Impact Assessment of Sports Medicine Studies on Knowledge Production and Development

Abstract

In order to justify the investments made in research in the field of sports medicine, the outcomes and impacts of these investments should be assessed. The purpose of this study was to investigate the status and impact of sports medicine studies on the production and development of knowledge. In this descriptive study bibliometric and scientometric methods were used on 1145 scientific productions of sports medicine indexed in the Web of Science database. Data were analyzed through Excel Software, and cooperation maps were drawn using VOSviewer Software. According to the findings, the ratio of citations to the articles on the scientific productions of sports medicine was 23.17, which is higher than the clinical medicine area (6.8). The ratio of citations to the authors was 5.46% and 52 articles (4.54%) of the articles appeared without citations. The average impact factor of journals publishing papers was 3.9. Most of the articles were published with the collaboration of five authors. The results of the present study, based on a selected model and a combination of indicators of the UK’s and Canadian Capital Return frameworks (from the production and development dimension), generally highlighted the validity and effectiveness of all indicators, including activity, quality, and development. The results revealed the most significant impact of the number and quality of each of the indicators in sports medicine in this area.

Keywords

• Evaluation studies
• Knowledge development
• Knowledge production
• Sport Medicine

References

1. Abou Elmagd, M. (2020) The role of sports medicine in physical education. International Journal of Physical Education, Sports and Health, 7(6), 76-83. https://doi.org/10.22271/kheljournal.2020.v7.i6b.1898
2. Adam, P., Solans-Domenech, M., Pons, J.M., Aymerich, M., Berra, S., Guillamon, I., Sanchez, E. & Permanyer-Miralda, G. (2012) Assessment of the impact of a clinical and health services research call in Catalonia. Research Evaluation, 21(4), 319-328. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-11-15
3. Agarwal, A., Durairajanayagam, D., Tatagari, S., Esteves, S.C., Harlev, A., Henkel, R., Roychoudhury, S., Homa, S., Puchalt, N.G., Ramasamy, R. & Majzoub, A. (2016) Bibliometrics: Tracking Research Impact by Selecting the Appropriate Metrics. Asian J Androl, 18(2), 296-309. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.171582
4. Bunn, F., Trivedi, D., Alderson, P., Hamilton, L., Martin, A., Pinkney, E., & Iliffe, S. (2015)
5. Canadian Institute of Health Research. Developing a CIHR Framework to Measure the Impact of Health Research. Ottawa: Canadian Institute of Health Research; 2005.
6. Cohen, G., Schroeder, J., Newson, R., King, L., Rychetnik, L., Milat, A. J, Bauman, A. E, Redman, S. & Chapman, S. (2015) Does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts: testing a new impact assessment tool. Health Research Policy and Systems, 13(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-13-3
7. Didegah, F. & Thelwall, M. (2013). Which Factors Help Authors Produce the Highest Impact Research? Collaboration, Journal and Document Properties. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 861-873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.006
8. Donovan, C., Butler, L., Butt, A. J, Jones, T. H. & Hanney, S. R (2014) Evaluation of the impact of National Breast Cancer Foundation-funded research. Med J Aust, 200(4), 214-218. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja13.10798

9. Falagas, M. E., Zarkali, A., Karageorgopoulos, D. E., Bardakas, V. & Mavros, M. N. (2013). The impact of article length on the number of future citations: a bibliometric analysis of general medicine journals. Plos One, 8(2), e49476. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049476
10. FeyzabadI, M. & Vaziri, E. (2019). The Impact of Iranian Cohort Studies on Knowledge Production and Development. Scientometrics Research Journal, 5(10), 63-88. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2019.3722.1231
11. Gordon, L.G. & Bartley, N. (2015). Views from senior Australian cancer researchers on evaluating the impact of their research: results from a brief survey. Health Research Policy and Systems, 14(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0073-0
12. Guthrie, S., Wamae, W., Diepeveen, S., Wooding, S. & Grant, J. (2013). Developing a research evaluation framework. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
13. Heyeres, M., Tsey, K., Yang, Y., Yan, L., & Jiang, H. (2019). The characteristics and reporting quality of research impact case studies: A systematic review. Evaluation and program planning, 73, 10-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.11.002
14. Hiney, M. & Curran, B. (2015). Outputs and outcomes of HRB awards completed in 2012 and 2013. Dublin: Health Research Board.
15. Jamali, H.R. (2012). Comparison of Models and Frameworks of Medical Research Impact Assessment. Health Information Management, 9(5), 757-767. [Persian].
16. Kork, A.A., Antonini, C., García-Torea, N., Luque-Vílchez, M., Costa, E., Senn, J., Larrinaga, C., Bertorello, D., Brichetto, G., Zaratin, P. & Andreaus, M. (2022). Collective health research assessment: developing a tool to measure the impact of multistakeholder research initiatives. Health Research Policy and Systems, 20(1), 1-13. https://health- policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-022-00856-9
17. Kwiek, M. (2021). What large-scale publication and citation data tell us about international research collaboration in Europe: Changing national patterns in global contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 46(12), 2629-2649. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2020.1749254
18. Leimu, R. & Koricheva, J. (2005). What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(1), 28-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.10.010
19. Manrique, S., Wroblewska, M. N., & Good, B. (2019). Rethinking research impact assessment: a multidimensional approach. Journal for Research and Technology Policy Evaluation, (48), 159-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.22163/fteval.2019.385
20. Milat, A. J, Bauman, A. E & Redman, S. (2015). A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods. Health Research Policy and Systems, 13(18), 1-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0003-1
21. Nason, E., Curran, B., Hanney, S., Janta, B., Hastings, G., O'Driscoll, M., & Wooding, S. (2011). Evaluating health research funding in Ireland: assessing the impacts of the Health Research Board of Ireland's funding activities. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 193-200. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211x12941371876823
22. Nason, E., Janta, B., Hastings, G. & Hanney, S. (2008). Health research- making an impact the economic and social benefits of HRB- funded research. Dublin: RAND Corporation. 12. Penfield T, Baker MJ, Scoble R, Wykes MC. Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Res Eval, 2014, 23(1), 21-32.
23. Newson, R., King, L., Rychetnik, L., Bauman, A.E., Redman, S., Milat, A.J., Schroeder, J., Cohen, G. & Chapman, S. (2015). A mixed methods study of the factors that influence whether intervention research has policy and practice impacts: perceptions of Australian researchers. BMJ open, 5(7), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015- 008153
24. Reed, R.L, Kalucy, E.C, Jackson-Bowers, E. & McIntyre, E. (2011). What research impacts do Australian primary health care researchers expect and achieve? Health Research Policy and Systems, 9(40), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-9-40
25. Sainty, M. (2013). Research impact: a United Kingdom Occupational Therapy Research Foundation perspective. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 76(12), 528-537. https://doi.org/10.4276%2F030802213X13861576675204
26. Scarazzati, S. & Wang, L. (2019). The effect of collaborations on scientific research output: the case of nanoscience in Chinese regions. Scientometrics, 121(2), 839-868. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11192-019-03220-x
27. Swaminathan, M., Phillips-Bute, B.G & Grichnik, K. P. (2007). A bibliometric analysis of global clinical research by anesthesia departments. Anesth Analg, 105(6), 1741- 1746. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000286149. 57763.e7
28. Bunn, F., Trivedi, D., Alderson, P., Hamilton, L., Martin, A., Pinkney, E. & Iliffe, S. (2015). The impact of Cochrane Reviews: a mixed-methods evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the National Institute for Health Research. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 19(28), 1-99. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19280
29. Van Eerd, D., Moser, C., & Saunders, R. (2021). A research impact model for work and health. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 64(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23201.
30. Wooding, S., Hanney, S.R, Pollitt, A., Grant, J. & Buxton, M.J. (2014). Understanding factors associated with the translation of cardiovascular research: a multinational case study approach. Implementation Science, 9(47), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-47 World Health Organization. Health 2020: A European policy framework and strategy for the 21st century. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2013.
31. Zachariah, R., Guillerm, N., Berger, S., Kumar, A.M., Satyanarayana, S., Bissell, K., Edginton, M., Hinderaker, S.G., Tayler‐Smith, K., Van den Bergh, R. & Khogali, M. (2014). Research to policy and practice change: is capacity building in operational research delivering the goods? Tropical Medicine & International Health, 19(9), 1068-1075. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.12343