QUERI and implementation research: emerging from adolescence into adulthood: QUERI Series

Delivering the aims of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care: understanding their strategies and contributions

Background

In 2008, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in England established nine Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) to develop partnerships between universities and local NHS organisations focused on improving patient outcomes through the conduct and application of applied health research.

Objectives

The study explored how effectively the CLAHRCs supported the ‘translation’ of research into patient benefit, and developed ways of doing applied research that maximised its chances of being useful to the service and the capacity of the NHS to respond. It focused on three issues: (1) how the NHS influenced the CLAHRCs, and vice versa; (2) how effective multistakeholder and multidisciplinary research and implementation teams were built in the CLAHRCs; (3) how the CLAHRCs supported the use of research knowledge to change commissioning and clinical behaviour for patient benefit.

Methods

The study adopted an adaptive and emergent approach and incorporated a formative evaluation. An initial phase mapped the landscape of all nine CLAHRCs and the context within which they were established, using document analysis, workshops and interviews, and a literature review. This mapping exercise identified the three research questions that were explored in phase 2 through a stakeholder survey of six CLAHRCs, in-depth case studies of two CLAHRCs, validation interviews with all nine CLAHRCs and the NIHR, and document review.

Results

(1) The local remit and the requirement for matched NHS funding enhanced NHS influence on the CLAHRCs. The CLAHRCs achieved positive change among those most directly involved, but the larger issue of whether or not the CLAHRCs can influence others in and across the NHS remains unresolved. (2) The CLAHRCs succeeded in engaging different stakeholder groups, and explored what encouraged specific groups to become involved. Being responsive to people’s concerns and demonstrating ‘quick wins’ were both important. (3) There was some evidence that academics were becoming more interested in needs-driven research, and that commissioners were seeing the CLAHRCs as a useful source of support. A growing number of completed projects had demonstrated an impact on clinical practice.

Conclusions

The CLAHRCs have included NHS decision-makers in research and researchers in service decision-making, and encouraged research-informed practice. All the CLAHRCs (as collaborations) adopted relationship models. However, as the complexities of the challenges they faced became clearer, it became obvious that a focus on multidisciplinary relationships was necessary, but not sufficient on its own. Attention also has to be paid to the systems within and through which these relationships operate.

Recommendations for research

Future research should compare areas with an Academic Health Science Network (AHSN) and a CLAHRC with areas with just an AHSN, to understand the difference CLAHRCs make. There should be work on understanding implementation, such as the balancing of rigour and relevance in intervention studies; systemic barriers to and facilitators of implementation; and tailoring improvement interventions. There is also a need to better understand the factors that support the explicit use of research evidence across the NHS, and the processes and mechanisms that support the sustainability and scale-up of implementation projects. Research should place emphasis on examining the role of patient and public involvement in CLAHRCs and of the relation between CLAHRCs and NHS commissioners.

Funding

The NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact

OBJECTIVES

This study proposes methods for blending design components of clinical effectiveness and implementation research. Such blending can provide benefits over pursuing these lines of research independently; for example, more rapid translational gains, more effective implementation strategies, and more useful information for decision makers. This study proposes a "hybrid effectiveness-implementation" typology, describes a rationale for their use, outlines the design decisions that must be faced, and provides several real-world examples.

RESULTS

An effectiveness-implementation hybrid design is one that takes a dual focus a priori in assessing clinical effectiveness and implementation. We propose 3 hybrid types: (1) testing effects of a clinical intervention on relevant outcomes while observing and gathering information on implementation; (2) dual testing of clinical and implementation interventions/strategies; and (3) testing of an implementation strategy while observing and gathering information on the clinical intervention's impact on relevant outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The hybrid typology proposed herein must be considered a construct still in evolution. Although traditional clinical effectiveness and implementation trials are likely to remain the most common approach to moving a clinical intervention through from efficacy research to public health impact, judicious use of the proposed hybrid designs could speed the translation of research findings into routine practice.

Implementation research: a critical component of realizing the benefits of comparative effectiveness research

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) holds the promise of improving patient-centered care and increasing value in the healthcare system. Achieving these goals, however, depends on effectively implementing the findings of CER. In this article, we draw on lessons from implementation research and our experience in the Veterans Administration (VA) healthcare system to offer recommendations about what is needed to support implementation of CER. There is no single strategy for successful implementation. Implementation efforts must take into account the nature of the evidence, the type of change being implemented, the clinical context in which the findings are being applied, and the specific barriers and facilitators to implementing new practices. The experience of the VA illustrates the importance of taking a systems approach that aligns numerous elements of the healthcare system--guidelines, decision support, performance measures, financial incentives, coverage and benefits policy, and health information technology--to support implementation:. We illustrate these principles with an example of implementing a new model of evidence-based depression care.

The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland (LNR): a programme protocol

Background

In October 2008, the National Institute for Health Research launched nine new research projects to develop and investigate methods of translating research evidence into practice. Given the title Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC), all involve collaboration between one or more universities and the local health service, but they are adopting different approaches to achieve translation.

Methods

The translation and implementation programme of this CLAHRC has been built around a pragmatic framework for undertaking research to address live concerns in the delivery of care, in partnership with the managers, practitioners, and patients of the provider organisations of the CLAHRC. Focused on long-term conditions, the constituent research themes are prevention, early detection, self-management, rehabilitation, and implementation. Individual studies have various designs, and include both randomised trials of new ways to deliver care and qualitative studies of, for example, means of identifying barriers to research translation. A mix of methods will be used to evaluate the CLAHRC as a whole, including use of public health indicators, social research methods, and health economics.

Discussion

This paper describes one of the nine collaborations, that of Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, and Rutland. Drawing a distinction between translation as an organising principle for healthcare providers and implementation as a discrete activity, this collaboration is built on a substantial programme of applied research intended to create both research generation and research use capacity in provider organisations. The collaboration in Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, and Rutland has potential to provide evidence on how partnerships between practitioners, patients, and researchers can improve the transfer of evidence into practice.