The academic impact of paediatric research agendas: a descriptive analysis

• Published in: Research involvement and engagement Vol. 10; no. 1; pp. 97 - 12
• Main Authors: Postma, L, Luchtenberg, M L, Verhagen, A A E, Maeckelberghe, E L M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 20.09.2024; BMC
• Subjects: Academic impact; Children and young people; Involvement; Medical research; Medicine, Experimental; Paediatric research agendas; Patient and public involvement; Pediatrics; Research impact framework; United Kingdom; Research impact framework; Paediatric research agendas; Children and young people; Patient and public involvement; Involvement; Payback Framework; Academic impact
• ISSN: 2056-7529; 2056-7529
• DOI: 10.1186/s40900-024-00630-x

Increasingly, researchers are involving children and young people in designing paediatric research agendas, but as far as we were able to determine, only one report exists on the academic impact of such an agenda. In our opinion, the importance of insight into the impact of research agendas designed together with children and young people cannot be overstated. The first aim of our study was therefore to develop a method to describe the academic impact of paediatric research agendas. Our second aim was to describe the academic impact of research agendas developed by involving children and young people. We based our method on aspects of the Research Impact Framework developed by Kuruvilla and colleagues and the Payback Framework developed by Donovan and Hanney. We named it Descriptive Academic Impact Analysis of Paediatric Research Agendas, consisting of five steps: [1] Identification of paediatric research agendas, [2] Citation analysis, [3] Impact analysis, [4] Author assessment, and [5] Classification of the ease of determining traceability. We included 31 paediatric research agendas that were designed by involving children and young people. These agendas were cited 517 times, ranging from 0 to 71 citations. A total of 131 new studies (25%) were published, ranging from 0 to 23 per paediatric research agenda, based on at least one of the research priorities from the agenda. Sixty studies (46%) were developed by at least one of the first, second, or last authors of the paediatric research agenda on which the studies were based. Based on their accessibility and the ease with which we could identify the studies as being agenda-based, we categorised 44 studies (34%) as easy, 62 studies (47%) as medium, and 25 studies (19%) as difficult to identify. This study reports on the development of a method to describe the academic impact of paediatric research agendas and it offers insight into the impact of 31 such agendas. We recommend that our results be used as a guide for designing future paediatric research agendas, especially by including ways of tracing the academic impact of new studies concerning the agendas' research priorities.