National health research funders are accountable to the public with regard to the societal impact of the research, including health technology assessment (HTA), that they fund. Failing to do so can not only negatively affect public trust in the allocation of resources to funding agencies, but can also lead to public mistrust in science.

We present the results of reducing research waste to ensure societal responsible research, both at an international and national level. In the Netherlands, the National Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) developed an analytical framework to assess its research programs, including the national HTA program.

An evaluation of 12 national funding agencies in Australia, Europe and North America demonstrated that certain processes (e.g. how research questions are prioritized or decided) are not transparent. At the international level, health funders believe that they have a joint responsibility not just to seek to advance knowledge, but also to advance the practices of health-related research and research funding. In the Netherlands, ZonMw (HTA) research programs perform well regarding addressing societal relevance (e.g. stakeholder participation) and reasonably well on scientific quality (e.g. international cooperation and knowledge sharing). Efficiency (e.g. encouraging use of existing data and systematic reviews) appears to be less well developed, while integrity (e.g. preventing publication bias) is underexposed.

Although ZonMw is doing reasonably well in terms of reducing research waste, it was concluded that more focus on societal impact assessment is needed. To do so funding agencies need to collaborate with all relevant stakeholders. This is especially relevant in the field of HTA where the ambition is to move from evidence to impact.