Journal of Isfahan Medical School

Journal of Isfahan Medical School

Identifying Key Components in Evaluating Science and Technology Policies in the Medical Field Using the Delphi Method

Document Type : Original Article(s)

Authors
Marjan Zareian 1
Sepideh Fahimifar 2
Hamidreza Khayat Kashani 3
1 PhD Student in Information Science and Knowledge Management, University of Tehran and Research Expert, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Information Science and Knowledge Management, School of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor of Neurosurgery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran Iran
10.48305/jims.v43.i844.1793
Abstract
Background: Evaluating science, technology, and innovation (STI) policies in specialized fields such as dentistry requires the use of accurate, specialized, and expert-based indicators. However, many of the common indicators are general and do not take into account the characteristics of the dentistry field. This study aimed to identify and validate key indicators for evaluating STI policies in the dentistry field.
Methods: This study was conducted with a mixed (qualitative-quantitative) approach and in a multi-stage manner. In the first stage, using the meta-combination method, 198 scientific studies related to STI evaluation indicators were extracted from reputable scientific databases and subjected to thematic analysis. In the second stage, the Delphi method was used to validate and prioritize the indicators with the participation of 52 experts specializing in the fields of science and technology policymaking, dental research management, and science assessment. Finally, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in AMOS software was used to confirm the factor structure of the final indicators.
Findings: The Delphi process led to the identification of 10 key indicators in four categories: scientific (dental h-index and g-index), technological (number of advanced devices, investment in research), innovative (number of knowledge-based enterprises, innovation efficiency index), and structural-evaluation (existence of an integrated database, National Dental Center). The Kendall coordination coefficient was 0.71 in the final round, indicating good agreement between experts. Confirmatory factor analysis also confirmed the appropriate fit of the proposed model.
Conclusion: This study provided an integrated, evidence-based framework and expert consensus for evaluating science, technology, and innovation policies in the field of dentistry. The use of these specialized indicators can help improve the transparency, accountability, and effectiveness of research and technological policies in this area.
 

Highlights

Marjan Zareian: Google Scholar

Sepideh Fahimifar: Google Scholar

Keywords
Science and Technology Policy Evaluation
Innovation Indicators
Dentistry
Delphi Method
Subjects
1.     Fagerberg, J., & Godin, B. The quadruple innovation helix: A framework for innovation policy. OECD; 2005.
2.     Schumpeter JA. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Brothers; 1942.
3.     Preskill, H. Evaluation in the age of innovation: A guide for leaders and practitioners. ‎Jossey-Bass; 2022.‎
4.     Bogers M, Chesbrough H, Strand, R. The open innovation landscape: Establishing an integrative framework. Research Policy, 2023; 52(1): 104636.
5.     Chesbrough H. Open innovation: Research, practices, and policies. California Management Review 2022; 64(2): 5–21.
6.     Zarei S, Fallah M. A hybrid framework for evaluating research performance in Iranian ‎universities. Journal of Scientometrics and Information Science 2022; 10(3): 45–62.‎
7.     Vinkler P. Evaluation of scientific research: A scientometric approach. Scientometrics, 2002; 55(1): 109–31.
8.     Reason P, Bradbury H. The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry ‎and practice. SAGE Publications; 2006.‎
9.     Mittelstadt BD. Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nat Mach Intell 2019; ‎‎1: 501-7.‎
10.  Runnels V, Rich R, Bilodeau A. The use of indicators in science and innovation ‎policy evaluation. Science and Public Policy 2018; 45(6): 804–15. ‎ ‎
11.  Bovens M. Public accountability: Four missing links. In: Peters BG, Pierre J. Eds. ‎Handbook of public administration SAGE; 2006. p. 421–30.‎
12.  Arnold E, Balázs K. Ex-ante evaluation of research and innovation policies: A practical ‎guide. Publications Office of the European Union; 2018.‎
13.  Georghiou L, Keenan M. Evaluation of innovation policies: Challenges and opportunities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2022; 175, 121392.
14.  World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2023). Global Innovation Index 2023. WIPO.‎
15.  ISO. Guidelines for impact assessment of research and innovation policies (ISO/TR 19140: 2018. International Organization for Standardization; 2018.
16.  Kaplan RS, Norton DP. The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business Press; 2021.
17.  Zarei S, Fallah M. Research Performance Evaluation Indicators in Iranian Universities: ‎Challenges and Solutions. Journal of Scientometrics and Scientific Informatics, 10(3): 45-62.‎
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 43, Issue 844
4th Week, February
January and February 2026
Pages 1793-1800

  • Receive Date 15 October 2025
  • Revise Date 14 February 2026
  • Accept Date 01 February 2026