Corporate report

Research impact framework

Published 15 October 2026

Foreword

Science is at the core of the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) mission to prevent, prepare for and respond to health hazards. Our science spans over 30 scientific disciplines across our sites and relies on close collaboration with research centres in industry, academia, NHS and government partners.

As a science-led organisation, our research activities are designed to impact directly on public health by translating evidence into practice. Planning for impact needs to happen from the very beginning of a research project to ensure that the evidence produced by UKHSA will lead to a change (for example, in individual behaviours or government policy).

This framework document supports systematic planning for impact at the beginning of a research activity, uncovering impact throughout the project and suggesting ways to retrospectively identify impact at the end of the activity.

As a result, research activities and findings can be evidenced and can benefit individuals, communities or society. We hope you enjoy reading it.

Professor Robin May
Interim Chief Scientific Officer
UK Health Security Agency
August 2026

Executive summary

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), is a public sector research establishment (PSRE) which supports DHSC and other government departments through the provision of scientific advice and evidence.

UKHSA published its Science Strategy in 2023, detailing its ambitions and commitments to science and research and the importance of collaborative high-quality research to generate evidence, of mechanisms for the open access dissemination of outputs and the effective translation of evidence into actions to protect the health of the public.

As one of the key elements of the research and knowledge enabler of the Science Strategy, this framework outlines our commitment to doing research, not just for the sake of it, but to lead to a change (impact) in thinking, behaviour, quality of life, capacity, environment or policy. The organisation should demonstrate impact for transparency, accountability, improvement and to be successful in applying for funding.

The research impact framework introduces topics such as knowledge mobilisation, health equity, consideration of stakeholders, beneficiaries and end users (including patient and public involvement and engagement; PPIE) as part of the process of planning for impact. It also provides guidance for communicating about research, disseminating research results, making outputs openly accessible and evaluating activities. It provides definitions and tools and sets out a practical approach to enable UKHSA to plan for and monitor the impact of its activities.

The framework provides an introduction to research impact and details the steps that should be taken in 5 chapters:

• what is impact?
• planning for impact
• collecting and storing information
• communicating and disseminating impact
• evaluating impact

Introduction

Background

UKHSA is responsible for preparing for, preventing and responding to health security hazards. It is a PSRE contributing to the UK research and innovation landscape and supporting the government by providing science advice to policymakers and delivering critical science services.

It is imperative that the research activities conducted by UKHSA, including in partnership with stakeholders, are relevant, value-for-money, conducted with integrity and translational and its outputs shared openly to improve their impact and trust in the organisation. A core value of the Science Strategy is that the Agency will be impactful and commit to the translation of evidence into practice. This document supports the UKHSA Strategy 2026 to 2029 and the Science Strategy in ensuring that activities conducted by the organisation are impactful.

The research impact framework was developed based on published evidence on research impact, including publications and online reference materials, and through consultation with a variety of stakeholders, from across the organisation and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Units (HPRUs).

The framework can be broken down into 5 steps:

• planning for impact
• evidencing impact
• collecting and storing information
• communicating and disseminating impact
• evaluating impact

These steps address challenges in the current state of research within UKHSA, as identified by the Science Strategy:

• there is a need to work in partnership with patient, public and community groups to ensure that science underpins health equity with a focus on populations that face the highest risks
• in order to ensure “that health security research priorities access the best scientific expertise from external partners and are met in a timely manner…” UKHSA will need to “commit to open science and translation of knowledge and evidence into practice”
• “there is a need to establish greater awareness of our scientific work and capabilities outside of emergency response to build preparedness” – ‘prepare’ being one of UKHSA’s strategic goals

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to provide a practical approach and tools so that subject experts can plan for and report the difference that they are making through their research.

Planning for impact ensures that the activities undertaken by UKHSA will lead to a change (for example, in thinking, behaviour, quality of life, capacity, environment or policy). The framework supports the systematic planning for impact at the beginning of a research activity, uncovering impact throughout and retrospectively identifying impact at the end of the activity and for some time thereafter. As a result, the impact of research can be evidenced to funding bodies, government and the public and individuals will be able to monitor their own personal impact.

The benefits of this framework:

• bringing transparency and accountability to UKHSA’s activities and their impact
• supporting funding bids
• providing guidance for continued evaluation and improvement of activities
• aiding the translation of evidence into practice and influencing policy
• introducing research inclusion/health equity and working with stakeholders, beneficiaries and end users (including PPIE) to maximise the impact of research
• ensuring UKHSA research activities are impactful
• reinforcing a culture, across the organisation, of understanding what is research impact and why it is important

This document provides a detailed guide to planning for impact and links to guidance and resources. It should be read in the context of the UKHSA Strategy 2026 to 2029, UKHSA Science Strategy and other relevant organisational strategic documents (including the NIHR HPRU strategies).

Contact individual HPRUs for information.

Scope

The framework applies to all UKHSA staff, partners, collaborators and honorary contractors involved in research activities. This includes the following if involved in research activities:

• all scientific, medical, nursing, technical and support staff employed by UKHSA or working in UKHSA facilities
• students, contractors, visitors and university staff funded from outside the organisation but working in UKHSA facilities
• persons with honorary positions and studentships

As per the framework for integrity and independence of UKHSA’s science and research, UKHSA’s scientific activities encompass both research (primary and secondary research) and non-research work. UKHSA’s research activities within scope include (but are not limited to):

• evaluation of public health tools and interventions
• surveillance and risk assessment of health threats
• behavioural and social science activities
• evidence synthesis

There are many approaches and tools available for planning for and monitoring impact and there is no one standard approach acknowledged across the research community. Other approaches outlined in the literature or tools available online may be more apt depending on the situation. The approach and tools described in this framework are intended as guidance to the crucial components that should be considered. You should consider your circumstances, objectives, available resources and funder requirements when choosing an approach for research impact.

Chapter 1. What is impact?

Science versus research

Scientific work (or academic) impact measures the influence of academic work within other academic activities. Traditionally, this has been measured through outputs such as peer reviewed publications and associated bibliometrics (for example, number of papers, h-index). Researchers in the UK may have to:

• submit information about the impact of their research through Researchfish, a platform that funders use to track research and evidence impact (shutting down July 2027)
• participate in the Research Excellence Framework (REF), a research impact evaluation held every 7 years resulting in the allocation of block-grant research funding to universities based on research quality

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development defines research and experimental development as the “creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge (including knowledge of humankind, culture and society) and to devise new applications of available knowledge” (1).

The REF 2021 defined research impact as an effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia. Types of impact can be: attitudinal, economic, environmental, health and wellbeing, policy, other forms of decision-making and behaviour change impacts, cultural, other social and capacity or preparedness (2).

Outcomes are early impacts – changes that happen because of your research (for example, uptake and use of your output).

Impacts are the measurable change that occurs (for example, the consequence of using your output). It is challenging to uncover the impact of research; for example, it can be difficult to unpick how the output (research results) collated into a new or amended policy (outcome) resulted in impact (what difference has that policy made?) when:

• the policy may contain research results from many sources (attribution issues)
• measuring the effect may be outside of the researcher’s remit or someone else’s responsibility
• there is not capacity/resource to take that next step of measuring the effect of the policy
• impact may not occur until many years after the end of the research activity

As such, outputs and outcomes are often cited as impact. For example, bringing together a group of people who ordinarily wouldn’t work together, collating learnings from discussions, making code or data openly available, evidence gathering for a policy statement, talking about the research on local radio or registering a patent can all lead to impact. It is important to take note and record these outputs and outcomes as they are an integral part of the research process and may lead to impact.

Significance and reach are often used to measure research impact. The London School of Economics and Political Science REF glossary defines research significance as “the degree to which impact has enabled, enriched, influenced, informed or changed the performance, policies, practices, products, services, understanding, awareness or wellbeing of the beneficiaries” and research reach as “the extent and/or diversity of the beneficiaries of the impact (for example, constituencies, numbers of groups, as relevant to the nature of the impact)”. Reach is usually measured in metrics and does not indicate if outputs were used or if anything changed, but can be useful for understanding the pathways to impact and/or for measuring the influence of academic work within other academic activities (scientific/academic impact).

Personal, scientific and research impact

UKHSA is increasingly being asked by the government to demonstrate the impact of its science and research and this information must be readily available. Thus, as a responsibility of their role, staff should monitor personal impact (the lasting impression, influence and value left on the people, projects and organisation), as well as the impact of research activity. Some examples of metrics for personal, scientific or research impact are number of publication citations, mentions in grey literature, openly available datasets, patents or networks created.

The following tools may be helpful (correct at time of publication):

• UKHSA uses the Central Research Information System (CRIS) to manage research activities and outputs and to promote staff expertise
• Dimensions – track career development
• ORCID – track publications
• Altmetric – track online engagement
• Policy Commons – track grey literature (uses Content Object Identifiers)
• Overton – track policy impact
• Sage Policy Profile – track policy impact
• Lens – track patents
• WorldCat – a global catalogue of library materials

Dimensions, Altmetric, Overton and Lens are not free; Policy Commons is not free, but can be accessed for free at point-of-use through a UKHSA license.

Personal impact, unintended consequences, ‘failed’ research and negative impact

The main focus of this framework is to support planning for the impact (a change in thinking, behaviour, quality of life, capacity, environment or policy) of scientific and research activities. However, it is important to take time to reflect on personal impact (the lasting impression, influence and value left on the people, projects and organisation). These could be money or time saved, increase in skills capability, lessons learned, knowledge shared, inclusion of new stakeholders or new networks created, asset building or facilitating behaviours or supporting UKHSA’s vision (UKHSA Strategy 2026 to 2029). These impacts may not be obvious if they are unintended and thus it is good practice to periodically look back, reflect on impact and consider how these unintended beneficial consequences can be metricated for reporting purposes.

Research can have unintended negative consequences and regularly reflecting on activities and outcomes over time can help mitigate this issue by facilitating recognition, learnings and sharing.

When research results are unexpected, there are no results or research hasn’t been taken-up and used, there is a tendency to ignore this “failed” research and move on. However, time should be taken to reflect on the learnings from the activity, which should be captured and applied to future endeavours. There is growing support for failed research, which can still have a lot of impact, to be shared, either informally or through publication, thus reducing duplication of efforts, saving money and improving future work. This practice is equally useful for work that may not be considered as formal research; for example, during agile design or development, a discovery that doesn’t lead to alpha may still have positive impact in the form of saving time and resources or reducing costs.

As part of the process of planning for impact (Chapter 2) it is important to think about research inclusion and health equity and to involve a wide range of people in the research. This will ensure that the research outputs are appropriate, disseminated to the people who can benefit from them and used by people/communities for their wellbeing. However, it is important to note that impact can be neutral (when any positive or negative changes balance each other out), or even negative, and it can be positive for some communities while negative for other communities. Planning the potential impact from the beginning of the activity will help reduce the likelihood of causing undue harm.

You can capture and share reflections through setting aside regular dedicated time, keeping a reflection log current, understanding the difference between the original goal and actual result, saving information in a shared space or organising team meetings to focus on lessons learned.

Strategic and corporate communications

It is important to communicate personal impact to recognise individual contributions and achievements and celebrate any impressions, influence or value left on the people, projects and organisation. UKHSA’s Communications Directorate can provide guidance on contributing to internal communication channels, as well as advice on publishing on UKHSA’s GOV.UK site, press media and stakeholder engagement.

Chapter 2. Planning for impact

Pathways to impact

The potential impact of the research should be considered at the beginning of the activity, when the research questions are being co-produced with stakeholders. Researchers who have written a grant application for a UK funder (for example, NIHR, United Kingdom Research and Innovation), will be familiar with planning for potential impact at the beginning of the activity. This is often referred to as pathways to impact.

There are many free online tools for creating a pathways to impact. Methods for planning for impact tend to be similar, with the main difference being the amount of time spent on the process. Doing any strategic planning is better than doing nothing – it does not have to be comprehensive if resource is lacking and it can be done simply by using a piece of paper, Word document or spreadsheet. First, think about what could change as a result of the research.

Next answer these questions:

Aim: what is the overall aim of the research?

Stakeholders: who are the stakeholders (including end users and beneficiaries)?

Benefits: what could be the potential impact? What about the research findings could benefit people outside of academia (stakeholders)?

Co-production and collaboration: how will stakeholders be involved in the research?

Activities: how could the research results be applied in the real-world?

Communication and dissemination: how will the research be shared broadly with society and more targeted with stakeholders?

Resources: what resources are required for co-production, activities and communications?

Experience: what knowledge and skills are available and where might there be gaps?

Milestones: what are the stages for realising the potential impact?

Evidence: what information could be collected to show potential impact? How will the evidence be captured and stored?

Evaluation: how will it be assessed if impact was achieved?

Instead of answering the above questions, you might prefer to complete a logic model, a graphic which represents the theory of how an intervention produces its outcomes, or a theory of change, “a comprehensive description and illustration of how and why a desired change is expected to happen in a particular context”. The NIHR HPRU: Radiation Threats and Hazards has created a knowledge mobilisation strategy and theory of change to outline their approach to promoting the use of knowledge generated through their research.

It is not necessary to complete all 3 tools (a pathways to impact, logic model and theory of change) – they are just examples of tools, using different formats, that may help to think about the potential impact of the research.

Knowledge mobilisation and impact are interrelated; knowledge mobilisation is ‘the how’ (the active process) that enables research to achieve tangible, real-world change (‘the impact’). Knowledge mobilisation links together various methods and activities that move knowledge from evidence, data and expertise into usable action, for policymakers, practitioners and the public. Effective knowledge mobilisation strategies combine outputs (what is shared), relationships (who is connected), processes (how engagement happens), infrastructure (where knowledge is stored) and evaluation (what difference it makes).

UKHSA’s knowledge mobilisation community of practice is a place to discuss and learn about knowledge mobilisation and the NIHR HPRU: Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance has created a knowledge mobilisation toolkit called Knowledge2Action.

Looking retrospectively

Evidence of impact can be quantitative or qualitative and collecting evidence of research impact and attributing the research findings to actual impact can be challenging. It is advisable to systematically store information about the outputs (product/initiative/activity) and outcomes (early impacts/the change that occurred) throughout the research cycle, as well as any potential impact.

The potential impact of the research should be considered at the beginning of the activity and impact may be realised throughout the research cycle; however, there may also be impact several years after the activity has finished. Realising impact after funding has finished and researchers have changed jobs is also challenging and another reason why it is advisable to systematically store information about the research activities and outputs and measure outcomes and impact for as long as possible.

All research can have some impact and thus it is worthwhile to plan for potential impact at the beginning of the activity and retrospectively review and evaluate achievements at the “end”. These efforts will be valued by UKHSA, funding bodies and the public, even if the research hasn’t changed the world. For example, the creation of a new partnership or learnings from public involvement activities that occurred during the research activity can be impactful. It can be helpful to regularly reflect on ‘what difference is this making?’ as the research progresses and years afterwards.

Evidencing impact

There are numerous ways to represent research impact and collecting evidence of research impact and attributing the research findings to actual impact can be challenging. At the start of the activity, which data are necessary to represent the current state should be considered, as this baseline data will make it easier to demonstrate impact of the research. It is advisable to collect and store information about the outputs (product/initiative/activity) and outcomes (the change that occurred) throughout the research cycle, as well as any potential impact. Recording these activities will help with discovering the impact of the work, even when a significant amount of time has passed between, for example, providing information for a health campaign and measuring changes in vaccination uptake.

There is a difference between research metrics and research impacts. Research metrics, or bibliometrics, are quantitative measurements used to evaluate the impact and performance of research outputs. They can be helpful in evaluating personal, project or organisational progress, informing funding decisions or determining research visibility. However, they do not evidence the impact of the research (that is, they do not show that a change has occurred). Research impact is, for example, evidence of informing policy or guidance at a global, national or local level.

Research metrics or indicators

Research metrics are a quantitative measurement. Traditionally, impact of academic work has been evidenced through metrics such as the total number of publications, the number of papers published in high-impact journals or h-index (calculated by counting the number of publications for which an author has been cited by other authors at that same number of times).

More recently, impact is being evidenced by the number of publications that are open access, which is one element of open science/open research. Examples of open research metrics are the open sharing of pre-prints (research that has not yet been peer-reviewed), data, code and protocols. UKHSA has committed to open research within the Science Strategy and has agreements with a selection of publishers to enable staff to publish open access fee-free. NIHR award holders can raise requests for additional open access funding.

Publications by UKHSA staff can be found on the UKHSA Research Portal, which is open to the public. The portal links research work to the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and is an excellent way for UKHSA researchers to externally promote their research to attract and foster research collaborations within academia, industry, the healthcare sector, local authorities, the third sector and the public.

Other examples of things can be metricated:

Awards and recognitions (keynote at conferences, research prizes, fellowships, journal editorial board).

Dissemination activities (formal working group, magazine, newsletter, events, website, blog, social media, conference poster or talk).

Participation in guidance or advisory committee or contribution to professional practice.

Amount of further funding awarded.

Number of PPIE and community activities.

Geographic, economic or community research (working towards more equitable health security outcomes).

Press coverage (media interview, press release).

Influence on policy, practice, guidance, briefs, technical reports.

Creation of:

• training materials

• datasets, code, models or algorithms, analysis, open databases

• research tools or methods (biological samples, assays, antibodies, outcome measures)

• intellectual property or commercialisation

• patents, devices, diagnostic tests, drug targets, screening programmes, interventions

• partnerships or collaborations (working with a community or charity or creating a new network of stakeholders interested in the research)

The above things can be research impacts if extended beyond metrics. For example, evidence of a change in thinking or behaviour following a PPIE or community activity about the research or evidence of a change due to press coverage about the research. Likewise, you can have research metrics about the number of outputs produced and also collect evidence about the measurable change that resulted from your research influencing policy, practice or guidance (research impact).

Metrics evidence that something has happened (x papers published), but are not impact. Impact is the difference that has been made because of the research. However, NIHR’s position on responsible use of metrics states that they can be used responsibly to “assess the inherent merit of research activity and findings of individual researchers and research organisations, rather than using short-hand proxies for research quality or impact (h-index) or judging the quality or importance of research by where it is published or institutional rankings”.

The Higher Education Funding Council for England’s Metric Tide states: “…carefully selected and applied quantitative indicators can be a useful complement to other forms of evaluation and decision-making. One size is unlikely to fit all: a mature research system needs a variable geometry of expert judgement, quantitative and qualitative indicators. Research assessment needs to be undertaken with due regard for context and disciplinary diversity” (3). The Leiden Manifesto lists 10 principles of best practice in metrics-based research assessment (4).

There is a move towards using indicators (sometimes called key performance indicators) instead of metrics to evidence impact. Metrics track the status of something at one particular moment (for example, in 2021 we published 23 open access journal articles) while indicators track trends over time (for example, over the past 5 years the number of our open access journal articles has increased).

Ideally, impact can be evidenced through an indicator, coupled with a short narrative and qualitative information.

Qualitative information

Impact doesn’t have to be quantifiable – it can be a quote (for example, “As CEO, I can tell you that attitudes have changed…” or “Thanks for the workshop, I learned a lot/it helped me understand/it changed my view and/or behaviour…”).

Impact can be evidenced with qualitative information, which can be collected through activities such as:

• email correspondence
• surveys
• interviews
• focus groups

Advice on constructing interviews and focus groups can be obtained by contacting UKHSA’s Behavioural Science and Insights Unit and advice on creating surveys can be obtained by contacting UKHSA’s Evaluation and Epidemiological Science division.

Emails from stakeholders often contain questions, feedback and information about how the research, activity, initiative or product changed their thinking or behaviour. Stakeholders may send this information due to their own initiative or a researcher may request it (informally or formally). Emails that evidence the impact of the research should be stored in a bespoke folder to enable quick and easy access when needed. This process can also help to understand the difference that the research has made over time and can be helpful when asked to complete reports or grant applications.

Case studies

A case study explains research within a real-world context. These outputs can be useful for reporting impact, as well as disseminating research, particularly to stakeholders unlikely to be interested in academic publications.

There are numerous online guides and templates for how to write a good case study and the audience should be considered when choosing an appropriate format/template. UKHSA has published case studies, linked to the 2024 Science Review and the 2025 Science Review, in the Research Portal.

Reviewing case studies may help provide inspiration and ideas to help complete a pathways to impact, logic model or theory of change. The NIHR publishes summaries to inform the public about the results of research that is has funded and many universities now also publish case studies on their websites. The REF impact case study database contains all case studies submitted for the 2021 exercise.

Policy impact

Research impact can be evidence of informing policy or guidance at a global, national or local level. One activity towards potential policy impact is to write a policy brief, a “short document that refers to a public problem associated with governability” (5). Policy briefs are often the preferred form of communication by policy actors and they present important research findings and a researcher’s background in a brief and simple way (6). They can help change policy for the better, evidence dissemination of research findings and potential research impact and support further grant funding (6).

A few tips for engaging in the policy arena:

• understand that Parliament teams are small
• network – build connections and co-produce research
• timing – engage early and stay up-to-date with news
• framing – the ‘so what?’ about your research
• audience – think about how to pitch
• language – policy actors are intelligent/informed, not expert

It can be challenging to line-up when research findings are ready and when Parliament needs the findings. When research hasn’t been co-produced with policy actors, researchers can track what’s happening in the Commons by reviewing Bills before Parliament or browsing the Areas of Research Interest database (from UK governmental bodies) to determine how the research might help solve problems and inform government policy.

Other resources for researchers include:

• signing-up for email alerts from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which connects Parliament with the latest evidence on important topics
• signing-up for the email newsletter from the Knowledge Exchange Unit, a good point of contact for learning how to engage with Parliament
• browsing the research impact at the UK Parliament website for opportunities and ‘how to’ guides

Chapter 3. Collecting and storing information

As a first step, it is important to review data that is already being collected as this may be sufficient to evidence impact or it may reveal gaps that can then be targeted. Data quality, relevance, quantity and format are all relevant.

There are many ways to collect and store information about activities/inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts. Some suggestions are:

Store emails that evidence the impact of the research in a bespoke folder.

Keep information about who used the research, how it was used and qualitative feedback.

Encourage colleagues to write down short-, medium- and long-term impacts as the activity progresses.

Create an activity sheet – a quick tool for tracking activities and follow-up. It is advisable to update the activity sheet once per week to ensure that it is up to date. Reflect on the week and jot down notes on activities facilitated, who participated, progress and any evidence collected.

Create an impact tracker – a more complex spreadsheet than the activity sheet, with drop-down menus to help categorise the impact activity or product and space for free text to provide further details.

The list of examples of research metrics above (section Research metrics and indicators) could be used to create the list of activities and products.

Several of the NIHR HPRUs have created impact trackers in response to the challenges of tracking this information across many individuals and organisations, limited capacity or resources and competing priorities. The impact tracker is a standard agenda item for some HPRU management meetings, which encourages staff to complete it regularly.

UKHSA staff are encouraged to store information in the CRIS, which is designed to manage research activities throughout the entire research pathway. The CRIS enables research proposals and applications, funding and approved ethical reviews to be linked to: activities, prizes, press/media, awards, datasets, research outputs/publications and impact. Storing information in the CRIS helps facilitate reviewing activities over long periods of time (past the end of the grant), despite staff departures. Information can be hidden in the backend of the CRIS or it can publicly promote outputs, outcomes and impacts through the UKHSA Research Portal.

UKHSA staff working with an academic collaborator could ask if information submitted as part of the Researchfish process (until July 2027) or REF can be shared. This information, including REF case studies, should be stored in the CRIS.

Chapter 4. Communicating and disseminating impact

Although frequently used interchangeably, communication and dissemination are 2 different activities. The European Research Executive Agency defines communication as “making your project, your activities and results visible” and “reaching out to society as a whole, raising awareness about the project, its objectives and activities, and its impact on citizens’ everyday lives, in the broadest term and on a general level”. It defines dissemination as “sharing research results with people who can best make use of them: the scientific community, industry, commercial players, civil society and policymakers”. Dissemination “is more targeted: focused on results only and circulating the knowledge, resources or tools developed in the project among specialist target groups who might take up the work and build on it”.

One driver of planning for, and achieving, impact is for reporting back to funding bodies and for new grant applications. This facilitates transparency, accountability and further funding. Research findings and the impact of the research, however, should also be shared widely with:

• stakeholders, beneficiaries and end users
• policy makers
• patients, the public and communities

How information is communicated or disseminated depends on the research topic, objectives and audiences. Here are a few suggestions:

• GOV.UK – UK Health Security Agency
• UKHSA Research Website and Research Portal: the Research Website and Research Portal highlight research conducted by UKHSA and its partners, giving a platform for UKHSA researchers to share their expertise and to develop academic and other collaborations. The ‘research spotlights’ include information about potential or actual impact of the research and are another a way of externally disseminating research and impact
• NIHR HPRU websites or social media
• pre-prints, academic publications or conferences
• open source databases or code sharing platforms
• social media (can be one-way or two-way dialogue depending on platform)
• workshops, training or other activities (‘involvement’ in PPIE)
• seminars or webinars
• newsletters or blogs (online or print)
• newspapers or radio/television interviews
• posters or pamphlets at targeted locations (hospital or General Practice)
• Plain English articles on Open Access Government, charity websites or medical professional membership websites (for example, Royal College of Pathologists Bulletin)
• policy brief, guidance or technical report (grey literature; include a bespoke section about impact)

The audience and how to tell the story of the research should be considered. For example, include a section on impact on a poster for an academic conference (or list outputs and expected outcomes if there is not yet any impact) or write a brief, plain English summary of the work focussing on the impact such as these impact focus documents created by the NIHR HPRU: Evaluation and Behavioural Science.

One way to engage producers of evidence is to organise a policy lab. This publication describes “one engagement approach for facilitating research evidence uptake into policy and practice (an activity called a ‘Policy Lab’) as conducted by the team at The Policy Institute at King’s College London on numerous policy challenges over the past 4 years” (7).

Communicating and disseminating research findings is not impact, it is an activity sharing an output. Co-production and consideration of audience or stakeholders, method and route can get knowledge to the right people and enable understanding, helping to translate the research into policy or practice or informing non-experts, leading to outcomes (uptake and use of your output) and impact (the consequence of using your output).

Chapter 5. Evaluating impact

Impact evaluation is an analysis of how the research being evaluated affects outcomes. The effects can be intended, or unintended, and sometimes the analysis includes a counterfactual (contrary to fact) of what the outcomes would have been without the research being conducted. Establishing the counterfactual can provide insights into the causal effects of policy and whether the policy objectives were met.

If evidence has been collected then it can be used to:

• determine if there was impact
• evaluate the impact
• constantly evolve processes for improvement

Evidence of impact can be an activity (output) or evidence of change. For example, if numerous people attend an online talk and questions are asked, then it might be assumed that the talk was good and that it made a difference. Information about the talk (how many people attended, what organisations they represent, what questions were asked) could be recorded. But, this data doesn’t indicate if the talk was good or made a difference. A feedback survey, sent to the attendees following the talk, can collect evidence about potential impact (for example, uptake and use of the knowledge/resources and the consequence of using that knowledge or resources), and if talks about similar topics or using the same format should be organised in future. There are many tools and approaches that can be used to answer evaluation questions (for example, questionnaires, focus groups, reflective journaling, arts-based approaches).

Evaluation is sometimes referred to as ‘monitoring and learning’ or ‘monitoring, evaluation and learning’. A monitoring and learning framework helps outline the planning and management of associated activities, including timing, personnel, skills, budget, deliverables and feasibility; and it describes the system for doing this (8). It outlines:

• what is to be monitored
• how the monitoring will be conducted
• who is responsible for what
• when will the monitoring take place (ongoing and/or at key intervals)
• the resources required (8

For approaches to evaluation outside of Higher Education consider:

• the UKHSA Evaluation Strategy: June 2026 to 2029
  • the strategy sets out how UKHSA will plan, conduct and use evaluation as a core organisational function that supports decision making, accountability, economic efficiency and continuous improvement
• the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has Health Impact Assessment Resources, “a process to evaluate the potential positive and negative public health effects of a plan, project or policy before it is approved, built or implemented”
  • the CDC has identified performance indicators aligned to specific diseases (measures of success) and produced case studies

When measuring impact on public policy it can be challenging to attribute the research to any changes, as often many research findings are combined to produce one policy. In addition, it can take many years to translate research results into practice and policy. This paper provides information about the challenges, and suggested approaches and metrics to measure policy impact (9).

You can track how research has been cited in policy by creating a [free] Sage Policy Profile account, which uses your Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID).

Measuring impact can often be more insightful by comparison. For example, when planning for impact (creating a pathways to impact plan at the beginning of the research) understanding the metrics or other evidence collected by peers and equivalent organisations in the public sector may help with answering questions about how to evidence and evaluate the research. If similar evidence is collected, then impact can be benchmarked or less formally compared between the research activities. It can also be useful to self-assess the impact of the research as well as ask peers about what impact they think the research has achieved.

Researchers, as subject experts, know best how to evaluate the impact of the research. The Better Evaluation website provides useful methods and approaches for impact evaluation, as well as some questions to consider:

• when should there be an evaluation?
• who to engage in the process?
• how to plan and manage the evaluation?
• what methods should be used?
• how can the results be reported and their use supported?

Other useful resources are an approach to evaluate activities that involve a diversity of activities and outcomes (focussing on public health) (10) and a methodological framework for evaluating impact from research (11).

Annex A. Pathways to impact planning tool

Use this template (adapted from a University of Cambridge template for planning for impact) to plan for the potential impact of your research – the difference that your research could make, to who, how you can share the research findings and how you will know if there has been any impact.

Topic	Description	Your Project
Research aim	What is the overall aim of your research (brief explanation)?
Potential impact	Thinking broadly, what aspects of the research findings could benefit stakeholders outside of academia?   Think about potential early impacts, changes that could happen because of your research, and potential longer-term impact that could be measured.   Think about type of impact: attitudinal, economic, environmental, health and wellbeing, policy, other forms of decision-making and behaviour change impacts, cultural, other social and capacity or preparedness (2)
Stakeholders	Who could benefit from your research?   Think about stakeholders, beneficiaries, end users and patients or members of the public (for example, policy makers, healthcare providers, schools and education providers, public services, defence, businesses, trade organisations, museums, galleries, medical charities, non-governmental organisations, individual citizens).   Think about supporting the reduction of health inequities and how diverse population groups and inclusion health groups could benefit (CORE20PLUS5).
Benefits to stakeholders	How could your research benefit these stakeholders?   Think broadly and consider the various types of impact (for example, training to upskill, increasing productivity, attracting funding or investment, supporting economic growth, improving health and quality of life or social welfare, increasing public engagement with research, protecting the environment, influencing policy).
Impact activity – communication and dissemination	How could you communicate your research findings widely and generally and how could you disseminate your research findings to people who can best make use of them?   Think about co-production as a way to reach and aid understanding.   Think about accessibility, methods and delivery routes for each group of stakeholders.
Impact activity – collaboration	How will stakeholders be actively involved in the research to ensure that findings/outputs are fit for purpose and equitable?   Think broadly (for example, participating in a working group, sitting on a decision-making group or advisory board, consultations through surveys, workshops or focus groups, providing access to data or materials or undertaking work on the project).   Think about how stakeholders can help you plan for and participate in communicating and disseminating your research findings or outputs.
Impact activity – translation	How can research findings be translated into practice and/or policy?   Think about building and maintaining long-term relationships, co-producing knowledge with practitioners, creating accessible outputs like policy briefs, commercialisation, consultancy or skills/knowledge exchange (secondments, placements).
Resources	What resources will be need needed to carry out the impact activities – communication/dissemination, collaboration and translation?   Think about staff time, patient and public involvement and engagement activity costs (including payment and expenses), materials, event costs, web design costs, consultancy, translating outputs into more than one language.   Think about what knowledge and skills are available within the entire project team (for example, researchers, impact professionals, individuals with lived experience) and where there might be gaps.
Milestones	What are the key decision points and events for impact activities?   Think about the stages for realising potential outcomes and longer-term impact, which may change during the research lifecycle, and time to reflect, collate and share lessons learned.
Evidence	What information could be collected to show potential impact and how will the evidence be captured and stored to measure impact over the long-term?   Think about what evidence already exists and what new evidence could support your impact claims.
Evaluation	How will it be assessed if impact was achieved?   Think about evaluation of individual activities (for example, patient and public involvement and engagement, knowledge mobilisation) as well as the significance, reach and attributable change resulting from research findings/interventions.

References

1. OECD. ‘Frascati Manual 2015: The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities’ OECD 2015

2. Reed MS. ‘The Research Impact Handbook second edition’ Fast Track Impact 2018

3. Higher Education Funding Council for England. ‘The Metric Tide: Executive Summary: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management’ UK Research and Innovation (viewed 20 August 2025)

4. Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, de Rijcke S, Rafols I. ‘Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics’ Nature 2015 : volume 520, issue 7,548. Pages 429 to 431

5. Weyrauch V and D’Agostino J. ‘How to communicate research for policy influence’ Toolkit No.2: Policy briefs. Buenos Aires. CIPPEC. 2012 (cited 19 February 2026)

6. French-Constant L. ‘How to plan, write and communicate an effective policy brief’ Research to Action 2014 (cited 19 February 2026)

7. Hinrichs-Krapels S, Bailey J, Boulding H, Duffy B, Hesketh R, Kinloch E and others. ‘Using Policy Labs as a process to bring evidence closer to public policymaking: a guide to one approach’ Palgrave Communications 2020: volume 6, issue 1

8. Tilley H, Ball L, Cassidy C. ‘Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact toolkit’ Overseas Development Institute’ 2018 (cited 20 August 2025)

9. Siar SV. ‘The challenges and approaches of measuring research impact and influence on public policy making’ Public Administration and Policy 2023: volume 26, issue 2, pages 169 to 183

10. Ayenew LG, Hoelscher MA, Emshoff JG, Kidder DP, Ellis BA. ‘Evaluation of the Public Health Achievements Made by Projects Supported by a Federal Contract Mechanism at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), USA’ Evaluation and Program Planning 2021: volume 88, page 101949

11. Reed MS, Ferré M, Martin-Ortega J, Blanche R, Lawford-Rolfe R, Dallimer M and others. ‘Evaluating Impact from research: a Methodological Framework’ Research Policy 2021: volume 50, issue 4