Browsing by Subject "Public Health Research"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item ANALYSIS OF IMPACT SCORES OBTAINED AS A FUNCTION OF REVIEW CYCLES (FROM JUNE 2010 TO JUNE 2012 REVIEW CYCLES)(2013-04-12) Tan, DebraPurpose: To examine the trend of scientific quality of research grant applications submitted to AHRQ with time, we assessed the overall impact scores provided by each of 5 standing study sections as a function of times during the past 7 review cycles (from June 2010 to June 2012). Methods: As at the NIH, the Scientific Peer Review Committees at AHRQ use 9 points overall impact score system to evaluate the scientific merit of research grant applications submitted to AHRQ for funding opportunity. This analysis is based upon the enhanced score criterion http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-HS-10-002.html using the final impact scores assigned to the applications that were discussed at the review meetings from five study sections and Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) that were reviewed from June 2010 to June 2012 (a total of 7 review cycles). The data used in this analysis was from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Query View & Report Database (QVR system). Microsoft Excel and SPSS were the tools used for analysis. Results: The means impact scores trend to increase with time in terms of review cycles (from June 2010 to June 2012). The means impact scores trend to increase with time in terms of review cycles (from June 2010 to June 2012). For example, for the HCRT, HQER or HSR study section, the means impact scores decrease to a lowest values of about 31-35 the exception of February 2011 review cycle meeting. The means of overall impact scores gradually increased to higher values at the subsequent review cycles to about 38 to 53 for all 5 study sections. The means for the June 2010 cycle ranged from 36.26 - 40.76 and the means rose to upward trend for the June 2012 cycle at 38.48 - 53.46 range showing an upward trend. Although the mean values of impact scores implicated an upward trend from June 2010 to June 2012, there was no statistical significance among these mean values. Conclusions: Our analysis of impact scores among study sections found no statistically significant differences, indicating that the AHRQ peer review process is consistent in terms of quality of the scientific review among study sections. Our findings could provide useful information to the AHRQ leadership team, as well as the extramural health services research community regarding the scientific peer process for grant applications submitted to AHRQ for funding opportunity.Item MEASURING SCIENTIFIC IMPACT OF AHRQ RESEARCH GRANTS: FY2005-2010(2013-04-12) Tan, DebraPurpose: The purpose of this study was to determine research productivity; return investment in AHRQ funded research grants and to perform an analysis of the publication outputs and journal impact factors associated with AHRQ grants in the form of dissemination. Methods: AHRQ Grants On-Line Database (GOLD) was searched for grants funded from 2003-2010 to allow a two year lag time to publication for a new grant. The National Health Institute Query View and Report Database (NIH QVR) was subsequently searched based on principal investigator and grant identification number to determine any publications and journal impact factors. Findings were stratified based on AHRQ's Portfolios of Research Priorities. Grant identification number, principal investigator, grant title, institution, state, project start date, project end date, portfolio, publication year, impact score, publication journal, author succession, investigator type and award amount were recorded. Results: Overall journal impact score of AHRQ Portfolios of Research (2.034) was consistent with those for Health Services Research (2.293), the official journal of AcademyHealth which AHRQ funds. Health Information Technology received a large amount of funding (n=163, 48.98% of total budget) and had the second to highest average impact score (2.116). Prevention/Care Management received the highest average impact score (2.553) and the second to highest average publications (1.471) for grants. Patient Safety had the highest average publications (1.497) for grants. Comparative Effectiveness had very few funded grants (n=20, 1.30% of the total budget) yet consistent average impact score (1.797) but fewer publications (0.80). The average journal impact score is relatively consistent with AHRQ's Portfolios of Research Priorities (2.073). Conclusions: In summary, this study provides a comprehensive overview of the impact of AHRQ Funded Grants in terms of delivery of scientific knowledge to the Health Services Research community. Overall journal impact score of AHRQ Portfolios of Research (2.034) was consistent with Health Services Research (2.293), which is the official journal of AcademyHealth. Questions to be addressed in the future are whether funding has changed for Comparative Effectiveness since the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).