How to Prove Your Research Makes a Difference in the Real World
Every year, billions of dollars are spent on research, but how much of it actually changes lives, shapes policy, or saves money? A sweeping review by Greenhalgh and colleagues tackles this head-on, offering a roadmap for how to measure research impact so funders, policymakers, and the public can see what’s working.
As public funding comes under immense pressure, researchers are increasingly expected to prove their value beyond publications. Funders want evidence that their investments lead to better health, stronger economies, and real social benefits. And in public health, where the gap between discovery and action can mean the difference between prevention and crisis, impact measurement is a survival skill.
What Counts as “Impact”?
Impact is more than citations in journals. According to the UK’s Research Excellence Framework, it’s any benefit beyond academia: better health outcomes, cultural change, improved public services, economic gains, and more. The Canadian Academy of Health Sciences adds that health impacts can be physical, psychological, or social, and economic impacts range from cost savings to new products.
The challenge? Impact takes many forms, occurs over years (or decades), and is rarely the result of one study alone.
Six Proven Approaches to Measuring Research Impact
The review identifies six established frameworks—each suited to different needs.
Payback Framework
The workhorse of impact assessment. It maps research from idea to implementation and tracks five kinds of benefits: knowledge, future research, policy, health, and economic gains. Its strength? Rich, project-level detail. Its weakness? Labor-intensive data collection.
Research Impact Framework
A lighter checklist for researchers to self-assess their work across academic, policy, service, and societal impacts. Easy to use, but less comprehensive—best for reflection, not formal evaluation.
Canadian Academy of Health Sciences (CAHS) Framework
An adaptation of Payback that adds a systems approach, capturing the messy, non-linear paths from research to real-world change. It’s comprehensive but resource-heavy.
Monetization Models
These translate impact into dollars—cost savings, increased productivity, or the value of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The upside: powerful for policy advocacy. The downside: heavy assumptions about attribution and time lags.
Societal Impact Assessment
Focuses on broader social changes, from cultural shifts to new collaborations. It values the relationships and networks that make impact possible, but can be subjective and complex to apply.
UK Research Excellence Framework (REF)
A national-scale exercise that blends strategy templates and narrative case studies. Its database of 6,679 case studies is a goldmine for analysis but has been criticized for inconsistent reporting.
Why This Matters Now
Imagine two public health projects. One produces a groundbreaking finding on urban air pollution but never leaves the journal pages. The other works closely with city planners, community leaders, and advocates to embed its findings into zoning laws and transit planning. The latter changes the air people breathe.
The review makes it clear: impact is built, not just measured. It grows from early engagement with stakeholders, the use of knowledge brokers and “boundary spanners,” and deliberate strategies to translate findings into action.
Common Pitfalls in Impact Measurement
- Focusing only on short-term wins. This risks undervaluing politically sensitive or complex research whose influence unfolds over decades.
- Over-relying on metrics. Numbers are important, but without context, they miss the story behind the change.
- Ignoring indirect pathways. Research often works through enlightenment—shaping mindsets—before it changes behavior or policy.
The Future: From Manual to Automated (With Caution)
Traditional approaches require interviews, document reviews, and bespoke narratives. Emerging methods promise automation linking outputs with funding streams in near real-time. Big data could allow faster, broader tracking, but without careful design, we risk losing the nuance of why and how change happens.
What’s Next for Public Health Professionals
If you’re a public health leader or researcher, this review offers both a caution and a challenge.
- Choose the right tool for the job. Not every framework fits every project.
- Invest in relationships early. Engagement and trust drive impact as much as findings do.
- Document as you go. Waiting until the end makes it harder to trace the path from research to change.
As funders push for transparency, those who can tell a clear, evidence-backed impact story will stand out.
Join the Conversation
- How do you currently measure the real-world effects of your work?
- Have you seen a project with strong potential fail to make an impact—and why?
- Which of these frameworks could work in your field?
