Fagevaluering av forskningen: Very Good to Excellent

Forskningsrådet gjennomførte i 2011 en fagevaluering av forskningen i biologi, medisin og helsefag. Fagevalueringen omfattet UoH-sektoren, inklusive helseforetak, og instituttsektoren.

Les mer på Forskningsrådets side og evalueringsrapporten.

På Høyden har omtalt fagevalueringen her: http://nyheter.uib.no/?modus=vis_nyhet&id=49946

Utdrag fra rapporten (Panel 5: Samfunnsmedisin og helsefag, side 41-42):

5. Registry-Based Research Groups
Level 2

Description
The registry-based research groups have four self-described areas, each with approximately three professors per group: (1) Lifestyle epidemiology; (2) Genetic epidemiology; (3) Familial risks; and (4) Social epidemiology. The Social epidemiology group was recently reorganized, in contrast to the others, which have largely the same structure and focus as that during the previous review. The number of post-docs and PhD students varies considerably across the groups, with the highest number in the Lifestyle epidemiology group. In general, however, there are very few PhD students per senior researcher (main supervisor). The major common theme/resource of the areas within the group is the use of national registries and cohorts, notably the Medical Birth Registry, MoBa, CONOR, Biohealth Norway/Biobank Norway, the Hordaland Health Studies, HUSK, etc.

Scientific quality
The level of international mobility is impressive, with many, perhaps the majority, of
scientists having spent time abroad, either at the post-doc or more senior level. This appears to have contributed to the success of the group. The group uses the national registries well, and the cardiovascular disease registry, which the group has developed, is a welcome national resource. The group is part of an application, together with the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, for major national infrastructure for registry research.
Overall, the quality of the group is impressive, mainly because of the activities of the Familial risks and Lifestyle epidemiology groups. Nevertheless, there are areas that do not have the same strength, e.g. the Social epidemiology and Neuro-epidemiology sub-groups. The Social epidemiology group lists ambitious aims “to develop social epidemiology as a common theme for the Registry-Based Research Groups” and to develop a registry-based center for primary health care, but has a completely different publication style than the others, with a predominance of publications in textbooks rather than peer-reviewed journals. The group indicates that it will be expanding into genetic epidemiology, but there was only a very diffuse articulation of a vision, other than that genetic epidemiology will be a fruitful expansion of the registry studies.
Grade: Very Good/Excellent

Societal impact
Most of the activities are of great interest for the society, some (familial risks and lifestyle epidemiology) have clearly had impact, while that is less clear for a couple of the others.

Recommendations
The Panel strongly supports the need for an infrastructure that will facilitate exploiting registry-based research. It is important that the register resources used and/or developed by the group are made available to researchers throughout Norway.