On-going collaborative priority-setting for research activity: a method of capacity building to reduce the research-practice translational gap

The effectiveness of knowledge-sharing techniques and approaches in research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR): a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR), funds, enables and delivers world-leading health and social care research to improve people's health and wellbeing. To achieve this aim, effective knowledge sharing (two-way knowledge sharing between researchers and stakeholders to create new knowledge and enable change in policy and practice) is needed. To date, it is not known which knowledge sharing techniques and approaches are used or how effective these are in creating new knowledge that can lead to changes in policy and practice in NIHR funded studies.

METHODS

In this restricted systematic review, electronic databases [MEDLINE, The Health Management Information Consortium (including the Department of Health's Library and Information Services and King's Fund Information and Library Services)] were searched for published NIHR funded studies that described knowledge sharing between researchers and other stakeholders. One researcher performed title and abstract, full paper screening and quality assessment (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist) with a 20% sample independently screened by a second reviewer. A narrative synthesis was adopted.

RESULTS

In total 9897 records were identified. After screening, 17 studies were included. Five explicit forms of knowledge sharing studies were identified: embedded models, knowledge brokering, stakeholder engagement and involvement of non-researchers in the research or service design process and organisational collaborative partnerships between universities and healthcare organisations. Collectively, the techniques and approaches included five types of stakeholders and worked with them at all stages of the research cycle, except the stage of formation of the research design and preparation of funding application. Seven studies (using four of the approaches) gave examples of new knowledge creation, but only one study (using an embedded model approach) gave an example of a resulting change in practice. The use of a theory, model or framework to explain the knowledge sharing process was identified in six studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Five knowledge sharing techniques and approaches were reported in the included NIHR funded studies, and seven studies identified the creation of new knowledge. However, there was little investigation of the effectiveness of these approaches in influencing change in practice or policy.

Models and approaches for building knowledge translation capacity and capability in health services: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Building healthcare service and health professionals' capacity and capability to rapidly translate research evidence into health practice is critical to the effectiveness and sustainability of healthcare systems. This review scoped the literature describing programmes to build knowledge translation capacity and capability in health professionals and healthcare services, and the evidence supporting these.

METHODS

This scoping review was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Four research databases (Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo) were searched using a pre-determined strategy. Eligible studies described a programme implemented in healthcare settings to build health professional or healthcare service knowledge translation capacity and capability. Abstracts and full texts considered for inclusion were screened by two researchers. Data from included papers were extracted using a bespoke tool informed by the scoping review questions.

RESULTS

Database searches yielded 10,509 unique citations, of which 136 full texts were reviewed. Thirty-four papers were included, with three additional papers identified on citation searching, resulting in 37 papers describing 34 knowledge translation capability building programmes. Programmes were often multifaceted, comprising a combination of two or more strategies including education, dedicated implementation support roles, strategic research-practice partnerships and collaborations, co-designed knowledge translation capability building programmes, and dedicated funding for knowledge translation. Many programmes utilised experiential and collaborative learning, and targeted either individual, team, organisational, or system levels of impact. Twenty-seven programmes were evaluated formally using one or more data collection methods. Outcomes measured varied significantly and included participant self-reported outcomes, perceived barriers and enablers of knowledge translation, milestone achievement and behaviour change. All papers reported that programme objectives were achieved to varying degrees.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge translation capacity and capability building programmes in healthcare settings are multifaceted, often include education to facilitate experiential and collaborative learning, and target individual, team, organisational, or supra-organisational levels of impact. Although measured differently across the programmes, the outcomes were positive. The sustainability of programmes and outcomes may be undermined by the lack of long-term funding and inconsistent evaluation. Future research is required to develop evidence-informed frameworks to guide methods and outcome measures for short-, medium- and longer-term programme evaluation at the different structural levels.

Research translation mentoring for emerging clinician researchers in rural and regional health settings: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Building clinician and organisation-level research translation capacity and capability is fundamental for increasing the implementation of research into health practice and policy and improving health outcomes. Research translation capacity and capability building is particularly crucial in rural and regional settings to address complex problems impacting these socially and economically disadvantaged communities. Programs to build clinicians' research translation capability typically involve training and mentoring. Little is known about the features of and influences on mentorships in the context of training for emerging clinician-researchers working in rural and regional healthcare settings. Research translation mentorships were established as part of the Supporting Translation Research in Rural and Regional settings (STaRR) program developed and delivered in Victoria, Australia from 2020 to 2021. The study sought to address the following research questions: 1) What context-specific types of support do research translation mentors provide to emerging researchers?. 2) How does the mentoring element of a rural research translational training program influence research translation capacity and capability development in rural emerging researchers and mentors, if at all?. 3) How does the mentoring element of the program influence translation capacity and capability at the organisational and regional level, if at all?

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative descriptive study. Interviews with individuals involved in the STaRR program took place approximately 12 months after the program and explored participants' experiences of the mentored training. Interviews were undertaken via telephone, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Data were analysed using a team-based five-stage framework approach.

RESULTS

Participants included emerging researchers (n = 9), mentors (n = 5), and managers (n = 4), from five health services and two universities. We identified four themes in the interview data: (1) Mentors play an educative role; (2) Mentoring enhanced by a collaborative environment; (3) Organisational challenges can influence mentorships, and (4) Mentorships help develop research networks and collective research and translation capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

Mentorships contributed to the development of research translation capabilities. The capabilities were developed through mentors' deepened understanding of the rural and regional healthcare contexts in which their emerging researchers worked, the broadening and strengthening of rural and regional research networks, and building and sharing research translation knowledge and skills.

Organisational benefits of undertaking research in healthcare: an approach to uncover impact

There is increasing focus to review the societal impact of research through assessment and research excellence frameworks. These often link to financial and reputational incentives within the academic community. However, timeframes to demonstrate impact using these approaches are often long and are not designed to show benefit to service collaborators who require evidence of improvement and change to their services more immediately. Impacts that are measured this way may also miss out on unintended and positive impacts that occur as by-products of research, or through the 'ripple effect' that research may have on practice. Importantly, demonstrating how research makes a difference can improve the research culture in services, and motivations in service partners to become, and stay involved in research. This article describes, and provides access to, a tool called VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) that was developed by a community of practice involving 12 NHS organisations through blending evidence from the literature, practice and service users. We describe the types of impact that have been collected by VICTOR and explore how collecting impact in this way might help research-practice partnerships and inform research methodologies and may be useful to show impacts alongside, and shortly after the research process.

An appraisal of peer-reviewed published literature on Influenza, 2000-2021 from countries in South-East Asia Region

Background

Influenza poses a major public health challenge in South-East Asia Region (SEAR). To address the challenge, there is a need to generate contextual evidence that could inform policy makers and program managers for response preparedness and impact mitigation. The World Health Organization has identified priority areas across five streams for research evidence generation at a global level (WHO Public Health Research Agenda). Stream 1 focuses on research for reducing the risk of emergence, Stream 2 on limiting the spread, Stream 3 on minimizing the impact, Stream 4 on optimizing the treatment and Stream 5 on promoting public health tools and technologies for Influenza. However, evidence generation from SEAR has been arguably low and needs a relook for alignment with priorities. This study aimed to undertake a bibliometric analysis of medical literature on Influenza over the past 21 years to identify gaps in research evidence and for identifying major areas for focusing with a view to provide recommendations to member states and SEAR office for prioritizing avenues for future research.

Methods

We searched Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases in August 2021. We identified studies on influenza published from the 11 countries in WHO SEAR in the date range of 1 January 2000-31 December 2021. Data was retrieved, tagged and analyzed based on the WHO priority streams for Influenza, member states, study design and type of research. Bibliometric analysis was done on Vosviewer.

Findings

We included a total of 1,641 articles (Stream 1: n = 307; Stream 2: n = 516; Stream 3: n = 470; Stream 4: n = 309; Stream 5: n = 227). Maximum number of publications were seen in Stream 2, i.e., limiting the spread of pandemic, zoonotic, and seasonal epidemic influenza which majorly included transmission, spread of virus at global and local levels and public health measures to limit the transmission. The highest number of publications was from India (n = 524) followed by Thailand (n = 407), Indonesia (n = 214) and Bangladesh (n = 158). Bhutan (n = 10), Maldives (n = 1), Democratic People's Republic of Korea (n = 1), and Timor-Leste (n = 3) had the least contribution in Influenza research. The top-most journal was PloS One which had the maximum number of influenza articles (n = 94) published from SEAR countries. Research that generated actionable evidence, i.e., implementation and intervention related topics were less common. Similarly, research on pharmaceutical interventions and on innovations was low. SEAR member states had inconsistent output across the five priority research streams, and there was a much higher scope and need for collaborative research. Basic science research showed declining trends and needed reprioritization.

Interpretation

While a priority research agenda has been set for influenza at the global level through the WHO Global Influenza Program since 2009, and subsequently revisited in 2011 and again in 2016-2017, a structured contextualized approach to guide actionable evidence generation activities in SEAR has been lacking. In the backset of the Global Influenza Strategy 2019-2030 and the COVID-19 pandemic, attuning research endeavors in SEAR could help in improved pandemic influenza preparedness planning. There is a need to prioritize contextually relevant research themes within priority streams. Member states must inculcate a culture of within and inter-country collaboration to produce evidence that has regional as well as global value.

Describing the evidence-base for research engagement by health care providers and health care organisations: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Having a research-engaged health and medical workforce is associated with improvements in clinical outcomes for patients. As such, there has been significant government investment internationally to support health care organisations and services to increase staff engagement with research.

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review sought to provide an overview of the literature describing strategies employed to increase research engagement by health care providers and organisations, and to undertake a qualitative analysis to generate a list of research engagement strategies.

METHODS

A scoping review using systematic search strategies was undertaken to locate peer-review publications and grey literature related to research engagement by health care providers and organisations. Research engagement was defined as a 'deliberate set of intellectual and practical activities undertaken by health care staff and organisations to conduct research'. A database search of electronic records was performed with no limit on publication date. Publications were included regardless of study type (excluding systematic reviews) and categorised as either databased (presenting data or new analysis of existing data) and non-databased (no new data or analyses). Databased publications were further classified according to study type, study design and setting. A qualitative synthesis using a Framework Approach was undertaken with all studies that described a strategy to improve research engagement.

RESULTS

A total of 152 publications were included in this study with 54% categorised as non-databased. Of the databased articles, the majority (72%) were descriptive studies describing prevalence of correlates of research engagement, 17 (25%) described intervention studies where only two were controlled studies. The following research engagement strategies were identified: i) dual skilled team/staff, ii) resources or physical infrastructure, iii) incentives, iv) leadership support of research, v) education/training, vi) networks, vii) forming partnerships or collaborations and viii) overall leadership structure of entity.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature on research engagement is primarily opinion-based and descriptive in nature. To provide the evidence needed to inform strategies, this needs to progress beyond descriptive to more rigorous well-designed intervention research.

A qualitative investigation of influences on occupational therapists’ research involvement in Ireland

Background:

To fulfil the desire for evidence-based practice, there is impetus for occupational therapy (OT) to make research a priority and to encourage research engagement.

Purpose:

This study’s aim was to explore occupational therapists’ reasons for and for not getting involved in research and to determine potential barriers and enablers to engaging in research.

Methods:

Three focus groups were conducted with five participants each. Data were thematically analysed.

Findings:

Occupational therapists’ reasons for expressing interest in getting involved in research were having an interest in the condition and/or the symptoms being studied; promoting client support and service development; and ‘upskilling’. Three themes emerged from the thematic analysis: (1) motivation to get involved in research can be influenced; (2) ‘firefighting’: barriers and organisational culture; and (3) The nature of research needs consideration from an occupational therapist perspective.

Implications:

Findings suggest that though occupational therapists are able to get involved in research, it remains that there are difficulties in doing so (e.g., organisational culture); and such difficulties may outweigh both reasons and enablers to such involvement. Reasons for expressing interest, enablers, barriers and the relationships among them warrant further investigation and consideration with respect to involving occupational therapists in research.

Academic health science centre models across the developing countries and lessons for implementation in Indonesia: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To describe models of academic health science centres (AHSCs) across developing countries, in order to inform AHSC development in Indonesia.

DESIGN

Scoping review with systematic methods.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, ProQuest Central, Wiley online library, Scopus and Web of Sciences were searched for relevant publications from 1 January 2015 to 1 December 2020. 'Grey literature' was hand searched by targeted website searches, Google searches, as well as personal communication held with stakeholders in Indonesia specifically. Relevant articles regarding AHSCs in developing countries are included. The review would be synthesised to focus on the purpose, structure and core activities of AHSCs. Strategies for success were also considered.

RESULTS

Twenty-six recognised AHSCs in developing countries were identified, located in Asia (n=13), Europe (n=1), South America (n=7) and Africa (n=5). Innovation, health system improvement and enhancement in academic capacity were the common visions. Most centres are functionally integrated and university-led. Most AHSCs include community health services to complement primary stakeholders such as academic institutions and hospitals. Limited information was identified regarding patient and public involvement and workforce capacity building. Five AHSCs have been piloted in Indonesia since 2018, integrating universities, academic hospitals and provincial health offices. However, information regarding their core activities and successes is limited.

CONCLUSIONS

The review suggests that limited published data are available on AHSC models in developing countries, but they still provide important insight into AHSC development in Indonesia. Innovation and health systems strengthening are the common visions. Functional integration with university leadership is the most common model of governance. Other than universities and hospitals, community health centres, research centres and regional health offices are common partners. There is a little description of community engagement and workforce capacity building.

The EGPRN Research Strategy for general practice in Europe

The European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) has recently published an updated research strategy with the overall aim being to promote relevant research of the highest quality within general practice/family medicine (GP/FM). The Research Strategy indicates a global direction and serves as a basis for more detailed plans in individual countries that will take into account the characteristics of a country, its specific needs and the level of current research capacity. This paper aims to provide a summary of the EGPRN Research Strategy.The Research Strategy suggests that it is necessary to consider what the knowledge deficits are and to set research priorities. Research capacity building (RCB) is required at all levels. Research in GP/FM will also have to reflect the changes in the profession. An innovative and sustainable-oriented approach to conducting research is needed. Use of existing toolkits and engagement with patient platforms and representative groups are necessary to ensure meaningful user involvement. Knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) is an important component to ensure a process of exchange between researchers and knowledge users.Working to improve leadership, to support the creation of a research culture in GP/FM and to increase national and international networking are considered as fundamental to ensuring a portfolio of high-quality research and for improving the impact of GP/FM research. The recommendations in the Research Strategy are based on a review of the literature on general practice research from 2010 to 2019 and are set in the context of a theoretical framework.

Complexities and Context of Scaling Up: A Qualitative Study of Stakeholder Perspectives of Scaling Physical Activity and Nutrition Interventions in Australia

Background

Scaling up population health interventions is a context-orientated, dynamic and multi-stakeholder process; understanding its influences is essential to enhance future scaling efforts. Using physical activity and nutrition interventions in Australia as case examples, the aim of this paper is to identify core influences involved in scaling up physical activity and nutrition interventions, and how these may differ by context and stakeholder.

Methods

A qualitative study involving semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals representing academic, government and non-government organizations with involvement in scaling up state and national physical activity and nutrition interventions. Interview questions were derived from the WHO report “20 Questions for Developing a Scaling up Case Study”, and mapped against four key principles and five core areas in the WHO ExpandNet framework for scaling up: (1) The innovation; (2) User organization; (3) Environment; (4) Resource team and; (5) Scale up strategy. Data were analyzed thematically.

Results

Nineteen interviews were conducted (government = 3; non-government = 5; and academic = 11 sectors) involving eight scaled up interventions, targeting nutrition (n = 2), physical activity (n = 1) or a combination (n = 5). Most themes aligned to the “Environment”, including: (i) political (e.g., personal agendas); (ii) social (e.g., lack of urgency); and (iii) sector/workforce (e.g., scale up accountability) factors. Themes relating to “Scale up strategy” (e.g., flexibility and evaluation transparency) were next most commonly occurring. Whilst themes were broadly consistent across participants, government participants had a more policy-oriented perspective on the scale up process. Academics discussed a tension between the generation and use of evidence, and the influence of political climates/interest on scale up decisions.

Conclusion

Attributes of the “Environment” and “Scale up strategy” consistently featured as major influences on successful outcomes, while the role of evidence differed greatly between participant groups. A multisector scale up strategy for future interventions may enable the complexities of environmental and political contexts to be incorporated into scale up planning.

General Practice/Family Medicine Research During the Pandemic: Showing The Links to the EGPRN Research Strategy

General Practice/Family Medicine is at the forefront of the clinical response to the COVID-19 crisis just as it is known to be a critical component of healthcare systems globally. A large number of COVID-19 related papers have been published and dedicated funding calls were available in many countries and across the European Union. However, General Practice/Family Medicine does not feature as strongly as it should in COVID-19 high impact publications or successful funding applications. In this paper, we take a look at the findings on which the recommendations of the “European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) Research Strategy for General Practice in Europe 2021” are based and highlight how these align with the COVID-19 experience of General Practice/Family research. To elaborate on this, the issues identified and the recommendations of the EGPRN Research Strategy are grouped into three broad areas on which we need to focus – capacity, collaboration, and complexity (3-Cs). Apparent or presumed deficiencies in these 3-Cs are possibly why the General Practice/Family research impact during COVID-19 does not match its position on the ground in fighting the pandemic and supporting patients. The EGPRN Research Strategy identifies how we might work to position ourselves better in the future and gain the recognition deserved, in terms of publications, research funding, and prominence. Keywords: general practice, research, pandemics, publications, financing

Bridging the research-practice gap in healthcare: a rapid review of research translation centres in England and Australia

Background

Large-scale partnerships between universities and health services are widely seen as vehicles for bridging the evidence–practice gap and for accelerating the adoption of new evidence in healthcare. Recently, different versions of these partnerships – often called academic health science centres – have been established across the globe. Although they differ in structure and processes, all aim to improve the integration of research and education with health services. Collectively, these entities are often referred to as Research Translation Centres (RTCs) and both England and Australia have developed relatively new and funded examples of these collaborative centres.

Methods

This paper presents findings from a rapid review of RTCs in Australia and England that aimed to identify their structures, leadership, workforce development and strategies for involving communities and service users. The review included published academic and grey literature with a customised search of the Google search engine and RTC websites.

Results

RTCs are complex system-level interventions that will need to disrupt the current paradigms and silos inherent in healthcare, education and research in order to meet their aims. This will require vision, leadership, collaborations and shared learnings, alongside structures, processes and strategies to deliver impact in the face of complexity. The impact of RTCs in overcoming the deeply entrenched silos across organisations, disciplines and sectors needs to be captured at the systems, organisation and individual levels. This includes workforce capacity and public and patient involvement that are vital to understanding the evolution of RTCs. In addition, new models of leadership are needed to support the brokering and mobilisation of knowledge in complex organisations.

Conclusions

The development and funding of RTCs represents one of the most significant shifts in the health research landscape and it is imperative that we continue to explore how we can progress the integration of research and healthcare and ensure research meets stakeholder needs and is translated via the collaborations supported by these organisations. Because RTCs are a recent addition to the healthcare landscape in Australia, it is instructive to review the processes and infrastructure needed to support their implementation and applied health research in England.

Priority setting for school nutrition research: developing a collaborative research agenda

Priority setting in health research can assist stakeholders to identify research and policies that have the greatest potential for benefits to public health. Priority setting has been utilized by researchers to identify barriers, facilitators, and recommendations for future public health research. This commentary describes how a priority-setting approach was used as part of a workshop activity on the school nutrition environment in Ontario, Canada, to facilitate brainstorming, sorting, and rating of concepts related to the school nutrition environment. This work demonstrates an interesting and concrete case of priority setting, of interest for various planning activities (both programming and research), particularly those around school-based healthy eating programs or a related research agenda.

Experience of Health Leadership in Partnering With University-Based Researchers in Canada - A Call to "Re-imagine" Research

BACKGROUND

Emerging evidence that meaningful relationships with knowledge users are a key predictor of research use has led to promotion of partnership approaches to health research. However, little is known about health system experiences of collaborations with university-based researchers, particularly with research partnerships in the area of health system design and health service organization. The purpose of the study was to explore the experience and perspectives of senior health managers in health service organizations, with health organization-university research partnerships.

METHODS

In-depth, semi-structured interviews (n = 25) were conducted with senior health personnel across Canada to explore their perspectives on health system research; experiences with health organization-university research partnerships; challenges to partnership research; and suggested actions for improving engagement with knowledge users and promoting research utilization. Participants, recruited from organizations with regional responsibilities, were responsible for system-wide planning and support functions.

RESULTS

Research is often experienced as unhelpful or irrelevant to decision-making by many within the system. Research, quality improvement (QI) and evaluation are often viewed as separate activities and coordinated by different responsibility areas. Perspectives of senior managers on barriers to partnership differed from those identified in the literature: organizational stress and restructuring, and limitations in readiness of researchers to work in the fast-paced healthcare environment, were identified as major barriers. Although the need for strong executive leadership was emphasized, "multi-system action" is needed for effective partnerships.

CONCLUSION

Common approaches to research and knowledge translation are often not appropriate for addressing issues of health service design and health services organization. Nor is the research community providing expertise to many important activities that the healthcare system is taking to improve health services. A radical rethinking of how we prepare health service researchers; position research within the health system; and fund research activities and infrastructure is needed if the potential benefits of research are to be achieved. Lack of response to health system needs may contribute to research and 'evidence-informed' practice being further marginalized from healthcare operations. Interventions to address barriers must respond to the perspectives and experience of health leadership.

Developing and testing a matrix to achieve ready-everyday nursing standards (RENS): an observational study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) set criteria for the delivery of healthcare services in Australia. While a voluntary process, continual accreditation with ACHS is an expectation of, and for, Australian healthcare providers. Juxtapositioned with the ACHS, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (NMBA) set the mandatory practice requirements of, and for, Australian nurses. Despite these overarching quality and governance directives, a regional Queensland Hospital and Health Service (HHS) demonstrated deficits in the quality of nursing care. Accordingly, a HHS project was commissioned with the aim of producing a quantum shift in the quality of nursing services such that the service was ready-everyday for accreditation assessment, and nursing practice exemplified the NMBA standards.Several barriers to achieving the aim were identified and it was considered that the implementation of critical system changes would structurally and operationally support the achievement of the aim. The system changes are pivoted around an interactive matrix that links nursing care services to the array of nursing professional and practice standards and provides real-time quantitative output measures. This paper outlines the protocol that will be used to establish, implement and evaluate the matrix.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A participatory action research design with a modified Delphi methodology will be used for the development the matrix. The organisational change management around the matrix implementation will be informed by Kotter's model and supported by the use of the McKinsey 7S. The matrix implementation phase will be conducted using a modified Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services model. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected over a 12 month pre-test/post-test design to measure the statistical significance of the matrix in supporting compliance with nursing standards and the achievement of quality nursing care. Quantitative data from quality of care assessments will be analysed using descriptive and comparative statistics. Qualitative data from staff surveys will be analysed by content analysis of the major themes (n~200).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The project has ethics approval from a Queensland Health Human Research Ethics Committee. Results will be reported to participants and other stakeholders at seminars and conferences and through peer-reviewed publications.

Service Evaluation of an Exercise on Referral Scheme for Adults with Existing Health Conditions in the United Kingdom

PURPOSE

This paper outlines a service evaluation of an exercise referral scheme for adults suffering from a variety of physical or mental health conditions or who were deemed are at risk of developing such conditions. The evaluation aimed to assess the impact of the scheme at increasing physical activity and at reducing BMI and waist circumference.

METHOD

This was a retrospective evaluation looking at levels of physical activity and changes to anthropometric measures over a period of 6 months. Each participant self-reported their levels of physical activity for the previous 7 days at three time points: baseline (T1), at 12-week exit from the scheme (T2), and at 6-month follow-up (T3). Waist circumference and BMI were also recorded by either a health professional or self-reported at these time points.

RESULTS

Six hundred seventy participants were referred during the evaluation period, of whom 494 were eligible. Of those 494, 211 completed the 12-week scheme and 135 completed a 6-month follow-up. Significant increases in levels of physical activity were recorded between T1 and T2 and between T1 and T3. Furthermore, significant reductions in waist circumference were noted between T1 and T2 and between T1 and T3, and BMI significantly decreased between T1 and T2 but significantly increased between T2 and T3.

CONCLUSION

The service has proven effective at increasing levels of physical activity among participants and has had a positive impact on waist circumference and body for clients who remain engaged with the programme.

Strategies to improve research capacity across European general practice: The views of members of EGPRN and Wonca Europe

Background: The effectiveness of any national healthcare system is highly correlated with the strength of primary care within that system. A strong research basis is essential for a firm and vibrant primary care system. General practitioners (GPs) are at the centre of most primary care systems.

Objectives: To inform on actions required to increase research capacity in general practice, particularly in low capacity countries, we collected information from the members of the European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) and the European World Organization of Family Doctors (Wonca).

Methods: A qualitative design including eight semi-structured interviews and two discursive workshops were undertaken with members of EGPRN and Wonca Europe. Appreciative inquiry methods were utilized. Krueger’s (1994) framework analysis approach was used to analyse the data.

Results: Research performance in general practice requires improvements in the following areas: visibility of research; knowledge acquisition; mentoring and exchange; networking and research networks; collaboration with industry, authorities and other stakeholders. Research capacity building (RCB) strategies need to be both flexible and financially supported. Leadership and collaboration are crucial.

Conclusion: Members of the GP research community see the clear need for both national and international primary care research networks to facilitate appropriate RCB interventions. These interventions should be multifaceted, responding to needs at different levels and tailored to the context where they are to be implemented.

Promoting Diversity in the Clinical and Translational Research Workforce

The positive impact of diversity in increasing the effectiveness of the research workforce has been undeniably demonstrated to be an essential element for achieving health equity. Diversity is also instrumental for the research workforce to advance discovery, eliminate health disparities, improve minority health and achieve effective patient-centered outcomes in the quest for better health. One of the sustainable ways to achieve diversity in the workforce is through training, education and career development of all interested individuals including minority, underserved, underrepresented and populations with special needs. A Hispanic public, academic health center, and a historically black private medical school, have joined efforts in this article to share their experiences in addressing diversity in the clinical and translational research workforce with grant support from the National Institutes of Health. The purpose of this paper is to describe how diversity has been achieved through a concerted effort to recruit and develop underrepresented junior faculty and doctoral candidates for successful careers in clinical and translational research focused on health disparities and minority health. We describe Initiatives designed to achieve diversity in recruitment and development of research teams, together with an evaluation of outcomes to determine the success of the program and its participants.

Uncovering the mechanisms of research capacity development in health and social care: a realist synthesis

BACKGROUND

Research capacity development (RCD) is considered fundamental to closing the evidence-practice gap, thereby contributing to health, wealth and knowledge for practice. Numerous frameworks and models have been proposed for RCD, but there is little evidence of what works for whom and under what circumstances. There is a need to identify mechanisms by which candidate interventions or clusters of interventions might achieve RCD and contribute to societal impact, thereby proving meaningful to stakeholders.

METHODS

A realist synthesis was used to develop programme theories for RCD. Structured database searches were conducted across seven databases to identify papers examining RCD in a health or social care context (1998-2013). In addition, citation searches for 10 key articles (citation pearls) were conducted across Google Scholar and Web of Science. Of 214 included articles, 116 reported on specific interventions or initiatives or their evaluation. The remaining 98 articles were discussion papers or explicitly sought to make a theoretical contribution. A core set of 36 RCD theoretical and conceptual papers were selected and analysed to generate mechanisms that map across macro contexts (individual, team, organisational, network). Data were extracted by means of 'If-Then' statements into an Excel spreadsheet. Models and frameworks were deconstructed into their original elements.

RESULTS

Eight overarching programme theories were identified featuring mechanisms that were triggered across multiple contexts. Three of these fulfilled a symbolic role in signalling the importance of RCD (e.g. positive role models, signal importance, make a difference), whilst the remainder were more functional (e.g. liberate talents, release resource, exceed sum of parts, learning by doing and co-production of knowledge). Outcomes from one mechanism produced changes in context to stimulate mechanisms in other activities. The eight programme theories were validated with findings from 10 systematic reviews (2014-2017).

CONCLUSIONS

This realist synthesis is the starting point for constructing an RCD framework shaped by these programme theories. Future work is required to further test and refine these findings against empirical data from intervention studies.

Learning from the emergence of NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs): a systematic review of evaluations

Background

Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) were funded by NIHR in England in 2008 and 2014 as partnerships between universities and surrounding health service organisations, focused on improving the quality of healthcare through the conduct and application of applied health research. The aim of this review is to synthesise learning from evaluations of the CLAHRCs.

Methods

Fifteen databases including CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched to identify any evaluations of CLAHRCs. Current and archived CLAHRC websites and the reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify any additional evaluations. Searches were restricted to English language only. Any publications from evaluations of the CLAHRCs were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled at least one of three pre-specified inclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.

Results

Twenty-six evaluations (reported in 37 papers) were deemed eligible for inclusion. Evaluations focused on describing and exploring the formative partnerships, vision, values, structures and processes of CLAHRCs; the nature and role of boundaries; the deployment of knowledge brokers and hybrid roles to support knowledge mobilisation; patient and public involvement; and capacity building. The relative lack of data about the early impact of CLAHRCs on health care provision or outcomes is notable.

Conclusions

Much of the evaluative focus on CLAHRCs has been on how they have been organised and on the development of theory around their emergent properties. Evidence is lacking on the impact of CLAHRCs particularly in relation to the knowledge mobilisation processes and practices adopted. Further evaluation of CLAHRCs and other similar research and practice partnerships is warranted and should focus on which knowledge mobilisation approaches work where, how and why.

Trial registration

PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42016042945).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0805-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Rapid research and implementation priority setting for wound care uncertainties

INTRODUCTION

People with complex wounds are more likely to be elderly, living with multimorbidity and wound related symptoms. A variety of products are available for managing complex wounds and a range of healthcare professionals are involved in wound care, yet there is a lack of good evidence to guide practice and services. These factors create uncertainty for those who deliver and those who manage wound care. Formal priority setting for research and implementation topics is needed to more accurately target the gaps in treatment and services. We solicited practitioner and manager uncertainties in wound care and held a priority setting workshop to facilitate a collaborative approach to prioritising wound care-related uncertainties.

METHODS

We recruited healthcare professionals who regularly cared for patients with complex wounds, were wound care specialists or managed wound care services. Participants submitted up to five wound care uncertainties in consultation with their colleagues, via an on-line survey and attended a priority setting workshop. Submitted uncertainties were collated, sorted and categorised according professional group. On the day of the workshop, participants were divided into four groups depending on their profession. Uncertainties submitted by their professional group were viewed, discussed and amended, prior to the first of three individual voting rounds. Participants cast up to ten votes for the uncertainties they judged as being high priority. Continuing in the professional groups, the top 10 uncertainties from each group were displayed, and the process was repeated. Groups were then brought together for a plenary session in which the final priorities were individually scored on a scale of 0-10 by participants. Priorities were ranked and results presented. Nominal group technique was used for generating the final uncertainties, voting and discussions.

RESULTS

Thirty-three participants attended the workshop comprising; 10 specialist nurses, 10 district nurses, seven podiatrists and six managers. Participants had been qualified for a mean of 20.7 years with a mean of 16.8 years of wound care experience. One hundred and thirty-nine uncertainties were submitted electronically and a further 20 were identified on the day of the workshop following lively, interactive group discussions. Twenty-five uncertainties from the total of 159 generated made it to the final prioritised list. These included six of the 20 new uncertainties. The uncertainties varied in focus, but could be broadly categorised into three themes: service delivery and organisation, patient centred care and treatment options. Specialist nurses were more likely to vote for service delivery and organisation topics, podiatrists for patient centred topics, district nurses for treatment options and operational leads for a broad range.

CONCLUSIONS

This collaborative priority setting project is the first to engage front-line clinicians in prioritising research and implementation topics in wound care. We have shown that it is feasible to conduct topic prioritisation in a short time frame. This project has demonstrated that with careful planning and rigor, important questions that are raised in the course of clinicians' daily decision making can be translated into meaningful research and implementation initiatives that could make a difference to service delivery and patient care.

"Seeing" the Difference: The Importance of Visibility and Action as a Mark of "Authenticity" in Co-production Comment on "Collaboration and Co-production of Knowledge in Healthcare: Opportunities and Challenges"

The Rycroft-Malone paper states that co-production relies on 'authentic' collaboration as a context for action. Our commentary supports and extends this assertion. We suggest that 'authentic' co-production involves processes where participants can 'see' the difference that they have made within the project and beyond. We provide examples including: the use of design in health projects which seek to address power issues and make contributions visible through iteration and prototyping; and the development of 'actionable outputs' from research that are the physical embodiment of co-production. Finally, we highlight the elements of the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) architecture that enables the inclusion of such collaborative techniques that demonstrate visible co-production. We reinforce the notion that maintaining collaboration requires time, flexible resources, blurring of knowledge producer-user boundaries, and leaders who promote epistemological tolerance and methodological exploration.

Identifying research priorities with nurses at a tertiary children's hospital in the United Kingdom

AIM

The objective of this study was to undertake a research priority setting exercise with the aim of maximizing efficiency and impact in research activity undertaken by nurses at one children's tertiary healthcare institution by ensuring the clinical staff directly shaped a coherent, transparent and consensus driven nurse-led research agenda.

BACKGROUND

In Round 1, the research topics of 147 nurses were elicited using a modified nominal group technique as the consensus method. The number of participants in the 24 separate discussions ranged from 3 to 21, generating lists of between 6 and 23 topics. In Round 2, nurses from the clinical areas ranked topics of importance resulting in a set of four to five priorities. In Round 3, the divisional heads of nursing consulted with staff in all of their clinical areas to each finalize their five divisional priorities. The Nursing Research Working Group discussed and refined the divisions' priorities and voted on the final list to agree the top five research priorities for the organization.

RESULTS

A total of 269 research topics were initially generated. Following three rounds of ranking and prioritizing, five priorities were agreed at Divisional level, and from these, the five top organizational priorities were selected. These were (i) understanding and improving all aspects of the patient journey through the hospital system; (ii) play; (iii) staff wellbeing, patient care and productivity; (iv) team work - linking to a more efficient service; and (v) supporting parents/parent pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

Divisional priorities have been disseminated widely to clinical teams to inform a patient-specific nurse-led research agenda. Organizational priorities agreed upon have been disseminated through management structures and processes to ensure engagement at all levels. A subgroup of the Nursing Research Working Group has been delegated to take this work forward so that the agreed priorities continue to contribute towards shaping nurse-led research activity, thereby going some way to inform and embed an evidence-based culture of inquiry.

Unravelling networks in local public health policymaking in three European countries - a systems analysis

BACKGROUND

Facilitating and enhancing interaction between stakeholders involved in the policymaking process to stimulate collaboration and use of evidence, is important to foster the development of effective Health Enhancing Physical Activity (HEPA) policies. Performing an analysis of real-world policymaking processes will help reveal the complexity of a network of stakeholders. Therefore, the main objectives were to unravel the stakeholder network in the policy process by conducting three systems analyses, and to increase insight into the similarities and differences in the policy processes of these European country cases.

METHODS

A systems analysis of the local HEPA policymaking process was performed in three European countries involved in the 'REsearch into POlicy to enhance Physical Activity' (REPOPA) project, resulting in three schematic models showing the main stakeholders and their relationships. The models were used to compare the systems, focusing on implications with respect to collaboration and use of evidence in local HEPA policymaking. Policy documents and relevant webpages were examined and main stakeholders were interviewed.

RESULTS

The systems analysis in each country identified the main stakeholders involved and their position and relations in the policymaking process. The Netherlands and Denmark were the most similar and both differed most from Romania, especially at the level of accountability of the local public authorities for local HEPA policymaking. The categories of driving forces underlying the relations between stakeholders were formal relations, informal interaction and knowledge exchange.

CONCLUSIONS

A systems analysis providing detailed descriptions of positions and relations in the stakeholder network in local level HEPA policymaking is rather unique in this area. The analyses are useful when a need arises for increased interaction, collaboration and use of knowledge between stakeholders in the local HEPA network, as they provide an overview of the stakeholders involved and their mutual relations. This information can be an important starting point to enhance the uptake of evidence and build more effective public health policies.

Getting the most out of knowledge and innovation transfer agents in health care: a qualitative study

Background

Knowledge and innovation transfer (KIT) is recognised internationally as a complex, dynamic process that is difficult to embed in organisations. There is growing use of health service–academic–industry collaborations in the UK, with knowledge brokers linking producers with the users of knowledge and innovation.

Aim

Focusing on KIT ‘agent’ roles within Academic Health Science Networks in England and Partnerships in Wales, we show how individual dispositions, processes and content contribute to desired outcomes.

Methods

We studied the KIT intentions of all Academic Health Science Networks in England, and the South East Wales Academic Health Science Partnership. Using a qualitative case study design, we studied the work of 13 KIT agents purposively sampled from five networks, by collecting data from observation of meetings, documentation, KIT agent audio-diaries, and semistructured interviews with KIT agents, their line managers and those they supported (‘Links’). We also used a consensus method in a meeting of experts (nominal group technique) to discuss the measurement of outcomes of KIT agent activity.

Findings

The case study KIT agents were predominantly from a clinical background with differing levels of experience and expertise, with the shared aim of improving services and patient care. Although outside of recognised career structures, the flexibility afforded to KIT agents to define their role was an enabler of success. Other helpful factors included (1) time and resources to devote to KIT activity; (2) line manager support and a team to assist in the work; and (3) access and the means to use data for improvement projects. The organisational and political context could be challenging. KIT agents not only tackled local barriers such as siloed working, but also navigated shifting regional and national policies. Board-level support for knowledge mobilisation together with a culture of reflection (listening to front-line staff), openness to challenges and receptivity to research all enabled KIT agents to achieve desired outcomes. Nominal group findings underscored the importance of relating measures to specific intended outcomes. However, the case studies highlighted that few measures were employed by KIT agents and their managers. Using social marketing theory helped to show linkages between processes, outcomes and impact, and drew attention to how KIT agents developed insight into their clients’ needs and tailored work accordingly.

Limitations

Level of KIT agent participation varied; line managers and Links were interviewed only once; and outcomes were self-reported.

Conclusions

Social marketing theory provided a framework for analysing KIT agent activity. The preparatory work KIT agents do in listening, understanding local context and building relationships enabled them to develop ‘insight’ and adapt their ‘offer’ to clients to achieve desired outcomes.

Future work

The complexity of the role and the environment in which it is played out justifies more research on KIT agents. Suggestions include (1) longitudinal study of career pathways; (2) how roles are negotiated within teams and how competing priorities are managed; (3) how success is measured; (4) the place of improvement methodologies within KIT work; (5) the application of social marketing theory to comparative study of similar roles; and (6) patients as KIT agents.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

A Coproduction Community Based Approach to Reducing Smoking Prevalence in a Local Community Setting

Research highlights that asset-based community development where local residents become equal partners in service development may help promote health and well-being. This paper outlines baseline results of a coproduction evaluation of an asset-based approach to improving health and well-being within a small community through promoting tobacco control. Local residents were recruited and trained as community researchers to deliver a smoking prevalence survey within their local community and became local health champions, promoting health and well-being. The results of the survey will be used to inform health promotion activities within the community. The local smoking prevalence was higher than the regional and national averages. Half of the households surveyed had at least one smoker, and 63.1% of children lived in a smoking household. Nonsmokers reported higher well-being than smokers; however, the differences were not significant. Whilst the community has a high smoking prevalence, more than half of the smokers surveyed would consider quitting. Providing smoking cessation advice in GP surgeries may help reduce smoking prevalence in this community. Work in the area could be done to reduce children's exposure to smoking in the home.

Which health research gets used and why? An empirical analysis of 30 cases

BACKGROUND

While health research is considered essential for improving health worldwide, it remains unclear how it is best organized to contribute to health. This study examined research that was part of a Ghanaian-Dutch research program that aimed to increase the likelihood that results would be used by funding research that focused on national research priorities and was led by local researchers. The aim of this study was to map the contribution of this research to action and examine which features of research and translation processes were associated with the use of the results.

METHODS

Using Contribution Mapping, we systematically examined how 30 studies evolved and how results were used to contribute to action. We combined interviews with 113 purposively selected key informants, document analysis and triangulation to map how research and translation processes evolved and contributions to action were realized. After each case was analysed separately, a cross-case analysis was conducted to identify patterns in the association between features of research processes and the use of research.

RESULTS

The results of 20 of the 30 studies were used to contribute to action within 12 months. The priority setting and proposal selection process led to the funding of studies which were from the outset closely aligned with health sector priorities. Research was most likely to be used when it was initiated and conducted by people who were in a position to use their results in their own work. The results of 17 out of 18 of these user-initiated studies were translated into action. Other features of research that appeared to contribute to its use were involving potential key users in formulating proposals and developing recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study underlines the importance of supporting research that meets locally-expressed needs and that is led by people embedded in the contexts in which results can be used. Supporting the involvement of health sector professionals in the design, conduct and interpretation of research appears to be an especially worthwhile investment.

Collective action for implementation: a realist evaluation of organisational collaboration in healthcare

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, it is being suggested that translational gaps might be eradicated or narrowed by bringing research users and producers closer together, a theory that is largely untested. This paper reports a national study to fill a gap in the evidence about the conditions, processes and outcomes related to collaboration and implementation.

METHODS

A longitudinal realist evaluation using multiple qualitative methods case studies was conducted with three Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research in Care (England). Data were collected over four rounds of theory development, refinement and testing. Over 200 participants were involved in semi-structured interviews, non-participant observations of events and meetings, and stakeholder engagement. A combined inductive and deductive data analysis process was focused on proposition refinement and testing iteratively over data collection rounds.

RESULTS

The quality of existing relationships between higher education and local health service, and views about whether implementation was a collaborative act, created a path dependency. Where implementation was perceived to be removed from service and there was a lack of organisational connections, this resulted in a focus on knowledge production and transfer, rather than co-production. The collaborations' architectures were counterproductive because they did not facilitate connectivity and had emphasised professional and epistemic boundaries. More distributed leadership was associated with greater potential for engagement. The creation of boundary spanning roles was the most visible investment in implementation, and credible individuals in these roles resulted in cross-boundary work, in facilitation and in direct impacts. The academic-practice divide played out strongly as a context for motivation to engage, in that 'what's in it for me' resulted in variable levels of engagement along a co-operation-collaboration continuum. Learning within and across collaborations was patchy depending on attention to evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

These collaborations did not emerge from a vacuum, and they needed time to learn and develop. Their life cycle started with their position on collaboration, knowledge and implementation. More impactful attempts at collective action in implementation might be determined by the deliberate alignment of a number of features, including foundational relationships, vision, values, structures and processes and views about the nature of the collaboration and implementation.

Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review

OBJECTIVE

There is a widely held assumption that engagement by clinicians and healthcare organisations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels, but little direct empirical evidence has previously been collated. The objective of this study was to address the question: Does research engagement (by clinicians and organisations) improve healthcare performance?

METHODS

An hourglass-shaped review was developed, consisting of three stages: (1) a planning and mapping stage; (2) a focused review concentrating on the core question of whether or not research engagement improves healthcare performance; and (3) a wider (but less systematic) review of papers identified during the two earlier stages, focusing on mechanisms.

RESULTS

Of the 33 papers included in the focused review, 28 identified improvements in health services performance. Seven out of these papers reported some improvement in health outcomes, with others reporting improved processes of care. The wider review demonstrated that mechanisms such as collaborative and action research can encourage some progress along the pathway from research engagement towards improved healthcare performance. Organisations that have deliberately integrated the research function into organisational structures demonstrate how research engagement can, among other factors, contribute to improved healthcare performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that there is an association between the engagement of individuals and healthcare organisations in research and improvements in healthcare performance. The mechanisms through which research engagement might improve healthcare performance overlap and rarely act in isolation, and their effectiveness often depends on the context in which they operate.