BMJ open · 2025
What are the broader impacts and value from a randomised controlled trial conducted in six public hospital antenatal clinics in Australia? An impact assessment using the Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Elvidge Elissa, Murphy Vanessa E, Rao Melanie, Gibson Peter G, McLaughlin Karen, Robijn Annelies, Jensen Megan E, Callaway Leonie Kaye, Attia John, Hensley Michael, Giles Warwick, Peek Michael, Barrett Helen, Seeho Sean, Mattes Joerg, Abbott Alistair, Bisits Andrew, McCaffery Kirsten, Colditz Paul B, Searles Andrew, Ramanathan Shanthi Ann
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The Breathing for Life Trial (BLT) was a multicentre randomised controlled trial testing the hypothesis that a fractional exhaled nitric oxide-based intervention to guide asthma therapy in pregnancy improves perinatal outcomes. While BLT was negative based on selected outcomes, the conduct of the trial over 7 years showed potential for assessing the broader research impacts and returns on investment in BLT. The aim of this study was to retrospectively assess and report on the impact and value of BLT to show accountability for the research investment in what was deemed a 'negative' trial.
METHODS: The Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) was selected as the preferred method. FAIT combines three validated methods, including a modified Payback framework, an economic analysis of return on investment and a narrative account of the impact generated from the research. Data collection was done via document analysis of BLT administrative and research records and review of relevant websites/databases.
RESULTS: BLT delivered a return on investment of $6.7 million in leveraged grants, fellowships and consultancies and conservatively returned $2.44 for every dollar invested. The research trained and upskilled 18 midwives and obstetricians in evidence-based asthma management in pregnancy and improved research capability of six PhD students. Specialised equipment purchased by BLT is now being repurposed to undertake other research in regional Australia, saving further research investment. Of the 1200 mothers who were part of BLT, 508 now have written asthma plans, 268 had a clinically significant improvement in their asthma control score and the proportion who improved their asthma plan knowledge increased by 58 percentage points from 12 to 70%.
CONCLUSION: This case example in the developing field of impact assessment illustrates how researchers can use evidence to demonstrate and report more broadly on the impact of and returns on research investment in a clinical trial.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12613000202763; Post results.
METHODS: The Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) was selected as the preferred method. FAIT combines three validated methods, including a modified Payback framework, an economic analysis of return on investment and a narrative account of the impact generated from the research. Data collection was done via document analysis of BLT administrative and research records and review of relevant websites/databases.
RESULTS: BLT delivered a return on investment of $6.7 million in leveraged grants, fellowships and consultancies and conservatively returned $2.44 for every dollar invested. The research trained and upskilled 18 midwives and obstetricians in evidence-based asthma management in pregnancy and improved research capability of six PhD students. Specialised equipment purchased by BLT is now being repurposed to undertake other research in regional Australia, saving further research investment. Of the 1200 mothers who were part of BLT, 508 now have written asthma plans, 268 had a clinically significant improvement in their asthma control score and the proportion who improved their asthma plan knowledge increased by 58 percentage points from 12 to 70%.
CONCLUSION: This case example in the developing field of impact assessment illustrates how researchers can use evidence to demonstrate and report more broadly on the impact of and returns on research investment in a clinical trial.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12613000202763; Post results.