Print This PostIt has always been a priority of mine to research topics which can be readily applied to generate concrete change. The reason I steered early on into clinical research was because I could clearly see the route from the science in my unit to everyday impact for the people in my life. Yet when I published my first paper last year, I couldn’t help but feel it disappeared into the void. I was so excited the day it was released, but quickly found a sense of disappointment as I realised nothing had changed. It felt a bit like no one cared except me. I didn’t see the impact.
“Don’t think of impact as something that happens after the fact”: the opening words from Professor Mike Kelly at a workshop by the Cambridge Centre for Science and Policy. Strong words from the former director of the Centre for Public Health at the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Strong words which hit a chord with me.
We know as academics that instant reward is not part of our job. It takes months, years, sometimes even decades to complete a research cycle from inception to publication. We are well versed in the art of waiting. And part of what allows me to patiently wait is the belief then when my research does go out into the world it will mean something to someone. It might inspire another research study which will highlight a new treatment option. It might detail a new method that can be used to explore a range of previously untapped research questions. It might even be cited and contribute towards my ever important – and currently negligible – impact factor. It might. It might not. That uncertainty bothers me. The truth is that I don’t know the direct pipeline which will lead to my research impacting the everyday. Even if it leads to the identification of a new drug to treat dementia, what happens next? How do I make sure that drug is used? How do I make sure it doesn’t enter the void?
Of course, a lot can be said for the power of science communication. There are many channels that can be used to publicise research beyond the confines of our personal social media pages. I could have certainly done more with my first paper to reach a greater audience. But this is something we focus on at the end of the research cycle, and even the best communication can’t save research that started off on the wrong foot all those many moons ago. So, how do we ensure that our research has impact? According to the workshop I attended, the all-important trick is to start at the beginning.
Idea 1: NICE recommendations for research. If you’re not familiar with NICE, they’re an organisation which aims to synthesise evidence into sets of guidelines that inform clinical practise. From abdominal aortic aneurysms to Zanubrutinib, their guidelines seem to cover just about everything the medical world can conjure. Thousands of clinical recommendations, including those for dementia. And every time a report is written, and evidence synthesised, they also write a list of recommendations for future research to address current gaps in these guidelines. Not only that, but they are now partnered with NIHR (National Institute for Health and Care Research) to provide funding for researchers seeking to address these unanswered questions. I’m baffled that it has taken me this long to find a ready-made list of research questions which have an inbuilt pipeline to impact our health services! And from discussions at the workshop it seems to be the case that most researchers are unaware this resource exists. With that in mind, I truly recommend finding out more.
Idea 2: Get involved in policy. I know that established researchers in my field are invited to consult on policy decisions. What I did not know is that even as a young dementia researcher I am able to contribute. As a registered stakeholder with NICE you can comment on draft guidelines and anyone, including members of the public, are able to observe their committee meetings. I now also have a webpage on the Cambridge Centre for Science and Policy which increases my visibility to policy-makers who might want to discuss issues I have experience with. As an early-career researcher I often think that impact is something that will come later on in my academic journey when I know more, and I can do more. But recently I’ve realised that I already know quite a lot. I know that the brain weighs about the same as a small chicken. I know that reference managers are the key to life itself. I even know that a gingerbread house will, on average, last 18 hours being self-destructing (at least from personal experience). I also do quite a lot already. I’m aware that there’s a lot of growing still to do in my career, but I also know that one of the best ways to facilitate this growth is exposure to new ideas. Getting involved with policy early on in your career can help you recognise the types of evidence and the nature of the research that has the biggest impact so you can try to replicate that success yourself – learn more about getting involved.
Idea 3: Talk to the people. Science communication is one of my greatest passions, but similarly to impact I always thought of public engagement as something that comes at the end of a research journey. In reality, to bring impact to the beginning of a research cycle, is to bring public involvement too. Throughout study inception, ethics protocols, data pipelines and beyond, asking patients and carers what they want and need from research is possibly the best way to ensure your research has impact. Let’s leave those ivory towers solidly in the past, both because their construction would be an ecological disaster but also because it’s not beneficial to our research. Research culture has a role to play too, ensuring we reward scientists for achievements other than publishing in high-impact journals. This is where schemes like the Hidden REF come into their own, trying to broaden the idea of success in research beyond just our papers.
So, how do we ensure our research has impact? The billion-dollar question. For me, the answer is to work smarter not harder. Use available resources to identify gaps in current evidence that informs clinical guidelines. Get involved in policy spheres so you can learn what types of evidence are the most useful in the rooms where decisions are made. Talk to the people who should be impacted by your research and make sure you ask them what they would want to see. There are no guarantees in science. We can never change all those mights into knows. But the conversation still needs to be had. Impact isn’t just at the end.
Rebecca Williams
Author
Rebecca Williams is a PhD student at the University of Cambridge. Though originally from ‘up North’ in a small town called Leigh, she did her undergraduate and masters at the University of Oxford before defecting to Cambridge for her doctorate researching Frontotemporal dementia and Apathy. She now spends her days collecting data from wonderful volunteers, and coding. Outside work, she plays board games, and is very crafty.
Dementia Researcher
Dr Jodi Watt
Dr Yvonne Couch
Ajantha Abey
Dr Becky Carlyle