Framework development of the social impact of medical research utilization: Fuzzy Delphi approach

Nazeri, Najmeh, Hossini Golkar, Mostafa, Noruzi, Alireza and Shabani, Ali Framework development of the social impact of medical research utilization: Fuzzy Delphi approach. Health Research Policy and Systems, 2025, vol. 23, n. 1, p. 152. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of medical_research_utilization.pdf]
Preview
 Text
medical_research_utilization.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (1MB) | Preview

English abstract

Background Medical research plays an important role in increasing and improving the health of society. Utilizing the results of research will enable the provision of both material and spiritual support for research centres. It is essential to establish mechanisms for effective communication between researchers and officials. It is of great importance to pay attention to tools that facilitate the process of conducting this research. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop the framework of the social impact of medical research utilization (SIMRU). The study is applied in purpose and qualitative in analysis, utilizing a fuzzy Delphi approach with a panel of 25 experts. A purposeful and snowball sampling method was employed. The questionnaire consisted of two rounds of Delphi assessments, divided into three sections: Demographics, Core Variables (measured on a 5-point Likert scale), and Open-Ended Responses. It was developed using a meta-synthesis approach and expert consultations, incorporating feedback for clarity. A pilot test with 13 participants confirmed the reliability (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.987 and 0.974) and content validity through expert reviews. From the initial set of 147 basic themes identified during the meta-synthesis, the conceptual framework of the social impact of medical research utilization – comprising 6 contextual themes, 11 global themes, 20 organizing themes and 103 basic themes – represents the layers of the social impact of medical research utilization and was approved by experts. These contextual themes include knowledge governance and research, knowledge production and exchange, knowledge dissemination and transfer, knowledge mobilization, knowledge popularization, and knowledge utilization. The results of this research support policy-makers in higher education by improving research management and policy-making processes through consideration of the social impact of research and by informing the development of necessary strategies to enhance community health. Additionally, these findings can help universities and research centres measure research activities and knowledge popularization and dissemination more effectively while strengthening the connection between researchers and their target audiences. This research fills a significant gap by introducing social impact indicators and science promotion in medical research for the first time, demonstrating innovation in both the chosen topic and research methodology.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Social Impact, Medical Research, Research Utilization, Scientific Map, Scientometric
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
Depositing user: Dr. Alireza Noruzi
Date deposited: 31 Aug 2026 18:25
Last modified: 31 Aug 2026 18:25
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/48491

References

1. Greenhalgh T, Raftery J, Hanney S, Glover M. Research impact: a narrative review. BMC Med. 2016;14(1):78.

2. Bornmann L. What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013;64(2):217–33.

3. Rudd AB. The broader impact of practicing communication through social media: From Twitter to the National Science Foundation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015;137(4):2367.

4. Graham ID, Tetroe JM. Implementation of evidence. JBI Evid Implement. 2009;7(3): 157–8.

5. Reed MS, Bryce R, Machen R. Pathways to policy impact: a new approach for planning and evidencing research impact. Evid Policy. 2018;14(3):431.

6. (ESRC) EaSRC. What is impact? 2020 [Available from: www.esrc.ukri.org/research/impact-toolkit/what-is-impact/.

7. NWO TDRC. Societal impact through knowledge utilisation 2019–2020 [File Name: Leaflet Knowledge Utilisation ]. Available from: https://www.nwo.nl/sites/nwo/files/documents/Leaflet%20Knowledge%20Utilisation%20-%20web.pdf

8. Donovan C. The Australian research quality framework: a live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. New Dir Eval. 2008;2008(118):47–60.

9. Maas K, Liket K. Social impact measurement: Classification of methods. In: Burritt R, Schaltegger S, Bennett M, Pohjola T, Csutora M, editors. Environmental management accounting and supply chain management. Eco-efficiency in industry and science, vol 27. Springer, Dordrecht.; 2011. pp. 171–202.

10. Bornmann L. Scientific revolution in scientometrics: the broadening of impact from citation to societal. In: Sugimoto C, editor. Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication. De Gruyter; 2016. pp. 347–59.

11. Rymer L. Measuring the impact of research – the context for metric development. Go8 Backgrounder 23. Group of Eight (NJ1). 2011.

12. Godin B, Doré C. Measuring the impacts of science: beyond the economic dimension. INRS Urbanisation, Culture et Société HIST Lecture, Helsinki Institute for Science and Technology Studies, Helsinki, Finland. http://www.csiic ca/PDF/Godin_Dore_Impacts.pdf. 2005.

13. Thelwall M. Web indicators for research evaluation: a practical guide: Morgan & Claypool Publishers; 2016.

14. Abma TA, Cook T, Rämgård M, Kleba E, Harris J, Wallerstein N. Social impact of participatory health research: collaborative non-linear processes of knowledge mobilization. Educ Action Res. 2017;25(4):489–505.

15. Feizabadi M. Assessing the impact of Iranian’s clinical trials. Tehran: University of Tehran; 2017.

16. Batooli Z, Nazari M. The features of social research network for facilitating research activities from medical sciences researchers’ perspective. J Payavard Salamat. 2014;8(4):331.

17. Atapour H. Measuring the social impact of science: methods, indicators and challenges. The second national science assessment and evaluation conference: quality evaluation of science, technology and industry assessment systems. Isfahan: University of Isfahan; January 25–26, 2017.

18. Martin BR, editor. Assessing the impact of basic research on society and the economy. Rethinking the impact of basic research on society and the economy (WF-EST International Conference, 11 May 2007), Vienna, Austria; 2007.

19. Asefzadeh S, Fozounkhah S. Knowledge management: the ladder of research utilization. Hormozgan Med J. 2005;9(1): 8–16.

20. Lauronen J-P. The dilemmas and uncertainties in assessing the societal impact of research. Sci Public Policy. 2020;47(2):207–18.

21. Huutoniemi K. Interdisciplinarity as academic accountability: prospects for quality control across disciplinary boundaries. Soc Epistemol. 2016;30(2):163–85.

22. Nazeri N, A S, M HG, A. N. Developing a model for the social impact of medical research utilization. Kish Island: University of Tehran, Kish International Campus; 2023.

23. Sadatmoosavi A, Tajedini O, Khasseh AA, Shabani A. A qualitative study of the process of knowledge utilization in the social sciences. Int J Inf Sci Manag. 2021;19(2):109–23.

24. Daneshvari Nasab A. Qualitative meta-analysis of research on application’s barriers of research findings. The first national science assessment conference, the evaluation of scientific research (issues, tools and methods). Kerman: Shahid Bahonar University; April 24, 2019.

25. Mahmoudi A, Adib Y. Research workshop aimed at thinking: a way to facilitate the application of research findings. In: National Conference on the Place of Education Research in Iran: challenges and opportunities; Malayer University. 2014.

26. Kabiri M. Utilization of research findings and their role in research management as an interdisciplinary field. Interdiscip Stud Human. 2009;1(4): 147–68.

27. Abedi A, Oreizi H, Shavakhi A-R. Meta-analysis of influential factors on application of research increment in Ministry of Education. J Educ Innov. 2005;4(2):109–33.

28. Diehr G, Gueldenberg S. Knowledge utilisation: an empirical review on processes and factors of knowledge utilisation. Glob Bus Econ Rev. 2017;19(4):401–19.

29. Estabrooks CA, Floyd JA, Scott-Findlay S, O’Leary KA, Gushta M. Individual determinants of research utilization: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2003;43(5):506–20.

30. Mosadeghrad A, Isfahani P. Facilitators to health policy and management knowledge translation: a scoping review. Payesh (Health Monitor). 2021;20(5):529–48.

31. Tajadini O, Babolhavaeji F, Sadatmosavi A. What do Iranian humanities experts say about the translation of knowledge? A qualitative study. Library Inf Sci. 2014;17(1):23–43.

32. Babalhavaeji F, Tajedini O, Nooshinfard F, Hariri N. Composing self-evaluation tools for knowledge translation related to social science researchers. Acad Librarians Inf Res. 2013;47(1):49–64.

33. Sedighi Z, Majdzadeh S, Nejat S, Fotouhi A, Shahidzadeh A, Gholami Z, et al. Knowledge translation: a model for research utilization. 2008.

34. Jacobson N, Butterill D, Goering P. Development of a framework for knowledge translation: understanding user context. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8(2):94–9.

35. Tajadini O, Azami M, Sadatmosavi A. Is it possible to transform science into a product in the humanities. J Stud Libr Inf Sci. 2016;18(8):67–94.

36. Karimian Z, Sabaghian Z, Salehsedghpoor B. Examining the obstacles and challenges of research and science production in universities of medical sciences. Iran Higher Educ. 2012;3(4):1–23.

37. Yazdizadeh B, Majdzadeh SR. A brief review: How can the use of knowledge obtained from research be increased through medical science journals? Iran J Nurs. 2009;61(22):94–5.

38. Minogue V, Matvienko-Sikar K, Hayes C, Morrissey M, Gorman G, Terres A. The usability and applicability of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks for research in the context of a national health service. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021;19:1–14.

39. Prihodova L, Guerin S, Tunney C, Kernohan WG. Key components of knowledge transfer and exchange in health services research: findings from a systematic scoping review. J Adv Nurs. 2019;75(2):313–26.

40. Ojagh Z, Jabbari S, Mehdi M, Vesali M, Zare M, Dorostian A. On the essence and necessity of public understanding of science. Iran J Eng Educ. 2013;14(56):117–32.

41. Akrami F, Bahadoran ZE. Ethical considerations in publishing and applying research results. Faslnamah-i akhlaq-i pizishki-Q J Med Ethics. 2016;10(37):81–9.

42. Zheng H, Pee L, Zhang D. Societal impact of research: a text mining study of impact types. Scientometrics. 2021;126(9):7397–417.

43. Doulani A, Behpour M, Abam Z. Comparison of the social impact of review articles with original research articles in the field of library and information science indexed in WoS. J Scientometr Res. 2022;11(3):384–92.

44. Fecher B, Hebing M. How do researchers approach societal impact? PLoS ONE. 2021;16(7):e0254006.

45. Smit JP, Hessels LK. The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods. Res Eval. 2021;30(3):323–35.

46. Mostert SP, Ellenbroek SP, Meijer I, Van Ark G, Klasen EC. Societal output and use of research performed by health research groups. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010;8:1–10.

47. Kah S, Akenroye T. Evaluation of social impact measurement tools and techniques: a systematic review of the literature. Soc Enterp J. 2020;16(4):381–402.

48. Pedersen DB, Grønvad JF, Hvidtfeldt R. Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities – a literature review. Res Eval. 2020;29(1):4–21.

49. Corvo L, Pastore L, Manti A, Iannaci D. Mapping social impact assessment models: a literature overview for a future research agenda. Sustainability. 2021;13(9):4750.

50. Salahi S, Ghasemi V, Hemati R. Exploring social impact assessment implementation process with an approach based on grounded theory. J Soc Prob Iran. 2018;9(1):143–63.

51. Jamali HR. Comparison of models and frameworks of medical research impact assessment. 2013.

52. Backer TE. Knowledge utilization: the third wave. Knowledge. 1991;12(3):225–40.

53. Blake SC, Ottoson JM. Knowledge utilization: implications for evaluation. New Dir Eval. 2009;2009(124):21–34.

54. Mehrabi E, Mohaghegh N, Hojjatizadeh Y. Knowledge translation: expanding the theoretical foundations of management, transfer, and sharing of knowledge. Tehran: Chapar, Persian Mythology; 2017.

55. Kuruvilla S, Mays N, Pleasant A, Walt G. Describing the impact of health research: a research impact framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6(1):134.

56. Thomas A, Bussières A. Knowledge translation and implementation science in health professions education: time for clarity? Acad Med. 2016;91(12):e20.

57. Asefzadeh S. The quality of collaboration among medical research centers, universities, health executives and the community in Iran. Turk J Med Sci. 2005;35(2):115–20.

58. Adler M, Ziglio E. Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 1996.

59. Powell C. The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs. 2003;41(4):376–82.

60. Turoff M. The design of a policy Delphi. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1970;2(2):149–71.

61. Turoff M, Linstone HA. The Delphi method – techniques and applications. 2002.

62. Glenn JC, Gordon TJ. Futures research methodology version 3.0: The Millennium Project; 2009.

63. Brown CA. The opt-in/opt-out feature in a multi-stage Delphi method study. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2007;10(2):135–44.

64. Chanthiran M, Ibrahim AB, Rahman MHA, Mariappan P, Supramaniam J, Ruskova D. Utilize fuzzy Delphi method to design and develop T2IG application for primary schools. J Adv Res Appl Sci Eng Technol. 2023;32(1):378–89.

65. Roldan Lopez de Hierro AF, Sánchez M, Puente-Fernández D, Montoya-Juárez R, Roldán C. A fuzzy Delphi consensus methodology based on a fuzzy ranking. Mathematics. 2021;9(18):2323.

66. Faizi K, Irandoost M. Delphi: a method for decision-making and futures research. Tehran: Industrial Management Institute (IMI); 2013.

67. Hosseini Golkar M, Noorihekmat S, Dehnavi R, Poursheikhalli A. Encyclopedia of foresight methods: for researchers in the health field. Kerman: Institute for Futures Studies in Health; 2017.

68. Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32(4):1008–15.

69. Neuman WL. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2000.

70. Martino JP. Technological forecasting for decisionmaking. The University of Michigan: American Elsevier Publishing Company; 1975.

71. Loo R. The Delphi method: a powerful tool for strategic management. Polic Int J Police Strat Manag. 2002;25(4):762–9.

72. Graham B, Regehr G, Wright JG. Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(12):1150–6.

73. Nazeri N, Shabani A, Hossini Golkar M, Noruzi A. The social impact of the application of medical research with meta-synthesis approach. Health Inf Manag. 2023;20(4):205–13.

74. Berdie DR, Anderson JF, Niebuhr MA. Questionnaires: design and use. London: Bloomsbury Academic; 1986.

75. Nasiri P, Hajsalmany A. Statistics in scientometrics and knowledge and information science. Tehran: The Organization for Researching and Composing University Textbook in the Humanities (SAMT), Institute for Research and Development in the Humanities; 2018.

76. Bameni Moghadam M, Alimohammadi M. Statistics in knowledge and information science (with SPSS). Tehran: Allameh Tabataba’i University Publications; 2020.

77. Woudenberg F. An evaluation of Delphi. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1991;40(2):131–50.

78. Fish LS, Busby DM. The Delphi method. Res Methods Fam Ther. 1996;469:482.

79. Rahdary A, Nasr M. Challenges of think tanks in Iran. Manag Dev Process. 2017;30(2):23–54.

80. Schmidt RC. Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decis Sci. 1997;28(3):763–74.

81. Ghasemi H, Adib F, Akhgari M, Azarbayejani MA, Ahmadi Amoli K, Esmaeilian G, et al. A comprehensive guide to research. 19, editor. Tehran: Andisheara; 2022.

82. Cheng C-H, Lin Y. Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation. Eur J Oper Res. 2002;142(1):174–86.

83. Mousavi P, Yousefizenouz R, Hasanpoor A. Identifying organizational information security risks using fuzzy Delphi. J Inf Technol Manag. 2015;7(1):163–84.

84. Dotti NF, Walczyk J. What is the societal impact of university research? A policy-oriented review to map approaches, identify monitoring methods and success factors. Eval Program Plann. 2022;95:102157.

85. Parvinia Nasab AM, Vojdani MA, Dehghani A, Keshtkaran Z, Kavosi A. Viewpoints of educational and clinical staff in Shiraz University of Medical Sciences to barriers implementation of evidence-based care. Alborz Univ Med J. 2013;3(1):23–32.

86. Safari Y, Darabi F, Pourmirza R, Rasoul M, Miri N. Explaining the concept of evidence-based medicine based on the academic and medical experiences of the clinical faculty members: a qualitative study. J Clin Res Paramed Sci. 2015;4(2):85–93.

87. Yazdizadeh B, Nedjat S, Gholami J, Changizi N, Sh Y, Nasehi M, et al. Utilization of research in health system decision making. Hakim J. 2009;12(2):1–10.

88. Mairs K, McNeil H, McLeod J, Prorok JC, Stolee P. Online strategies to facilitate health-related knowledge transfer: a systematic search and review. Health Info Libr J. 2013;30(4):261–77.

89. Cooper A, Rodway J, Read R. Knowledge mobilization practices of educational researchers across Canada. Can J High Educ. 2018;48(1):1–21.

90. Heidari A, Hassanzadeh M. The participation of authorities in the field of promotion of science and satisfaction with their performance: the viewpoint of experts with natural and legal status. Librarians Inf Organ Stud. 2013;23(4):170–94.

91. Damari B, Oveisi S, Azizkhani N. A model for utilizing social determinants of health approach by faculty members. Koomesh. 2018;20(2):366–74.

92. Bauer MW, Jensen P. The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understand Sci. 2011;20(1):3–11.

93. Atapour H, Hamdipour A, Akbarzadeh P. Self-assessment of faculty members of Tabriz University toward social impact of their academic researches. Interdiscip Stud Humanit. 2021;13(3):1–32.

94. Eslami Z, Hakimzadeh R, Saboury AA, Farzad V. Identifying effective factors in the assessment of research productivity of faculty members in the Humanities and Social Sciences (Case Study: University of Tehran). 2021.

95. Chamakiotis P, Petrakaki D, Panteli N. Social value creation through digital activism in an online health community. Inf Syst J. 2021;31(1):94–119.

96. Khan MI, Loh J. Benefits, challenges, and social impact of health care providers’ adoption of social media. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2022;40(6):1631–47.

97. Redondo-Sama G, Díez-Palomar J, Campdepadrós R, Morlà-Folch T. Communicative methodology: contributions to social impact assessment in psychological research. Front Psychol. 2020;11:286.

98. Jalalzadeh S, Shayanfar A, Ataee F, Jouyban A. Monitoring of Iranian pharmaceutical studies in the last decade: a scientometric study. Med J Tabriz Univ Med Sci. 2025;47(3):298–319.

99. Khanali J, Malekpour M-R, Kolahi A-A. Assessing the research performance of the Iranian medical academics and universities: a bibliometric analysis. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2023;37:31.

100. Honarvar B, Sekhavati E, Bagheri Lankerani K. From publication to knowledge translation. Tehran: Alborzfarjad Publication; 2020.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS