
2. Rau H, Goggins G, Fahy F. From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research. Res Policy. 2018;47(1):266-76. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2017.11.005]
3. Rawhouser H, Cummings M, Newbert SL. Social impact measurement: Current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. ETP. 2019;43(1):82-115. [DOI:10.1177/1042258717727718]
4. Donovan C. The Australian Research Quality Framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. New Dir Eval. 2008;(118):47-60. [DOI:10.1002/ev.260]
5. Muhonen R, Benneworth P, Olmos-Peñuela J. From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact. Res Eval. 2020;29(1):34-47. [DOI:10.1093/reseval/rvz003]
6. Hansson S, Polk M. Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact. Res Eval. 2018;27(2):132-44. [DOI:10.1093/reseval/rvy004]
7. Mancini L, Sala S. Social impact assessment in the mining sector: Review and comparison of indicators frameworks. Resources Policy. 2018;57:98-111. [DOI:10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.02.002]
8. Niederkrotenthaler T, Dorner TE, Maier M. Development of a practical tool to measure the impact of publications on the society based on focus group discussions with scientists. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):1-9. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-11-588]
9. Reale E, Avramov D, Canhial K, et al. A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research. Res Eval. 2018;27(4):298-308. [DOI:10.1093/reseval/rvx025]
10. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Saloman J, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation.2nd ed. United Kingdom: OXFORD university press; 2017. [DOI:10.1093/med/9780198725923.001.0001]
11. Molas-Gallart J, Salter A, Patel P, Scott A, Duran X. Measuring third stream activities. Final report to the Russell Group of Universities. Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex. 2002.
12. Ernø-Kjølhede E, Hansson F. Measuring research performance during a changing relationship between science and society. Res Eval. 2011;20(2):131-43. [DOI:10.3152/095820211X12941371876544]
13. Djalalinia S, Owlia P, Forouzan AS, et al. Health research evaluation and its role on knowledge production. Iran J public health. 2012;41(2):39.
14. Djalalinia S, Peykari N, Owlia P, et al. The analysis of health research system evaluation in medical sciences universities. Iran J Public Helath. 2013;42(Supple1):60.
15. Peykari N, Djalalinia S, Owlia P, et al. Health research system evaluation in IR of Iran. Arch Iran Med. 2012;15(7):0-.
16. Elsevier Research Intelligence, The societal impact indicators. Available from: https://www.scival.com/overview/societalImpact?uri=Institution/404024. [Accessed 10 May 2020].
17. Valero A, Van Reenen J. The economic impact of universities: Evidence from across the globe. Econ Educ Rev. 2019;68:53-67. [DOI:10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.09.001]
18. Yazdizadeh B, Majdzadeh R, Janani L, et al. An assessment of health research impact in Iran. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14(1):1-10. [DOI:10.1186/s12961-016-0129-9]
19. Guerrero M, Cunningham JA, Urbano D. Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities' activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Res Policy. 2015;44(3):748-64. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.008]
20. Gregersen B, Linde LT, Rasmussen JG. Linking between Danish universities and society. Science and public policy. 2009;36(2):151-6. [DOI:10.3152/030234209X406818]
21. Martin BR, editor Assessing the impact of basic research on society and the economy. Rethinking the impact of basic research on society and the economy (WF-EST International Conference, 11 May 2007), Vienna, Austria; 2007.
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2025 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Advances in Medical and Biomedical Research

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb