Researchers’ perspective of real-world impact from UK public health research: A qualitative study (original) (raw)
Related papers
BMC public health, 2017
With increasing financial pressures on public health in England, the need for evidence of high relevance to policy is now stronger than ever. However, the ways in which public health professionals (PHPs) and researchers relate to one another are not necessarily conducive to effective knowledge translation. This study explores the perspectives of PHPs and researchers when interacting, with a view to identifying barriers to and opportunities for developing practice that is effectively informed by research. This research focused on examples from two responsive research schemes, which provide university-based support for research-related enquiries from PHPs: the NIHR SPHR Public Health Practitioner Evaluation Scheme1 and the responsive research service AskFuse2. We examined enquiries that were submitted to both between 2013 and 2015, and purposively selected eight enquiries for further investigation by interviewing the PHPs and researchers involved in these requests. We also identified ...
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Background: The mechanisms and pathways to impacts from public health research in the UK have not been widely studied. Through the lens of one funder (NIHR), our aims are to map the diversity of public health research, in terms of funding mechanisms, disciplinary contributions, and public health impacts, identify examples of impacts, and pathways to impact that existing reporting mechanisms may not otherwise have captured, and provide illustrations of how public health researchers perceive the generation of non-academic impact from their work. Methods: A total of 1386 projects were identified as 'public health research' by the NIHR and listed in the NIHR Public Health Overview database (2000-2016). From these, a subset of 857 projects were matched as potentially having begun reporting impacts via an external data-gathering platform (Researchfish). Data on the 857 projects were analyzed quantitatively, and nine projects were selected to investigate further through semi-structured interviews with principal investigators. Two workshops took place to validate emerging and final findings and facilitate analysis. Results: In addition to the NIHR School for Public Health Research and the NIHR Public Health Research Programme, 89% of projects contained in the NIHR Public Health Overview portfolio as 'public health research' are funded via other NIHR research programmes, suggesting significant diversity in disciplines contributing to public health research and outcomes. The pathways to impact observed in our in-depth case studies include contributing to debates on what constitutes appropriate evidence for national policy change, acknowledging local 'unintended' impacts, building trusted relationships with stakeholders across health and non-health sectors and actors, collaborating with local authorities, and using non-academic dissemination channels. Conclusions: Public health as a discipline contributes substantially to impact beyond academia. To support the diversity of these impacts, we need to recognise localized smaller-scale impacts, and the difference in types of evidence required for community and local authority-based impacts. This will also require building capacity and resources to enable impact to take place from public health research. Finally, support is required for engagement with local authorities and working with non-health sectors that contribute to health outcomes.
‘Making evidence count’: A framework to monitor the impact of health services research
Australian Journal of Rural Health, 2012
Objectives: The objective of this study is to develop a framework to measure the impact of primary health care research, describe how it could be used and propose a method for its validation. Design: Literature review and critical appraisal of existing models of research impact, and integration of three into a comprehensive impact framework. Setting: Centre of Research Excellence focusing on access to primary health care services in Australia. Participants: Not applicable. Interventions: Not applicable. Main outcome measure: The Health Services Research Impact Framework, integrating the strengths of three existing models of research impact. Conclusion: In order to ensure relevance to policy and practice and to provide accountability for funding, it is essential that the impact of health services research is measured and monitored over time. Our framework draws upon previously published literature regarding specific measures of research impact. We organise this information according to the main area of impact (i.e. research related, policy, service and societal) and whether the impact originated with the researcher (i.e. producer push) or the end-user (i.e. user pull). We propose to test the utility of the framework by recording and monitoring the impact of our own research and that of other groups of primary health care researchers.
2020
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.
Building Heath Research Capacity: The Impact of a United Kingdom Collaborative Programme
Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 2021
Purpose: Strengthening research capacity (RC) amongst health professionals has both organisational and individual benefits. It can increase the quality of research and support the transfer of evidence into practice and policy. However there is little evidence on what works to develop and strengthen RC. This paper contributes to the evidence base by reporting findings from an evaluation of a programme that aimed to build capacity to use and do research amongst NHS and local authority organisations and their staff in a large english research partnership organisation. Methods: The evaluation used multiple qualitative methods including semi-structured interviews, focus groups and workshops (n=131 respondents including public advisers, university, NHS, and local government partners). Results: The RC building programme provided a range of development opportunities for NHS and local authority staff resulting in increased confidence and skills to undertake, participate in, and use research....
Health research policy and systems, 2017
Primary healthcare researchers are under increasing pressure to demonstrate measurable and lasting improvement in clinical practice and healthcare policy as a result of their work. It is therefore important to understand the effectiveness of the research dissemination strategies used. The aim of this paper is to describe the pathways for research impact that have been achieved across several government-funded primary healthcare projects, and the effectiveness of these methods as perceived by their Chief Investigators. The project used an online survey to collect information about government-funded primary healthcare research projects. Chief Investigators were asked how they disseminated their findings and how this achieved impact in policy and practice. They were also asked to express their beliefs regarding the most effective means of achieving research impact and describe how this occurred. Chief Investigators of 17 projects indicated that a number of dissemination strategies were...
Supporting and enabling health research in a local authority (SERLA): an exploratory study
BMC Public Health
Background The use of research evidence to underpin public health practice and policy decisions in local government is strongly promoted but its implementation has not been straightforward. This study aimed to explore the factors, relationships and processes that contribute towards accessing, using, and generating research evidence that is relevant to local authority public health and social care and shapes its practice. Methods Semi-structured individual interviews with elected councillors, officers directly involved with public health and social care and with community members from one urban unitary authority in South England were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Results Fourteen participants took part in the semi-structured interviews. Local knowledge and evidence are prioritised, and anecdotal evidence is valued. The Director of Public Health was the principal source of information and support. Academics were rarely menti...
Organisational factors that facilitate research use in public health policy-making: a scoping review
Health Research Policy and Systems, 2019
BackgroundAlthough important syntheses and theoretical works exist in relation to understanding the organisational factors that facilitate research use, these contributions differ in their scope and object of study as well as their theoretical underpinnings. Therefore, from an exploratory angle, it may be useful to map out the current literature on organisational factors of research use in public health policy-making when revisiting existing theories and frameworks to gain further theoretical insights.MethodsHerein, a scoping review technique and thematic content analysis were used to bring together findings from both synthesised and empirical studies of different types to map out the organisational factors that facilitate research use in public health policy-making.ResultsA total of 14 reviews and 40 empirical studies were included in the analysis. These were thematically coded and the intra-organisational factors reported as enabling research use were examined. Five main categorie...
Building Health Research Capacity: The Impact of a UK Collaborative Programme
Nova Southeastern University, 2021
Purpose: Purpose: Strengthening research capacity (RC) amongst health professionals has both organisational and individual benefits. It can increase the quality of research and support the transfer of evidence into practice and policy. However there is little evidence on what works to develop and strengthen RC. This paper contributes to the evidence base by reporting findings from an evaluation of a programme that aimed to build capacity to use and do research amongst NHS and local authority organisations and their staff in a large english research partnership organisation. Methods: Methods: The evaluation used multiple qualitative methods including semi-structured interviews, focus groups and workshops (n=131 respondents including public advisers, university, NHS, and local government partners). Results: Results: The RC building programme provided a range of development opportunities for NHS and local authority staff resulting in increased confidence and skills to undertake, participate in, and use research. Additionally, positive influences on organisational practice and collaborative working were reported. Conversely, challenges to developing research capacity were also identified as were the importance of resources, senior level buy-in, and the relevance of research topic to practice in facilitating participation in the programme. Conclusion: Conclusion: Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North West Coast's (Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North West Coast's (CLAHRC-NWC) RC building programme differed from convential approaches giving less emphasis to formal teaching and more to experiental learning and focusing on both individual capacities and supporting organisations to integrate RC building into staff development programmes. The findings demonstrate that providing opportunities for staff in NHS and local authority organisations to develop research knowledge and skills alongside an infrastructure that supports and encourages their participation in research can have positive impacts on research capacity and organisational research culture. The potential for generalising this approach to other organisational contexts is discussed