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

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.

Understanding the unique and common perspectives of partners engaged in knowledge mobilization activities within pediatric pain management: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Knowledge mobilization (KM) is essential to close the longstanding evidence to practice gap in pediatric pain management. Engaging various partners (i.e., those with expertise in a given topic area) in KM is best practice; however, little is known about how different partners engage and collaborate on KM activities. This mixed-methods study aimed to understand what different KM partner groups (i.e., health professionals, researchers, and patient/caregiver partners) perceive as supporting KM activities within pediatric pain management.

METHODS

This study used a convergent mixed-methods design. Ten partners from each of the three groups participated in interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, where they discussed what impacted KM activities within pediatric pain. Participants then rated and ranked select factors discussed in the interview. Transcripts were analyzed within each group using reflexive thematic analysis. Group-specific themes were then triangulated to identify convergence and divergence among groups. A matrix analysis was then conducted to generate meta-themes to describe overarching concepts. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Unique themes were developed within each partner group and further analysis generated four meta-themes: (1) team dynamics; (2) role of leadership; (3) policy influence; (4) social influence. There was full agreement among groups on the meaning of team dynamics. While there was partial agreement on the role of leadership, groups differed on who they described as taking on leadership positions. There was also partial agreement on policy influence, where health professionals and researchers described different institutions as being responsible for providing funding support. Finally, there was partial agreement on social influence, where the role of networks was seen as serving distinct purposes to support KM. Quantitative analyses indicated that partner groups shared similar priorities (e.g., team relationships, communication quality) when it came to supporting KM in pediatric pain.

CONCLUSIONS

While partners share many needs in common, there is also nuance in how they wish to be engaged in KM activities as well as the contexts in which they work. Strategies must be introduced to address these nuances to promote effective engagement in KM to increase the impact of evidence in pediatric pain.

Facilitators and challenges in partnership research aimed at improving social inclusion of persons with disabilities

PURPOSE

To identify partnership research challenges and facilitators, as experienced by members of the Inclusive Society (IS) initiative.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A case study was conducted on all partnership research projects conducted between 2017 and 2019 under the IS initiative through surveys, interviews with the IS community, logbooks, and focus group. Thematic analysis and descriptive analysis were undertaken.

RESULTS

To work effectively with a diversity of stakeholders, winning conditions must be created for the project from the outset. These include determining the team functioning, project objectives, the expectations of each party, and agreeing on a realistic action plan. Project implementation with concern for sustained stakeholder commitment, good working relationships, and achieving project objectives requires organizational planning that favours partner involvement, shared leadership, agreed methods for communicating, conflict resolution methods, recognition of each participant's expertise, and creating a climate of trust. Upon concluding a partnership research project, it is essential to devote time to implement project results in local environments and to ascertain their usefulness to partners.

IS partnership research challenges and facilitators are similar to those identified in past research. Despite this knowledge, challenges persist. Future research could explore tools and practices from other domain to overcome partnership research challenges.

How can strategies based on performance measurement and feedback support changes in nursing practice? A theoretical reflection drawing on Habermas' social perspective

Strategies based on performance measurement and feedback are commonly used to support quality improvement among nurses. These strategies require practice change, which, for nurses, rely to a large extent on their capacity to coordinate with each other effectively. However, the levers for coordinated action are difficult to mobilize. This discussion paper offers a theoretical reflection on the challenges related to coordinating nurses' actions in the context of practice changes initiated by performance measurement and feedback strategies. We explore how Jürgen Habermas' theory of Communicative Action may shed light on the issues underlying nurses' collective actions and self-determination in practice change and the implications for the design of strategies based on performance measurement and feedback. Based on this theory, we propose differences between communicative and functional coordination according to the nature of the actions and the purposes involved. The domains of action underlying these coordination processes, which Habermas referred to as the lifeworld and the system, are then used to draw a parallel with aspects of nursing practice. Further exploration of these concepts allows us to consider the tensions between the demands of the system and the self-determination of nurses within their practice.

The complexity of leadership in coproduction practices: a guiding framework based on a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

As coproduction in public services increases, understanding the role of leadership in this context is essential to the tasks of establishing relational partnerships and addressing power differentials among groups. The aims of this review are to explore models of coproduction leadership and the processes involved in leading coproduction as well as, based on that exploration, to develop a guiding framework for coproduction practices.

METHODS

A systematic review that synthesizes the evidence reported by 73 papers related to coproduction of health and welfare.

RESULTS

Despite the fact that models of coleadership and collective leadership exhibit a better fit with the relational character of coproduction, the majority of the articles included in this review employed a leader-centric underlying theory. The practice of coproduction leadership is a complex activity pertaining to interactions among people, encompassing nine essential practices: initiating, power-sharing, training, supporting, establishing trust, communicating, networking, orchestration, and implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper proposes a novel framework for coproduction leadership practices based on a systematic review of the literature and a set of reflective questions. This framework aims to help coproduction leaders and participants understand the complexity, diversity, and flexibility of coproduction leadership and to challenge and enhance their capacity to collaborate effectively.

Fostering Excellence in Obstetrical Surgery

Introduction

This obstetric surgery review is directed toward the common obstetrical surgeries (caesarean delivery, VBAC/TOLAC, operative vaginal delivery, placenta accreta spectrum) with evidence for quality and safety to allow for obstetrical outcome excellence.

Materials and Methods

This focused scoping review has used a structured process for article identification and inclusion for each of the focused surgeries.

Results

The review results provide an obstetrical surgery (OS) overview for caesarean delivery, vaginal birth after caesarean delivery and/or trial of labor after caesarean delivery, operative vaginal delivery, placenta accreta spectrum; considerations for quality and safety variance due to non-clinical human factors; quality improvement (QI) tools; OS QI implementation cohorts; implementation considering certain barriers and solutions.

Conclusion

Administrative health care systems and obstetrical surgery care providers cannot afford, not to consider and implement, certain evidenced-based "bottom-up/top-down" processes for quality and safety, as the patients will demand the quality and the safety, but the lawyers should not have to enforce it.

Using integrated knowledge translation to address a rurally based time-critical knowledge gap during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multimethods study in Victoria, Australia

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore the intention of health professionals to use evidence generated through an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) activity undertaken during the COVID-19 pandemic to answer a time-critical research question about the delivery of community-based group programmes to rural clients via virtual technology, and describe the participating health professionals and researchers' perceptions of the iKT partnership.

DESIGN

Multimethod study incorporating qualitative and quantitative approaches.

SETTING

Two regional health services in Victoria (Australia).

PARTICIPANTS

26 allied health professionals (knowledge-partners) from eight disciplines across two regional health services and eight researchers from five Victorian universities.

INTERVENTION

An iKT approach was used to facilitate problem identification, evidence synthesis and adaption of evidence to the local context.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Participants were invited to complete a survey (knowledge-partners) and undertake a semistructured interview (knowledge-partners and researchers) on their experiences. A process log of collaborative activities tracked the type of engagement activities, who attended and the outcomes. The survey and process log results were analysed descriptively, the interviews using thematic analysis and a comparison of results approach applied to evaluate similarities and differences in the perception of the partnership from separate data collection and analysis processes.

RESULTS

The survey indicated strong positive attitudes towards using research evidence in practice as well as strong intentions to use it in the future by knowledge-partners. Knowledge-partners indicated that their expertise was used in the research process, although there was greater collaboration in some steps of iKT. The context of COVID-19 facilitated collaboration between knowledge-partners and researchers through a sense of urgency and shared purpose. Rapid team development was a key mechanism that enabled iKT. Team participation was necessarily pragmatic and flexible in nature to facilitate knowledge-partner involvement. Participants suggested the iKT process was likely to result in greater end-user buy in and a powerful example of how to upskill health professionals without a significant impact on their day-to-day workload. This project was considered by knowledge-partners to be more likely to have an impact compared with other projects without a research partner.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights how researchers and knowledge-partners can work effectively and rapidly to address a time-sensitive problem of mutual interest. Establishing and nurturing rural-based researcher and knowledge-partner networks is key to enabling agile and timely responses to the changing evidence needs of the health system.

Reconceptualizing Integrated Knowledge Translation goals: a case study on basic and clinical science investigating the causes and consequences of food allergy

BACKGROUND

Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) and other forms of research co-production are increasingly recognized as valuable approaches to knowledge creation as a way to better facilitate the implementation of scientific findings. However, the nature of some scientific work can preclude direct knowledge to action as a likely outcome. Do IKT approaches have value in such cases?

METHODS

This study used a qualitative case study approach to better understand the function of IKT in a non-traditional application: basic and clinical science investigating the causes and consequences of food allergy. Building off previous baseline findings, data were obtained through in-depth interviews with project scientists and steering committee members and complemented by researcher observation. Data were analyzed through an integrated approach to understand how well participants perceived the stipulated project IKT outcomes had been met and to better understand the relationship between different forms of IKT goals, outcomes, and impacts.

RESULTS

We propose a conceptual model which builds temporal continuity into the IKT work and understands success beyond truncated timelines of any one project. The model proposes project IKT goals be conceptualized through three metaphorical tower blocks: foundational (changing the culture for both scientists and knowledge-users), laying the groundwork (building relationships, networks and sparking scientific inquiry), and putting scientific knowledge to action. Based on this model, this case study demonstrated notable success at the foundational and intermediate blocks, though did not turn basic and clinical research knowledge into actionable outcomes within the project timespan.

CONCLUSIONS

We find that current IKT literature which situates success as filling a knowledge to action gap is conceptually inadequate for understanding the full contributions of IKT activities. This work highlights the need for building cultural and scientific familiarity with IKT in order to better enable knowledge to action translation. Improving understanding and communication of science and empowering knowledge-users to engage with the research agenda are long-term strategies to build towards knowledge implementation and lay the ground work for many future research projects.

Understanding how and under what circumstances integrated knowledge translation works for people engaged in collaborative research: metasynthesis of IKTRN casebooks

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Interaction and collaboration between researchers, patients/public, clinicians, managers and policy-makers are necessary to enhance the relevance and use of research, improve planning, and optimize healthcare delivery and outcomes. The Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network (IKTRN) published four casebooks from 2019 to 2021, describing varied approaches to research co-production. Our aim was to examine the case studies to extend existing theoretical and empirical perspectives about how co-production works.

METHODS

We used metasynthesis, a qualitative research design that includes seven iterative steps (clarify the purpose, delineate the case studies included, extract and code the data, derive themes from the coded data, determine the relationships of the themes to research co-production, synthesize the concepts, and build theory).

RESULTS

A total of 35 cases was reviewed. The aggregate findings of this metasynthesis identified multiple contextual and process factors, barriers, and facilitators that influence integrated knowledge translation (IKT), and a range of IKT activities that increased the likelihood of success of co-production during research. In comparing the findings from the metasynthesis with existing literature, we found a number of consistencies, but also new information about barriers, facilitators, IKT activities and outcomes, thereby adding to our understanding about factors that influence co-production.

CONCLUSIONS

This metasynthesis provided concrete examples to optimize co-produced clinical and health system research. More research is needed to fully understand how to overcome some challenging modifiable barriers, establish relationships, facilitate communication, overcome power differentials and create processes for knowledge-users working across boundaries (clinical practice and research) to stay engaged and participate fully in research endeavours.

Guiding principles for effective collaborative implementation strategies for multisite hospital improvement initiatives: a mixed-method realist evaluation of collaborative strategies used in four multisite initiatives at public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia

OBJECTIVE

Large-scale, multisite hospital improvement initiatives can advance high-quality care for patients. Implementation support is key to adoption of change in this context. Strategies that foster collaboration within local teams, across sites and between initiative developers and users are important. However not all implementation strategies are successful in all settings, sometimes realising poor or unintended outcomes. Our objective here is to develop guiding principles for effective collaborative implementation strategies for multi-site hospital initiatives.

DESIGN

Mixed-method realist evaluation. Realist studies aim to examine the underlying theories that explain differing outcomes, identifying mechanisms and contextual factors that may trigger them.

SETTING

We report on collaborative strategies used in four multi-site initiatives conducted in all public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia (n>100).

PARTICIPANTS

Using an iterative process, information was gathered on collaborative implementation strategies used, then initial programme theories hypothesised to underlie the strategies' outcomes were surfaced using a realist dialogic approach. A realist interview schedule was developed to elicit evidence for the posited initial programme theories. Fourteen participants from 20 key informants invited participated. Interviews were conducted via Zoom, transcribed and analysed. From these data, guiding principles of fostering collaboration were developed.

RESULTS

Six guiding principles were distilled: (1) structure opportunities for collaboration across sites; (2) facilitate meetings to foster learning and problem-solving across sites; (3) broker useful long-term relationships; (4) enable support agencies to assist implementers by giving legitimacy to their efforts in the eyes of senior management; (5) consider investment in collaboration as effective well beyond the current projects; (6) promote a shared vision and build momentum for change by ensuring inclusive networks where everyone has a voice.

CONCLUSION

Structuring and supporting collaboration in large-scale initiatives is a powerful implementation strategy if contexts described in the guiding principles are present.

Towards achieving interorganisational collaboration between health-care providers: a realist evidence synthesis

Background

Interorganisational collaboration is currently being promoted to improve the performance of NHS providers. However, up to now, there has, to the best of our knowledge, been no systematic attempt to assess the effect of different approaches to collaboration or to understand the mechanisms through which interorganisational collaborations can work in particular contexts.

Objectives

Our objectives were to (1) explore the main strands of the literature about interorganisational collaboration and to identify the main theoretical and conceptual frameworks, (2) assess the empirical evidence with regard to how different interorganisational collaborations may (or may not) lead to improved performance and outcomes, (3) understand and learn from NHS evidence users and other stakeholders about how and where interorganisational collaborations can best be used to support turnaround processes, (4) develop a typology of interorganisational collaboration that considers different types and scales of collaboration appropriate to NHS provider contexts and (5) generate evidence-informed practical guidance for NHS providers, policy-makers and others with responsibility for implementing and assessing interorganisational collaboration arrangements.

Design

A realist synthesis was carried out to develop, test and refine theories about how interorganisational collaborations work, for whom and in what circumstances.

Data sources

Data sources were gathered from peer-reviewed and grey literature, realist interviews with 34 stakeholders and a focus group with patient and public representatives.

Review methods

Initial theories and ideas were gathered from scoping reviews that were gleaned and refined through a realist review of the literature. A range of stakeholder interviews and a focus group sought to further refine understandings of what works, for whom and in what circumstances with regard to high-performing interorganisational collaborations.

Results

A realist review and synthesis identified key mechanisms, such as trust, faith, confidence and risk tolerance, within the functioning of effective interorganisational collaborations. A stakeholder analysis refined this understanding and, in addition, developed a new programme theory of collaborative performance, with mechanisms related to cultural efficacy, organisational efficiency and technological effectiveness. A series of translatable tools, including a diagnostic survey and a collaboration maturity index, were also developed.

Limitations

The breadth of interorganisational collaboration arrangements included made it difficult to make specific recommendations for individual interorganisational collaboration types. The stakeholder analysis focused exclusively on England, UK, where the COVID-19 pandemic posed challenges for fieldwork.

Conclusions

Implementing successful interorganisational collaborations is a difficult, complex task that requires significant time, resource and energy to achieve the collaborative functioning that generates performance improvements. A delicate balance of building trust, instilling faith and maintaining confidence is required for high-performing interorganisational collaborations to flourish.

Future work

Future research should further refine our theory by incorporating other workforce and user perspectives. Research into digital platforms for interorganisational collaborations and outcome measurement are advocated, along with place-based and cross-sectoral partnerships, as well as regulatory models for overseeing interorganisational collaborations.

Study registration

The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019149009.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Co-creation of health-enabling initiatives in food retail: academic perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Co-creation of healthy food retail comprises the systematic collaboration between retailers, academics and other stakeholders to improve the healthiness of food retail environments. Research into the co-creation of healthy food retail is in its early stages. Knowledge of the roles and motivations of stakeholders in intervention design, implementation and evaluation can inform successful co-creation initiatives. This study presents academic experiences of stakeholder roles and motivations in the co-creation of healthy food retail environments.

METHODS

Purposive sampling of academics with research experience in the co-creation of healthy food retail initiatives. Semi-structured interviews conducted between October and December 2021 gathered participants' experiences of multi-stakeholder collaborative research. Thematic analysis identified enablers, barriers, motivations, lessons and considerations for future co-creation of healthy food retail.

RESULTS

Nine interviewees provided diverse views and applications of co-creation research in food retail environments. Ten themes were grouped into three overarching areas: (i) identification of stakeholders required for changes to healthier food retail; (ii) motivations and interactions, which included the intrinsic desire to build healthier communities along with recognition of their work; and (iii) barriers and enablers included adequate resourcing, effective and trusting working relationships and open communications.

CONCLUSION

This study provides insights that could help future co-creation in healthy food retail environments. Trusting and respectful relationships and reciprocal acknowledgement between stakeholders are key practices in the co-creation process. These constructs should be considered in developing and testing a model that helps to systematically co-create healthy food retail initiatives that ensure all parties meet their needs while also delivering research outcomes.

Co-creation Approach in Practice: Naming a Cafe Located within a Rural Health Service Provides Added Value to a Health Strategy

Objective. The Victorian Government in Australia has developed Healthy Choices guidelines to ensure that healthy foods and drinks are offered and promoted in places such as hospitals. This brief report aims to present complex theoretical attributes related to cocreation through an accessible example of a competition to create a new name for the previously understated hospital “kiosk.” Methods. A mixed-methods approach using an online survey and semistructured interviews were used to obtain detailed insights from hospital staff members to engage in a naming competition for a hospital-based cafe. Results. The level of engagement in this activity was higher than anticipated by the management staff. Conclusions. Active involvement of staff members through a cocreation process can enable the development of innovative healthy eating strategies and increase staff engagement to further changes in the cafe. Implications for public health cocreation in public health promises effective stakeholder engagement and requires significant scientific advancement. This brief report illustrates theoretical constructs of cocreation through a naming competition activity that occurred as part of a larger project to improve Wimmera Base Hospital’s food environment.

“When there's collective leadership, there's the power to make changes”: A realist evaluation of a collective leadership intervention (Co-Lead) in healthcare teams

There is accumulating evidence for collective approaches to leadership, where multiple individuals share leadership roles, but there remains a lack of theory-informed research on how collective leadership is fostered in practice. This study evaluated the impact of a collective leadership intervention, exploring what works for whom, how, and under what circumstances through a mixed-methods realist evaluation of four case studies. Eight context-mechanism-outcome configurations (theories) were extrapolated that elucidate the mechanisms triggered to drive outcomes in particular settings. This is the first study to apply a realist lens to understand collective leadership and articulate the generative mechanisms that enable/inhibit collective leadership in healthcare teams.

“You can kind of just feel the power behind what someone's saying”: a participatory-realist evaluation of peer support for young people coping with complex mental health and substance use challenges

Background

Youth peer support, as a practice that aligns youth engagement and participatory approaches, has become increasingly popular in the context of youth mental health services. However, there is a need for more evidence that describes how and why youth peer support practice might be effective. This study was designed to examine a peer support service for youth experiencing complex challenges with mental health, physical health and/or substance use to better understand key features and underlying mechanisms that lead to improved client outcomes.

Methods

We applied a hybrid realist-participatory approach to explore key issues and underlying theoretical assumptions within a youth peer support approach for young people (age 14–26) experiencing complex mental health and substance use challenges. We used semi-structured interviews and focus groups with staff, including peers (N = 8), clinical service providers and administrative staff (N = 15), to develop the theories and a client survey to validate them. Our qualitative thematic analysis applied a retroductive approach that involved both inductive and deductive processes. For the client survey (N = 77), we calculated descriptive statistics to examine participant profiles and usage patterns. Pearson correlations were examined to determine relationships among concepts outlined in the program theories, including context, mechanism and outcome variables.

Results

Our analyses resulted in one over-arching context, one over-arching outcome and four program theories. Program theories were focused on mechanisms related to 1) positive identity development through identification with peers, 2) enhanced social connections, 3) observational learning and 4) enhanced autonomy and empowerment.

Conclusions

This study serves as a unique example of a participatory-realist hybrid approach. Findings highlight possible key components of youth peer practice and shed light on the functional mechanisms that underlie successful peer practice. These key components can be examined in other settings to develop more comprehensive theories of change with respect to youth peer support and can eventually be used to develop guidelines and standards to strengthen practice. This research contributes to an expanding body of literature on youth peer support in mental health and connects peer practice with several social theories. This research begins to lay a foundation for enhanced youth peer support program design and improved outcomes for young people experiencing complex mental health and substance use challenges.

Optimising the Conceptualisation of Context Comment on "Stakeholder Perspectives of Attributes and Features of Context Relevant to Knowledge Translation in Health Settings: A Multi-country Analysis"

Context matters. Therefore, efforts to develop greater conceptual clarity are important for science and practice. In this commentary, we outline some key issues that were prompted by Squire's et al.'s contribution. Specifically, we reinforce context as an interactive concept and therefore something that is hard to 'pin down', the problematic nature of conceptualising context in implementation and de-implementation, and a requirement for the development of culturally sensitive understandings. Finally, we suggest it is vital that continued investment into providing a more comprehensive list of determinants needs to be accompanied by an equal effort in developing practical methods and tools to support use and application.

Characteristics, Impact, and Visibility of Scientific Publications on Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: A Scientometric Analysis

AIM

To analyze the bibliometric characteristics, impact, and visibility of scientific publications on artificial intelligence (AI) in dentistry in Scopus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Descriptive and cross-sectional bibliometric study, based on the systematic search of information in Scopus between 2017 and July 10, 2022. The search strategy was elaborated with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Boolean operators. The analysis of bibliometric indicators was performed with Elsevier's SciVal program.

RESULTS

From 2017 to 2022, the number of publications in indexed scientific journals increased, especially in the Q1 (56.1%) and Q2 (30.6%) quartile. Among the journals with the highest production, the majority was from the United States and the United Kingdom, and the Journal of Dental Research has the highest impact (14.9 citations per publication) and the most publications (31). In addition, the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (FWCI: 8.24) and Krois Joachim (FWCI: 10.09) from Germany were the institution and author with the highest expected performance relative to the world average, respectively. The United States is the country with the highest number of published papers.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

There is an increasing tendency to increase the scientific production on artificial intelligence in the field of dentistry, with a preference for publication in prestigious scientific journals of high impact. Most of the productive authors and institutions were from Japan. There is a need to promote and consolidate strategies to develop collaborative research both nationally and internationally.

Utilizing Causal Loop Diagramming to Explore a Research and Evaluation Capacity Building Partnership

The capacity to engage in research, evaluation and evidence-informed decision-making supports effective public health policy and practice. Little is known about partnership-based approaches that aim to build capacity across a system or how to evaluate them. This study examines the impacts of a research and evaluation capacity building partnership called the Western Australian Sexual Health and Blood-borne Virus Applied Research and Evaluation Network (hereafter, SiREN). SiREN aims to strengthen capacity across a system of clinical and medical services and government and non-government organizations. These organizations are connected through their shared aim of preventing and managing sexually transmissible infections and blood-borne viruses. To examine SiREN, systems concepts and methods were used. Data were collected from SiREN organizational documents (n = 42), a survey tool (n = 104), in-depth interviews (n = 17), a workshop and three meetings with SiREN stakeholders and used to develop two causal loop diagrams. Findings show engagement with SiREN was influenced by a complex interplay of contextual (e.g., organizational capacity) and process (e.g., presence of trusting relationships) factors. SiREN contributed to system level changes, including increased resources for research and evaluation, the development of networks and partnerships that led to more efficient responses to emerging health issues, evidence sharing, and sustainable research and evaluation practice. The use of causal loop diagrams enabled the identification of key leverage points that SiREN can use for continuous improvement or evaluation. The focus on how contextual factors influenced SiREN's ability to create change provides valuable information for researchers, policymakers or practitioners seeking to develop a similar partnership.

How, when, and why do inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare work? A realist evaluation

BACKGROUND

Inter-organisational collaborations (IOCs) in healthcare have been viewed as an effective approach to performance improvement. However, there remain gaps in our understanding of what helps IOCs function, as well as how and why contextual elements affect their implementation. A realist review of evidence drawing on 86 sources has sought to elicit and refine context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) to understand and refine these phenomena, yet further understanding can be gained from interviewing those involved in developing IOCs.

METHODS

We used a realist evaluation methodology, adopting prior realist synthesis findings as a theoretical framework that we sought to refine. We drew on 32 interviews taking place between January 2020 and May 2021 with 29 stakeholders comprising IOC case studies, service users, as well as regulatory perspectives in England. Using a retroductive analysis approach, we aimed to test CMOCs against these data to explore whether previously identified mechanisms, CMOCs, and causal links between them were affirmed, refuted, or revised, and refine our explanations of how and why interorganisational collaborations are successful.

RESULTS

Most of our prior CMOCs and their underlying mechanisms were supported in the interview findings with a diverse range of evidence. Leadership behaviours, including showing vulnerability and persuasiveness, acted to shape the core mechanisms of collaborative functioning. These included our prior mechanisms of trust, faith, and confidence, which were largely ratified with minor refinements. Action statements were formulated, translating theoretical findings into practical guidance.

CONCLUSION

As the fifth stage in a larger project, our refined theory provides a comprehensive understanding of the causal chain leading to effective collaborative inter-organisational relationships. These findings and recommendations can support implementation of IOCs in the UK and elsewhere. Future research should translate these findings into further practical guidance for implementers, researchers, and policymakers.

A catalyst for change: Developing a collaborative reflexive ethnographic approach to research with hospital doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic

The understanding of what ethnography looks like, and its purpose, is continuously evolving. COVID-19 posed a significant challenge to ethnographers, particularly those working in health-related research. Researchers have developed alternative forms of ethnography to overcome some of these challenges; we developed the Mobile Instant Messaging Ethnography (MIME) adaptation to ethnography in 2021 to overcome restrictions to our own research with hospital doctors. However, for ethnographic innovations to make a substantial contribution to methodology, they should not simply be borne of necessity, but of a dedicated drive to expand paradigms of research, to empower participant groups and to produce change - in local systems, in participant-collaborators and in researchers and the research process itself. In this paper, we reflect on our experiences using MIME, involving collaborative remote observation and reflection with 28 hospital doctors in Ireland from June to December 2021. After reviewing literature on ethnography in COVID-19 and general epistemological developments in ethnography, we detail the MIME approach and illustrate how MIME presents an evolution of the ethnographic approach, not only practically but in terms of its reflexive shift, its connected and co-creative foundations, and its ability to drive change in research approaches, participant life-worlds and real-world improvement.

Critical factors that affect the functioning of a research and evaluation capacity building partnership: A causal loop diagram

Introduction

Public health policy and practice is strengthened by the application of quality evidence to decision making. However, there is limited understanding of how initiatives that support the generation and use of evidence in public health are operationalised. This study examines factors that support the internal functioning of a partnership, the Western Australian Sexual Health and Blood-borne Virus Applied Research and Evaluation Network (SiREN). SiREN aims to build research and evaluation capacity and increase evidence-informed decision making in a public health context.

Methods

This study was informed by systems concepts. It developed a causal loop diagram, a type of qualitative system model that illustrated the factors that influence the internal operation of SiREN. The causal loop diagram was developed through an iterative and participatory process with SiREN staff and management (n = 9) via in-depth semi-structured interviews (n = 4), workshops (n = 2), and meetings (n = 6).

Results

Findings identified critical factors that affected the functioning of SiREN. Central to SiREN’s ability to meet its aims was its capacity to adapt within a dynamic system. Adaptation was facilitated by the flow of knowledge between SiREN and system stakeholders and the expertise of the team. SiREN demonstrated credibility and capability, supporting development of new, and strengthening existing, partnerships. This improved SiREN’s ability to be awarded new funding and enhanced its sustainability and growth. SiREN actively balanced divergent stakeholder interests to increase sustainability.

Conclusion

The collaborative development of the diagram facilitated a shared understanding of SiREN. Adaptability was central to SiREN achieving its aims. Monitoring the ability of public health programs to adapt to the needs of the systems in which they work is important to evaluate effectiveness. The detailed analysis of the structure of SiREN and how this affects its operation provide practical insights for those interested in establishing a similar project.

What shapes research and research capacity building in rural health services? Context matters

Objective

To determine the contextual factors influencing research and research capacity building in rural health settings.

Design

Qualitative study using semi‐structured telephone interviews to collect data regarding health professionals’ research education and capacity building. Analysis involved inductive coding using Braun and Clark’s thematic analysis; and deductive mapping to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Setting

Victorian rural health services and university campuses.

Participants

Twenty senior rural health managers, academics and/or research coordinators. Participants had at least three years’ experience in rural public health, health‐related research or health education settings.

Main outcome measures

Contextual factors influencing the operationalisation and prioritisation of research capacity building in rural health services.

Results

Findings reflected the CFIR domains and constructs: intervention characteristics (relative advantage); outer setting (cosmopolitanism, external policies and incentives); inner setting (implementation climate, readiness for implementation); characteristics of individuals (self‐efficacy); and process (planning, engaging). Findings illustrated the implementation context and the complex contextual tensions, which either prevent or enhance research capacity building in rural health services.

Conclusions

Realising the Australian Government’s vision for improved health service provision and health outcomes in rural areas requires a strong culture of research and research capacity building in rural health services. Low levels of rural research funding, chronic workforce shortages and the tension between undertaking research and delivering health care, all significantly impact the operationalisation and prioritisation of research capacity building in rural health services. Effective policy and investment addressing these contextual factors is crucial for the success of research capacity building in rural health services.

Use and effects of implementation strategies for practice guidelines in nursing: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Practice guidelines can reduce variations in nursing practice and improve patient care. However, implementation of guidelines is complex and inconsistent in practice. It is unclear which strategies are effective at implementing guidelines in nursing. This review aimed to describe the use and effects of implementation strategies to facilitate the uptake of guidelines focused on nursing care.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of five electronic databases in addition to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Group specialized registry. Studies were included if implementation of a practice guideline in nursing and process or outcome of care provided by nurses were reported. Two reviewers independently screened studies, assessed study quality, extracted data, and coded data using the EPOC taxonomy of implementation strategies. For those strategies not included in the EPOC taxonomy, we inductively categorized these strategies and generated additional categories. We conducted a narrative synthesis to analyze results.

RESULTS

The search identified 46 papers reporting on 41 studies. Thirty-six studies used a combination of educational materials and educational meetings. Review findings show that multicomponent implementation strategies that include educational meetings, in combination with other educational strategies, report positive effects on professional practice outcomes, professional knowledge outcomes, patient health status outcomes, and resource use/expenditures. Twenty-three of the 41 studies employed implementation strategies not listed within the EPOC taxonomy, including adaptation of practice guidelines to local context (n = 9), external facilitation (n = 14), and changes to organizational policy (n = 3). These implementation strategies also corresponded with positive trends in patient, provider, and health system outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Nursing guideline implementation may benefit from using the identified implementation strategies described in this review, including participatory approaches such as facilitation, adaptation of guidelines, and organizational policy changes. Further research is needed to understand how different implementation strategy components work in a nursing context and to what effect. As the field is still emerging, future reviews should also explore guideline implementation strategies in nursing in quasi or non-experimental research designs and qualitative research studies.

Trainee-led research using an integrated knowledge translation or other research partnership approaches: a scoping reviews

BACKGROUND

There are increasing expectations for researchers and knowledge users in the health system to use a research partnership approach, such as integrated knowledge translation, to increase the relevance and use of research findings in health practice, programmes and policies. However, little is known about how health research trainees engage in research partnership approaches such as IKT. In response, the purpose of this scoping review was to map and characterize the evidence related to using an IKT or other research partnership approach from the perspective of health research trainees in thesis and/or postdoctoral work.

METHODS

We conducted this scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and Arksey and O'Malley's framework. We searched the following databases in June 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched sources of unpublished studies and grey literature. We reported our findings in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews.

RESULTS

We included 74 records that described trainees' experiences using an IKT or other research partnership approach to health research. The majority of studies involved collaboration with knowledge users in the research question development, recruitment and data collection stages of the research process. Intersecting barriers to IKT or other research partnerships at the individual, interpersonal and organizational levels were reported, including lack of skills in partnership research, competing priorities and trainees' "outsider" status. We also identified studies that evaluated their IKT approach and reported impacts on partnership formation, such as valuing different perspectives, and enhanced relevance of research.

CONCLUSION

Our review provides insights for trainees interested in IKT or other research partnership approaches and offers guidance on how to apply an IKT approach to their research. The review findings can serve as a basis for future reviews and primary research focused on IKT principles, strategies and evaluation. The findings can also inform IKT training efforts such as guideline development and academic programme development.

Alignment in implementation of evidence-based interventions: a scoping review

Background

Alignment (i.e., the process of creating fit between elements of the inner and outer context of an organization or system) in conjunction with implementation of an evidence-based intervention (EBI) has been identified as important for implementation outcomes. However, research evidence has so far not been systematically summarized. The aim of this scoping review is therefore to create an overview of how the concept of alignment has been applied in the EBI implementation literature to provide a starting point for future implementation efforts in health care.

Methods

We searched for peer-reviewed English language articles in four databases (MEDLINE, Cinahl, Embase, and Web of Science) published between 2003 and 2019. Extracted data were analyzed to address the study aims. A qualitative content analysis was carried out for items with more extensive information. The review was reported according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines.

Results

The database searches yielded 3629 publications, of which 235 were considered potentially relevant based on the predetermined eligibility criteria, and retrieved in full text. In this review, the results of 53 studies are presented. Different definitions and conceptualizations of alignment were found, which in general could be categorized as structural, as well as social, types of alignments. Whereas the majority of studies viewed alignment as important to understand the implementation process, only a few studies actually assessed alignment. Outcomes of alignment were focused on either EBI implementation, EBI sustainment, or healthcare procedures. Different actors were identified as important for creating alignment and five overall strategies were found for achieving alignment.

Conclusions

Although investigating alignment has not been the primary focus of studies focusing on EBI implementation, it has still been identified as an important factor for the implementation success. Based on the findings from this review, future research should incorporate alignment and put a stronger emphasize on testing the effectiveness of alignment related to implementation outcomes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01160-w.

Evaluating complex interventions in context: systematic, meta-narrative review of case study approaches

BACKGROUND

There is a growing need for methods that acknowledge and successfully capture the dynamic interaction between context and implementation of complex interventions. Case study research has the potential to provide such understanding, enabling in-depth investigation of the particularities of phenomena. However, there is limited guidance on how and when to best use different case study research approaches when evaluating complex interventions. This study aimed to review and synthesise the literature on case study research across relevant disciplines, and determine relevance to the study of contextual influences on complex interventions in health systems and public health research.

METHODS

Systematic meta-narrative review of the literature comprising (i) a scoping review of seminal texts (n = 60) on case study methodology and on context, complexity and interventions, (ii) detailed review of empirical literature on case study, context and complex interventions (n = 71), and (iii) identifying and reviewing 'hybrid papers' (n = 8) focused on the merits and challenges of case study in the evaluation of complex interventions.

RESULTS

We identified four broad (and to some extent overlapping) research traditions, all using case study in a slightly different way and with different goals: 1) developing and testing complex interventions in healthcare; 2) analysing change in organisations; 3) undertaking realist evaluations; 4) studying complex change naturalistically. Each tradition conceptualised context differently-respectively as the backdrop to, or factors impacting on, the intervention; sets of interacting conditions and relationships; circumstances triggering intervention mechanisms; and socially structured practices. Overall, these traditions drew on a small number of case study methodologists and disciplines. Few studies problematised the nature and boundaries of 'the case' and 'context' or considered the implications of such conceptualisations for methods and knowledge production.

CONCLUSIONS

Case study research on complex interventions in healthcare draws on a number of different research traditions, each with different epistemological and methodological preferences. The approach used and consequences for knowledge produced often remains implicit. This has implications for how researchers, practitioners and decision makers understand, implement and evaluate complex interventions in different settings. Deeper engagement with case study research as a methodology is strongly recommended.

Leading the spread and adoption of innovation at scale: an Academic Health Science Network’s perspective

Background

There is virtually no limit to the number of innovations being developed, tested and piloted at any one time to improve the quality and safety of care. The perennial problem is spreading innovations that are proven to be effective on a smaller scale or under controlled conditions. Much of the literature on spread refers to the important role played by external agencies in supporting the spread of innovations.

Academic Health Science Networks and the spread of innovation

External agencies can provide additional capacity and capabilities to adopter organisations, such as technical expertise, resources and tools to assist with operational issues. In England, the National Health Service (NHS) established 15 Academic Health Science Networks (AHSNs) to help accelerate the spread and adoption of innovation in healthcare. However, formal clinical-academic networks (such as AHSNs) themselves will not deliver positive, tangible outcomes on the ground (ie, evidence-based innovations embedded at scale across a system). This begs the question of how do AHSNs practically go about achieving this change successfully? We provide an AHSN’s perspective on how we conceptualise and undertake our work in leading implementation of innovation at scale.

An AHSN's perspective

Our approach is a collaborative process of widening understanding of the innovation and its implementation. At its core, the implementation and spread of innovation into practice is a collective social process. Healthcare comprises complex adaptive systems, where contexts need to be negotiated for implementation to be successful. As AHSNs, we aim to lead this negotiation through facilitating knowledge exchange and production across the system to mobilise the resources and collective action necessary for achieving spread.

When trust, confidence, and faith collide: refining a realist theory of how and why inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare work

BACKGROUND

Health systems are facing unprecedented socioeconomic pressures as well as the need to cope with the ongoing strain brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, the reconfiguration of health systems to encourage greater collaboration and integration has been promoted with a variety of collaborative shapes and forms being encouraged and developed. Despite this continued interest, evidence for success of these various arrangements is lacking, with the links between collaboration and improved performance often remaining uncertain. To date, many examinations of collaborations have been undertaken, but use of realist methodology may shed additional light on how and why collaboration works, and whom it benefits.

METHODS

This paper seeks to test initial context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) of interorganisational collaboration with the view to producing a refined realist theory. This phase of the realist synthesis used case study and evaluation literature; combined with supplementary systematic searches. These searches were screened for rigour and relevance, after which CMOCs were extracted from included literature and compared against existing ones for refinement, refutation, or affirmation. We also identified demi-regularities to better explain how these CMOCs were interlinked.

RESULTS

Fifty-one papers were included, from which 338 CMOCs were identified, where many were analogous. This resulted in new mechanisms such as 'risk threshold' and refinement of many others, including trust, confidence, and faith, into more well-defined constructs. Refinement and addition of CMOCs enabled the creation of a 'web of causality' depicting how contextual factors form CMOC chains which generate outputs of collaborative behaviour. Core characteristics of collaborations, such as whether they were mandated or cross-sector, were explored for their proposed impact according to the theory.

CONCLUSION

The formulation of this refined realist theory allows for greater understanding of how and why collaborations work and can serve to inform both future work in this area and the implementation of these arrangements. Future work should delve deeper into collaborative subtypes and the underlying drivers of collaborative performance.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review is part of a larger realist synthesis, registered at PROSPERO with ID CRD42019149009 .

The RELATE model: strategies to effectively engage healthcare organisations to create amenable contexts for implementation

Purpose

The field of implementation science has emerged as a response to the challenges experienced in translating evidence-based practice and research findings to healthcare settings. Whilst the field has grown considerably in recent years, comparatively, there is a conspicuous lack of attention paid to the work of pre-implementation , that is, how we effectively engage with organisations to support the translation of research into practice. Securing the engagement and commitment of healthcare organisations and staff is key in quality improvement and organisational research. In this paper the authors draw attention to the pre-implementation phase, that is, the development of an amenable context to support implementation research.

Design/methodology/approach

Drawing from examples across an interdisciplinary group of health systems researchers working across a range of healthcare organisations, the authors present a reflective narrative viewpoint. They identify the principal challenges experienced during the course of their work, describe strategies deployed to effectively mitigate these challenges and offer a series of recommendations to researchers based on their collective experiences of engaging in collaborations with healthcare organisations for research and implementation. This reflective piece will contribute to the narrative evidence base by documenting the challenges, experiences and learning emerging from the authors’ work as university researchers seeking to engage and collaborate with healthcare organisations.

Findings

The RELATE model is presented to guide researchers through six key steps and sample strategies in working to secure organisational buy-in and creating a context amenable to implementation and research. The six stages of the RELATE model are: (1) R ecognising and navigating the organisation's complexity; (2) E nhancing understanding of organisational priorities and aligning intervention; (3) L everaging common values and communicating to key individuals the value of implementation research; (4) A ligning and positioning intervention to illustrate synergies with other initiatives; (5) B uilding and maintaining credibility and trust in the research team; and (6) E volving the intervention through listening and learning.

Research limitations/implications

The authors hope this guidance will stimulate thinking and planning and indeed that it will encourage other research teams to reflect and share their experiences and strategies for successful engagement of organisations, thus developing a knowledge base to strengthen implementation efforts and increase efficacy in this important enterprise.

Originality/value

Researchers must relate to the world’s everyday reality of the healthcare managers and administrators and enable them to relate to the potential of the research world in enhancing practice if we are to succeed in bringing the evidence to practice in a timely and efficient manner. Climates receptive to implementation must be developed incrementally over time and require actors to navigate messy and potentially unfamiliar organisational contexts. In this paper, the often invisible and lamentably underreported work of how we begin to work with healthcare organisations has been addressed. The authors hope this guidance will stimulate thinking and planning and indeed that it will encourage other research teams to reflect and share their experiences and strategies for successful engagement of organisations, thus developing a knowledge base to strengthen implementation efforts and increase efficacy in this important enterprise.

Prioritizing guideline recommendations for implementation: a systematic, consumer-inclusive process with a case study using the Australian Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management

BACKGROUND

Implementation of evidence-based care remains a key challenge in clinical practice. Determining "what" to implement can guide implementation efforts. This paper describes a process developed to identify priority recommendations from clinical guidelines for implementation, incorporating the perspectives of both consumers and health professionals. A case study is presented where the process was used to prioritize recommendations for implementation from the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines.

METHODS

The process was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers following consultation with experts in the field of implementation and stroke care in Australia. Use of the process incorporated surveys and facilitated workshops. Survey data were analysed descriptively; responses to ranking exercises were analysed via a graph theory-based voting system.

RESULTS

The four-step process to identify high-priority recommendations for implementation comprised the following: (1) identifying key implementation criteria, which included (a) reliability of the evidence underpinning the recommendation, (b) capacity to measure change in practice, (c) a recommendation-practice gap, (d) clinical importance and (e) feasibility of making the recommended changes; (2) shortlisting recommendations; (3) ranking shortlisted recommendations and (4) reaching consensus on top priorities. The process was applied to the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines between February 2019 and February 2020. Seventy-five health professionals and 16 consumers participated. Use of the process was feasible. Three recommendations were identified as priorities for implementation from over 400 recommendations.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to implement a robust process which involves consumers, clinicians and researchers to systematically prioritize guideline recommendations for implementation. The process is generalizable and could be applied in clinical areas other than stroke and in different geographical regions to identify implementation priorities. The identification of three clear priority recommendations for implementation from the Australian Stroke Clinical Guidelines will directly inform the development and delivery of national implementation strategies.

Organizational supports for knowledge translation in paediatric health centres and research institutes: insights from a Canadian environmental scan

BACKGROUND

Organizational supports are thought to help address wide-ranging barriers to evidence-informed health care (EIHC) and knowledge translation (KT). However, little is known about the nature of the resources and services that exist within paediatric health care and research settings across Canada to facilitate evidence use in health care delivery. This survey examined existing supports for EIHC/KT within these organizations to inform the design of similar EIHC/KT support programmes.

METHODS

A national environmental scan was conducted using a bilingual online survey distributed to leaders at Canadian paediatric academic health science centres and their affiliated research institutes. Participants were invited through email, social media and webinar invitations and snowball sampling. Supports of interest included personnel, resources, services, organizational structures or processes, and partnerships or collaborations; barriers and successes were also probed. Data were compiled by site, reported using descriptive statistics, or grouped thematically. Supports were described using the AIMD (Aims, Ingredients, Mechanism, Delivery) framework.

RESULTS

Thirty-one respondents from 17 sites across seven provinces represented a 49% site response rate. Eleven (65%) sites reported an on-site library with variable staffing and services. Ten (59%) sites reported a dedicated KT support unit or staff person. Supports ranged from education, resource development and consultation to protocol development, funded initiatives and collaborations. Organizations leveraged internal and external supports, with the majority also employing supports for clinical research integration. Supports perceived as most effective included personnel, targeted initiatives, leadership, interdepartmental expertise, external drivers and logistical support. Barriers included operational constraints, individual-level factors and lack of infrastructure.

CONCLUSIONS

This first survey of organizational supports for EIHC/KT identified the range of supports in place in paediatric research and health care organizations across Canada. The diversity of supports reported across sites may reflect differences in resource capacity and objectives. Similarities in EIHC/KT and research integration supports suggest common infrastructure may be feasible. Moreover, stakeholder engagement in research was common, but not pervasive. Tailored support programmes can target multi-faceted barriers. Findings can inform the development, refinement and evaluation of EIHC/KT support programmes and guide the study of the effectiveness and sustainability of these strategies.

Why do some inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare work when others do not? A realist review

BACKGROUND

Inter-organisational collaboration is increasingly prominent within contemporary healthcare systems. A range of collaboration types such as alliances, networks, and mergers have been proposed as a means to turnaround organisations, by reducing duplication of effort, enabling resource sharing, and promoting innovations. However, in practice, due to the complexity of the process, such efforts are often rife with difficulty. Notable contributions have sought to make sense of this area; however, further understanding is needed in order to gain a better understanding of why some inter-organisational collaborations work when others do not, to be able to more effectively implement collaborations in the future.

METHODS

Realist review methodology was used with the intention of formulating context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) to explain how inter-organisational collaborations work and why, combining systematic and purposive literature search techniques. The systematic review encompassed searches for reviews, commentaries, opinion pieces, and case studies on HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Social Policy and Practice databases, and further searches were conducted using Google Scholar. Data were extracted from included studies according to relevance to the realist review.

RESULTS

Fifty-three papers were included, informing the development of programme theories of how, why, and when inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare work. Formulation of our programme theories incorporated the concepts of partnership synergy and collaborative inertia and found that it was essential to consider mechanisms underlying partnership functioning, such as building trust and faith in the collaboration to maximise synergy and thus collaborative performance. More integrative or mandated collaboration may lean more heavily on contract to drive collaborative behaviour.

CONCLUSION

As the first realist review of inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare as an intervention for improvement, this review provides actionable evidence for policymakers and implementers, enhancing understanding of mechanisms underlying the functioning and performing of inter-organisational collaborations, as well as how to configure the context to aid success. Next steps in this research will test the results against further case studies and primary data to produce a further refined theory.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019149009.

What makes a 'successful' collaborative research project between public health practitioners and academics? A mixed-methods review of funding applications submitted to a local intervention evaluation scheme

Background

The national Public Health Practice Evaluation Scheme (PHPES) is a response-mode funded evaluation programme operated by the National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR). The scheme enables public health professionals to work in partnership with SPHR researchers to conduct rigorous evaluations of their interventions. Our evaluation reviewed the learning from the first five years of PHPES (2013–2017) and how this was used to implement a revised scheme within the School.

Methods

We conducted a rapid review of applications and reports from 81 PHPES projects and sampled eight projects (including unfunded) to interview one researcher and one practitioner involved in each sampled project (n = 16) in order to identify factors that influence success of applications and effective delivery and dissemination of evaluations. Findings from the review and interviews were tested in an online survey with practitioners (applicants), researchers (principal investigators [PIs]) and PHPES panel members (n = 19) to explore the relative importance of these factors. Findings from the survey were synthesised and discussed for implications at a national workshop with wider stakeholders, including public members (n = 20).

Results

Strengths: PHPES provides much needed resources for evaluation which often are not available locally, and produces useful evidence to understand where a programme is not delivering, which can be used to formatively develop interventions. Weaknesses: Objectives of PHPES were too narrowly focused on (cost-)effectiveness of interventions, while practitioners also valued implementation studies and process evaluations. Opportunities: PHPES provided opportunities for novel/promising but less developed ideas. More funded time to develop a protocol and ensure feasibility of the intervention prior to application could increase intervention delivery success rates. Threats: There can be tensions between researchers and practitioners, for example, on the need to show the 'success’ of the intervention, on the use of existing research evidence, and the importance of generalisability of findings and of generating peer-reviewed publications.

Conclusions

The success of collaborative research projects between public health practitioners (PHP) and researchers can be improved by funders being mindful of tensions related to (1) the scope of collaborations, (2) local versus national impact, and (3) increasing inequalities in access to funding. Our study and comparisons with related funding schemes demonstrate how these tensions can be successfully resolved.

A New Method for Structured Integration of User Needs in Two Health Technology Development Projects: Action Sheets

An early integration of users and stakeholders is needed for a successful innovation process. Nonetheless, the integration of users is often hard to realize - especially when dealing with persons with chronic diseases. In addition, patients or users in general often are not able to formulate the requirements in a technical manner. Therefore, even if user requirements are collected, it is not certain that the developers know or understand 'what is really wanted'. To overcome these 'gaps', we have developed so-called Action Sheets (AS). This article presents the use of AS in two projects: the development of health technologies for people with cancer (INFOPAT) and dementia (QuartrBack). Depending on the project context, group sessions were conducted with different stakeholders to identify the needs of (potential) users. Within the INFOPAT project, ten focus groups were conducted with patients, physicians and other healthcare professionals. In QuartrBack stakeholders like e.g. care professionals, technical assistance organizations and citizens participated in two focus groups and three world cafés. Their requirements were then 'fed' into the technology development by the use of AS. AS appear to be a promising tool to make user needs based on social values more tangible and implementable into technology development processes. In addition, it shows up that four phases seem to be necessary for transferring identified user and stakeholder needs into AS, which can therefore be seen as essential to translate non-technically formulated requirements into technically feasible ones. The case study shows as lessons learned that despite the successful integration of user needs, context-sensitive adjustments are still necessary.

Working together to co-produce better health: The experience of the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London

OBJECTIVES

To improve the provision of health care, academics can be asked to collaborate with clinicians, and clinicians with patients. Generating good evidence on health care practice depends on these collaborations working well. Yet such relationships are not the norm. We examine how social science research and health care improvement practice were linked through a programme designed to broker collaborations between clinicians, academics, and patients to improve health care - the UK National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London. We discuss the successes and challenges of the collaboration and make suggestions on how to develop synergistic relationships that facilitate co-production of social science knowledge and its translation into practice.

METHODS

A qualitative approach was used, including ethnographic elements and critical, reflexive dialogue between members of the two collaborating teams.

RESULTS

Key challenges and remedies were connected with the risks associated with new ways of working. These risks included differing ideas between collaborators about the purpose, value, and expectations of research, and institutional opposition. Dialogue between collaborators did not mean absence of tensions or clashes. Risk-taking was unpopular - institutions, funders, and partners did not always support it, despite simultaneously demanding 'innovation' in producing research that influenced practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Our path was made smoother because we had funding to support the creation of a 'potential space' to experiment with different ways of working. Other factors that can enhance collaboration include a shared commitment to dialogical practice, a recognition of the legitimacy of different partners' knowledge, a long timeframe to identify and resolve problems, the maintenance of an enabling environment for collaboration, a willingness to work iteratively and reflexively, and a shared end goal.

Programme theory and linked intervention strategy for large-scale change to improve hospital care in a low and middle-income country - A Study Pre-Protocol

In low and middle-income countries (LMIC) general hospitals are important for delivering some key acute care services. Neonatal care is emblematic of these acute services as averting deaths requires skilled care over many days from multiple professionals with at least basic equipment. However, hospital care is often of poor quality and large-scale change is needed to improve outcomes. In this manuscript we aim to show how we have drawn upon our understanding of contexts of care in Kenyan general hospital NBUs, and on social and behavioural theories that offer potential mechanisms of change in these settings, to develop an initial programme theory guiding a large scale change intervention to improve neonatal care and outcomes.  Our programme theory is an expression of our assumptions about what actions will be both useful and feasible.  It incorporates a recognition of our strengths and limitations as a research-practitioner partnership to influence change. The steps we employ represent the initial programme theory development phase commonly undertaken in many Realist Evaluations. However, unlike many Realist Evaluations that develop initial programme theories focused on pre-existing interventions or programmes, our programme theory informs the design of a new intervention that we plan to execute. Within this paper we articulate briefly how we propose to operationalise this new intervention. Finally, we outline the quantitative and qualitative research activities that we will use to address specific questions related to the delivery and effects of this new intervention, discussing some of the challenges of such study designs. We intend that this research on the intervention will inform future efforts to revise the programme theory and yield transferable learning.

Programme theory and linked intervention strategy for large-scale change to improve hospital care in a low and middle-income country - A Study Pre-Protocol

In low and middle-income countries (LMIC) general hospitals are important for delivering some key acute care services. Neonatal care is emblematic of these acute services as averting deaths requires skilled care over many days from multiple professionals with at least basic equipment. However, hospital care is often of poor quality and large-scale change is needed to improve outcomes. In this manuscript we aim to show how we have drawn upon our understanding of contexts of care in Kenyan general hospital NBUs, and on social and behavioural theories that offer potential mechanisms of change in these settings, to develop an initial programme theory guiding a large scale change intervention to improve neonatal care and outcomes.  Our programme theory is an expression of our assumptions about what actions will be both useful and feasible.  It incorporates a recognition of our strengths and limitations as a research-practitioner partnership to influence change. The steps we employ represent the initial programme theory development phase commonly undertaken in many Realist Evaluations. However, unlike many Realist Evaluations that develop initial programme theories focused on pre-existing interventions or programmes, our programme theory informs the design of a new intervention that we plan to execute. Within this paper we articulate briefly how we propose to operationalise this new intervention. Finally, we outline the quantitative and qualitative research activities that we will use to address specific questions related to the delivery and effects of this new intervention, discussing some of the challenges of such study designs. We intend that this research on the intervention will inform future efforts to revise the programme theory and yield transferable learning.

The ripple effect of evidence implementation: a descriptive evaluation of JBI's Evidence-based Clinical Fellowship Program

BACKGROUND

Across healthcare there are acknowledged gaps in the translation of evidence into clinical practice. Undertaking a structured implementation program may assist clinicians to achieve this in their clinical practice setting.

AIMS/METHODS

The current study descriptively evaluates and analyzes the impact of JBI's (formerly known as the Joanna Briggs Institute) Evidence-based Clinical Fellowship program, since its inception in 2005.

RESULTS

Since its inception the JBI Evidence-based Clinical Fellowship Program has trained over 560 Clinical Fellows. The program consists of two 1-week intensive training workshops at JBI, collaborating with a JBI Research Fellow facilitator, with each participant then conducting a workplace evidence implementation project over the intervening 6 months in their own clinical setting. A 'train-the-trainer' program was established to provide accredited trainers to run the program through established JBI Collaborating Entities.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of research evidence into the clinical setting is challenging for health professionals. A pragmatic approach adopted through the JBI Evidence-based Clinical Fellowship Program ensures that the Clinical Fellow remains central as the program leader, but has direction and support from their team of various stakeholders, and ongoing collaboration with a JBI facilitator. This ensures increased capacity for engagement and ongoing sustainability of future implementation programs.

Re-Framing the Knowledge to Action Challenge Through NIHR Knowledge Mobilisation Research Fellows Comment on "CIHR Health System Impact Fellows: Reflections on 'Driving Change' Within the Health System"

The ambition of the Canadian Institutes for Health Research Health System Impact (HSI) Fellowship initiative to modernise the health system is impressive. Embedded researchers who work between academia and non-academic settings offer an opportunity to reframe the problem of evidence uptake as a product of a gap between those who produce knowledge and those who use it. As such, there has been an increasing interest in the potential of people in embedded research roles to work with stakeholders in the co-production of knowledge to address service challenges. In this commentary, we draw on research and experiential evidence of an embedded researcher initiative, which has similar intentions to the HSI Fellowships programme: the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Knowledge Mobilisation Research Fellowship (KMRF) scheme. We outline the similarities and differences between the two schemes, and then consider the work, characteristics and skills, and organisational arrangements evident in operationalising these types of roles.

The Collective Leadership for Safety Culture (Co-Lead) Team Intervention to Promote Teamwork and Patient Safety

Traditional hierarchical leadership has been implicated in patient safety failings internationally. Given that healthcare is almost wholly delivered by multidisciplinary teams, there have been calls for a more collective and team-based approach to the sharing of leadership and responsibility for patient safety. Although encouraging a collective approach to accountability can improve the provision of high quality and safe care, there is a lack of knowledge of how to train teams to adopt collective leadership. The Collective Leadership for Safety Cultures (Co-Lead) programme is a co-designed intervention for multidisciplinary healthcare teams. It is an open-source resource that offers teams a systematic approach to the development of collective leadership behaviours to promote effective teamworking and enhance patient safety cultures. This paper provides an overview of the co-design, pilot testing, and refining of this novel intervention prior to its implementation and discusses key early findings from the evaluation. The Co-Lead intervention is grounded in the real-world experiences and identified needs and priorities of frontline healthcare staff and management and was co-designed based on the evidence for collective leadership and teamwork in healthcare. It has proven feasible to implement and effective in supporting teams to lead collectively to enhance safety culture. This intervention overview will be of value to healthcare teams and practitioners seeking to promote safety culture and effective teamworking by supporting teams to lead collectively.

Applying systems thinking to knowledge mobilisation in public health

CONTEXT

Knowledge mobilisation (KM) is a vital strategy in efforts to improve public health policy and practice. Linear models describing knowledge transfer and translation have moved towards multi-directional and complexity-attuned approaches where knowledge is produced and becomes meaningful through social processes. There are calls for systems approaches to KM but little guidance on how this can be operationalised. This paper describes the contribution that systems thinking can make to KM and provides guidance about how to put it into action.

METHODS

We apply a model of systems thinking (which focuses on leveraging change in complex systems) to eight KM practices empirically identified by others. We describe how these models interact and draw out some key learnings for applying systems thinking practically to KM in public health policy and practice. Examples of empirical studies, tools and targeted strategies are provided.

FINDINGS

Systems thinking can enhance and fundamentally transform KM. It upholds a pluralistic view of knowledge as informed by multiple parts of the system and reconstituted through use. Mobilisation is conceived as a situated, non-prescriptive and potentially destabilising practice, no longer conceptualised as a discrete piece of work within wider efforts to strengthen public health but as integral to and in continual dialogue with those efforts. A systems approach to KM relies on contextual understanding, collaborative practices, addressing power imbalances and adaptive learning that responds to changing interactions between mobilisation activities and context.

CONCLUSION

Systems thinking offers valuable perspectives, tools and strategies to better understand complex problems in their settings and for strengthening KM practice. We make four suggestions for further developing empirical evidence and debate about how systems thinking can enhance our capacity to mobilise knowledge for solving complex problems - (1) be specific about what is meant by 'systems thinking', (2) describe counterfactual KM scenarios so the added value of systems thinking is clearer, (3) widen conceptualisations of impact when evaluating KM, and (4) use methods that can track how and where knowledge is mobilised in complex systems.

Uptake and use of a minimum data set (MDS) for older people living and dying in care homes in England: a realist review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Care homes provide nursing and social care for older people who can no longer live independently at home. In the UK, there is no consistent approach to how information about residents' medical history, care needs and preferences are collected and shared. This limits opportunities to understand the care home population, have a systematic approach to assessment and documentation of care, identifiy care home residents at risk of deterioration and review care. Countries with standardised approaches to residents' assessment, care planning and review (eg, minimum data sets (MDS)) use the data to understand the care home population, guide resource allocation, monitor services delivery and for research. The aim of this realist review is to develop a theory-driven understanding of how care home staff implement and use MDS to plan and deliver care of individual residents.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A realist review will be conducted in three research stages.Stage 1 will scope the literature and develop candidate programme theories of what ensures effective uptake and sustained implementation of an MDS.Stage2 will test and refine these theories through further iterative searches of the evidence from the literature to establish how effective uptake of an MDS can be achieved.Stage 3 will consult with relevant stakeholders to test or refine the programme theory (theories) of how an MDS works at the resident level of care for different stakeholders and in what circumstances. Data synthesis will use realist logic to align data from each eligible article with possible context-mechanism-outcome configurations or specific elements that answer the research questions.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The University of Hertfordshire Ethics Committee has approved this study (HSK/SF/UH/04169). Findings will be disseminated through briefings with stakeholders, conference presentations, a national consultation on the use of an MDS in UK long-term care settings, publications in peer-reviewed journals and in print and social media publications accessible to residents, relatives and care home staff.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020171323; this review protocol is registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.

Lessons learned about the effective operationalization of champions as an implementation strategy: results from a qualitative process evaluation of a pragmatic trial

BACKGROUND

Though the knowledge base on implementation strategies is growing, much remains unknown about how to most effectively operationalize these strategies in diverse contexts. For example, while evidence shows that champions can effectively support implementation efforts in some circumstances, little has been reported on how to operationalize this role optimally in different settings, or on the specific pathways through which champions enact change.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of data from a pragmatic trial comparing implementation strategies supporting the adoption of guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing in community health centers in the USA. Quantitative data came from the community health centers' shared electronic health record; qualitative data sources included community health center staff interviews over 3 years. Using a convergent mixed-methods design, data were collected concurrently and merged for interpretation to identify factors associated with improved outcomes. Qualitative analysis was guided by the constant comparative method. As results from the quantitative and initial qualitative analyses indicated the essential role that champions played in promoting guideline-concordant prescribing, we conducted multiple immersion-crystallization cycles to better understand this finding.

RESULTS

Five community health centers demonstrated statistically significant increases in guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing. A combination of factors appeared key to their successful practice change: (1) A clinician champion who demonstrated a sustained commitment to implementation activities and exhibited engagement, influence, credibility, and capacity; and (2) organizational support for the intervention. In contrast, the seven community health centers that did not show improved outcomes lacked a champion with the necessary characteristics, and/or organizational support. Case studies illustrate the diverse, context-specific pathways that enabled or prevented study implementers from advancing practice change.

CONCLUSION

This analysis confirms the important role of champions in implementation efforts and offers insight into the context-specific mechanisms through which champions enact practice change. The results also highlight the potential impact of misaligned implementation support and key modifiable barriers and facilitators on implementation outcomes. Here, unexamined assumptions and a lack of evidence-based guidance on how best to identify and prepare effective champions led to implementation support that failed to address important barriers to intervention success.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02325531 . Registered 15 December 2014.

How to Work Collaboratively Within the Health System: Workshop Summary and Facilitator Reflection

Effectiveness in health services research requires development of specific knowledge and skills for working in partnership with health system decision-makers. In an initial effort to frame capacity-building activities for researchers, we designed a workshop on working collaboratively within the health system. The workshop, based on recent research exploring health system experience and perspectives on research collaborations, was trialed at the annual Canadian Health Services and Policy Research (CAHSPR) conference in May 2019. Participants reported positive evaluations of the workshop. However, further efforts should target health services researchers that may not be as motivated to develop skills in collaborative research. Additional attention to equipping researchers with the skills needed to work in partnerships is recommended, including approaches and materials that avoid oversimplification of complex challenges.

Evaluating research investment and impact at a regional Australian Hospital and Health Service: a programme theory and conceptual framework

Background

Health systems in Australia and worldwide are increasingly expected to conduct research and quality improvement activities in addition to delivering clinical care and training health professionals. This study aims to inform a research impact evaluation at a regional Australian Hospital and Health Service by developing a programme theory showing how research investment is expected to have impact.

Methods

This qualitative study, representing the first phase of a larger mixed methods research impact evaluation at the Townsville Hospital and Health Service (THHS), adopts a realist-informed design involving the development of a programme theory. Data were obtained between February and May 2019 from strategic documentation and interviews with six current and former health service executives and senior employees. Inductive themes were integrated into a conceptual framework to visually represent the programme theory.

Results

Research at THHS has developed organically as the service has matured into a regional tertiary referral service serving a diverse rural and remote population across northern Queensland. Throughout this journey, individual THHS leaders often adopted a research development mantle despite disincentives arising from a performance-driven reporting and activity-based funding service context. Impact expectations from research investment at THHS were identified in the categories of enhanced research activity and capacity among clinicians, and improved clinical practice, health workforce capability and stability, and patient and population health. Seven contextual factors were identified as potential enablers or obstacles to these impact expectations and ambitions.

Conclusions

By identifying both relevant impact types and key contextual factors, this study offers programme theory to inform a planned research impact evaluation at THHS. The conceptual framework may be useful in other regionally based health service settings. More broadly, there are opportunities for future research to test and refine hybrid versions of linear and realist research impact evaluation models that combine resource-intensive, theory-driven approaches with policy practicality.

Unknown makes unloved-A case study on improving integrated health and social care in the Netherlands using a participatory approach

Many initiatives integrating health and social care have been implemented in order to provide adequate care and support to older people living at home. Further development of existing initiatives requires iterative processes of developing, implementing and evaluating improvements to current practice. This case study provides insight into the process of improving an existing integrated care initiative in the Netherlands. Using a participatory approach, researchers and local stakeholders collaborated to develop and implement activities to further improve collaboration between health and social care professionals. Improvement activities included interprofessional meetings focussing on reflection and mutual learning and workplace visits. Researchers evaluated the improvement process, using data triangulation of multiple qualitative and quantitative data sources. According to participating professionals, the improvement activities improved their communication and collaboration by establishing mutual understanding and trust. Enabling factors included the safe and informal setting in which the meetings took place and the personal relationships they developed during the project. Different organisational cultures and interests and a lack of ownership and accountability among managers hindered the improvement process, whereas issues such as staff shortages, time constraints and privacy regulations made it difficult to implement improvements on a larger scale. Still, the participatory approach encouraged the development of partnerships and shared goals on the level of both managers and professionals. This case study highlights that improving communication between professionals is an important first step in improving integrated care. In addition, it shows that a participatory approach, in which improvements are co-created and tailored to local priorities and needs, can help in the development of shared goals and trust between stakeholders with different perspectives. However, stakeholders' willingness and ability to participate in such an improvement process is challenged by many factors.

Conceptualising the initiation of researcher and research user partnerships: a meta-narrative review

Background

Integrated knowledge translation refers to researcher and research user partnerships to co-generate and implement knowledge. This type of partnership may be critical to success in increasing knowledge use and impact, but the conceptualisation of its initiation has not been fully developed. Initiating this type of partnership has proven to be challenging but crucial to its success. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-narrative review of partnership initiation concepts, processes, enablers, barriers and outcomes in the disciplines of healthcare and social sciences where examples of researcher and research user partnerships were found.

Methods

Seven research traditions were identified. Three were in the discipline of social sciences (including psychology, education and business) and five were in the discipline of healthcare (including medicine, nursing, public health, health services research). Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ABI Inform, ERIC, PsychInfo and the Cochrane Library on June 9, 2017. Fifty titles and abstracts were screened in triplicate; data were extracted from three records in duplicate. Narratives comprised of study characteristics and conceptual and empirical findings across traditions were tabulated, summarised and compared.

Results

A total of 7779 unique results were identified and 17 reviews published from 1998 to 2017 were eligible. All reviews identified a partnership initiation phase referred to as ‘early’ or ‘developmental’, or more vaguely as ‘fuzzy’, across six traditions – integrated knowledge translation, action research, stakeholder engagement, knowledge transfer, team initiation and shared mental models. The partnership initiation processes, enablers, barriers and outcomes were common to multiple narratives and summarised in a Partnership Initiation Conceptual Framework. Our review revealed limited use or generation of theory in most included reviews, and little empirical evidence testing the links between partnership initiation processes, enablers or barriers, and outcomes for the purpose of describing successful researcher and research user partnership initiation.

Conclusions

Narratives across multiple research traditions revealed similar integrated knowledge translation initiation processes, enablers, barriers and outcomes, which were captured in a conceptual framework that can be employed by researchers and research users to study and launch partnerships. While partnership initiation was recognised, it remains vaguely conceptualised despite lengthy research in several fields of study. Ongoing research of partnership initiation is needed to identify or generate relevant theory, and to empirically establish outcomes and the determinants of those outcomes.

Capturing the Role of Context in Complex System Change: An Application of the Canadian Context and Capabilities for Integrating Care (CCIC) Framework to an Integrated Care Organisation in the UK

Introduction:

If integrated care approaches are to be properly adapted to local contexts, a better understanding is required of key determinants of implementation and how these might be appropriately supported.

Purpose:

This study applied the Canadian Context and Capabilities for Integrating Care (CCIC) Framework to investigate factors influencing the implementation and outcomes of a complex integrated care change programme in Torbay and South Devon (TSD) and, more specifically, in one of five sub-localities, Coastal.

Methods:

A case study method using embedded ‘Researchers in Residence’ to conduct action-based participatory research and deploying mixed qualitative methods.

Results:

The relative importance of some domains differ between the English and Canadian studies. In this case study, physical features (structural and geographic) were found to be very pertinent to the relative success of the Coastal Locality, as were empowered clinical leadership, with readiness for change being expressed through processes and cultures that were risk-enabling, strengths-based, person-/outcome-focused.

Conclusions:

The CCIC Framework provided a useful tool capturing key elements of complex system change with key domains being transferable across settings, while also finding local variation in the UK. This would encourage its wider application so that further comparisons can be made of the ways in which different contextual and implementation properties impact upon delivery and outcomes.