Article type
Abstract
Background
Demands on publicly funded organisations are increasing to demonstrate their impact and the value of public investment. Developing a scientific impact framework responded to this need to define and assess the impact of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) key scientific outputs and to advocate for a greater use of evidence in European policy and decision-making.
Objectives
The objective of the framework is to provide the means to assess the influence of the Centre’s key scientific outputs on public health policies and practices.
Methods
Inspired by the CDC Science Impact Framework [1], the framework is based on 4 domains of influence where the Centre could demonstrate how it aspires to drive EU public health policy and practice:
1.Informing and raising awareness in the field;
2.Alerting and priming actions to prevent and control infectious diseases;
3.Influencing EU policies and practice;
4.Improving health outcomes in the EU.
In 2022, the Centre launched a stakeholders' survey to assess their satisfaction with ECDC key outputs and assess their influence. Seven questions covering the 4 domains of influence were included to pilot the framework.
Results
The results indicated that the Centre’s outputs had the greatest influence on informing discussions between peers inside or outside their organisation, communications to their target audience (e.g., decision makers, public, media, healthcare workers etc), changes in national guidance and recommendations, and on addressing the public health issue, while they had more moderate influence in terms of changes in national policies and legislation.
Conclusions
We obtained insights into the influence of the Centre’s key outputs and confirmed that they are used to inform and raise awareness, to alert and prime actions among the public health community. The outputs were less influential in driving policies and practices, indicating the Centre's accountability ceiling in terms of direct influence and the need for a better approach to increase the use of evidence in policy and practice.
[1] A science impact framework to measure impact beyond journal metrics. Ari MD, et al. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 22;15(12) doi: 10.1371.
Demands on publicly funded organisations are increasing to demonstrate their impact and the value of public investment. Developing a scientific impact framework responded to this need to define and assess the impact of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) key scientific outputs and to advocate for a greater use of evidence in European policy and decision-making.
Objectives
The objective of the framework is to provide the means to assess the influence of the Centre’s key scientific outputs on public health policies and practices.
Methods
Inspired by the CDC Science Impact Framework [1], the framework is based on 4 domains of influence where the Centre could demonstrate how it aspires to drive EU public health policy and practice:
1.Informing and raising awareness in the field;
2.Alerting and priming actions to prevent and control infectious diseases;
3.Influencing EU policies and practice;
4.Improving health outcomes in the EU.
In 2022, the Centre launched a stakeholders' survey to assess their satisfaction with ECDC key outputs and assess their influence. Seven questions covering the 4 domains of influence were included to pilot the framework.
Results
The results indicated that the Centre’s outputs had the greatest influence on informing discussions between peers inside or outside their organisation, communications to their target audience (e.g., decision makers, public, media, healthcare workers etc), changes in national guidance and recommendations, and on addressing the public health issue, while they had more moderate influence in terms of changes in national policies and legislation.
Conclusions
We obtained insights into the influence of the Centre’s key outputs and confirmed that they are used to inform and raise awareness, to alert and prime actions among the public health community. The outputs were less influential in driving policies and practices, indicating the Centre's accountability ceiling in terms of direct influence and the need for a better approach to increase the use of evidence in policy and practice.
[1] A science impact framework to measure impact beyond journal metrics. Ari MD, et al. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 22;15(12) doi: 10.1371.