ObjectiveThere is a widely held assumption that engagement by clinicians and healthcare organisations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels, but little direct empirical evidence has previously been collated. The objective of this study was to address the question: Does research engagement (by clinicians and organisations) improve healthcare performance?MethodsAn hourglass-shaped review was developed, consisting of three stages: (1) a planning and mapping stage; (2) a focused review concentrating on the core question of whether or not research engagement improves healthcare performance; and (3) a wider (but less systematic) review of papers identified during the two earlier stages, focusing on mechanisms.ResultsOf the 33 papers included in the focused review, 28 identified improvements in health services performance. Seven out of these papers reported some improvement in health outcomes, with others reporting improved processes of care. The wider review demonstrated that mechanisms such as collaborative and action research can encourage some progress along the pathway from research engagement towards improved healthcare performance. Organisations that have deliberately integrated the research function into organisational structures demonstrate how research engagement can, among other factors, contribute to improved healthcare performance.ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that there is an association between the engagement of individuals and healthcare organisations in research and improvements in healthcare performance. The mechanisms through which research engagement might improve healthcare performance overlap and rarely act in isolation, and their effectiveness often depends on the context in which they operate.

BackgroundThere is a widely held assumption that research engagement improves health-care performance at various levels, but little direct empirical evidence.ObjectivesTo conduct a theoretically and empirically grounded synthesis to map and explore plausible mechanisms through which research engagement might improve health services performance. A review of the effects on patients of their health-care practitioner's or institution's participation in clinical trials was published after submission of the proposal for this review. It identified only 13 relevant papers and, overall, suggested that the evidence that research engagement improves health-care performance was less strong than some thought. We aimed to meet the need for a wider review.MethodsAn hourglass review was developed, consisting of three stages: (1) a planning and mapping stage; (2) a focused review concentrating on the core question of whether or not research engagement improves health care; and (3) a wider (but less systematic) review of papers identified during the two earlier stages. Studies were included inthe focused review if the concept of ‘engagementinresearch’ was an input and some measure of ‘performance’ an output. The search strategy covered the period 1990 to March 2012. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science and other relevant databases were searched. A total of 10,239 papers were identified through the database searches, and 159 from other sources. A further relevance and quality check on 473 papers was undertaken, and identified 33 papers for inclusion in the review. A standard meta-analysis was not possible on the heterogeneous mix of papers in the focused review. Therefore an explanatory matrix was developed to help characterise the circumstances in which research engagement might improve health-care performance and the mechanisms that might be at work, identifying two main dimensions along which to categorise the studies:the degree of intentionalityandthe scope of the impact.ResultsOf the 33 papers in the focused review, 28 were positive (of which six were positive/mixed) in relation to the question of whether or not research engagement improves health-care performance. Five papers were negative (of which two were negative/mixed). Seven out of 28 positive papers reported some improvement in health outcomes. For the rest, the improved care took the form of improved processes of care. Nine positive papers were at a clinician level and 19 at an institutional level. The wider review demonstrated, for example, how collaborative and action research can encourage some progress along the pathway from research engagement towards improved health-care performance. There is also evidence that organisations in which the research function is fully integrated into the organisational structure out-perform other organisations that pay less formal heed to research and its outputs. The focused and wider reviews identified the diversity in the mechanisms through which research engagement might improve health care: there are many circumstances and mechanisms at work, more than one mechanism is often operative, and the evidence available for each one is limited.LimitationsTo address the complexities of this evidence synthesis of research we needed to spend significant time mapping the literature, and narrowed the research question to make it feasible. We excluded many potentially relevant papers (though we partially addressed this by conducting a wider additional synthesis). Studies assessing the impact made on clinician behaviour by small, locally conducted pieces of research could be difficult to interpret without full knowledge of the context.ConclusionsDrawing on the focused and wider reviews, it is suggested that when clinicians and health-care organisations engage in research there is the likelihood of a positive impact on health-care performance. Organisations that have deliberately integrated the research function into organisational structures demonstrate how research engagement can, among other factors, contribute to improved health-care performance. Further explorations are required of research networks and schemes to promote the engagement of clinicians and managers in research. Detailed observational research focusing on research engagement within organisations would build up an understanding of mechanisms.Study registrationPROSPERO: CRD42012001990.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Health research systems consist of diverse groups who have some role in health research, but the boundaries around such a system are not clear-cut. To explore what various stakeholders need we reviewed the literature including that on the history of English health R&D reforms, and we also applied some relevant conceptual frameworks. We first describe the needs and capabilities of the main groups of stakeholders in health research systems, and explain key features of policymaking systems within which these stakeholders operate in the UK. The five groups are policymakers (and health care managers), health professionals, patients and the general public, industry, and researchers. As individuals and as organisations they have a range of needs from the health research system, but should also develop specific capabilities in order to contribute effectively to the system and benefit from it. Second, we discuss key phases of reform in the development of the English health research system over four decadesespecially that of the English Department of Health's R&D system -and identify how far legitimate demands of key stakeholder interests were addressed. Third, in drawing lessons we highlight points emerging from contemporary reports, but also attempt to identify issues through application of relevant conceptual frameworks. The main lessons are: the importance of comprehensively addressing the diverse needs of various interacting institutions and stakeholders; the desirability of developing facilitating mechanisms at interfaces between the health research system and its various stakeholders; and the importance of additional money in being able to expand the scope of the health research system whilst maintaining support for basic science. We conclude that the latest health R&D strategy in England builds on recent progress and tackles acknowledged weaknesses. The strategy goes a considerable way to identifying and more effectively meeting the needs of key groups such as medical academics, patients and industry, and has been remarkably successful in increasing the funding for health research. There are still areas that might benefit from further recognition and resourcing, but the lessons identified, and progress made by the reforms are relevant for the design and coordination of national health research systems beyond England.

The CLAHRCs pursued a strategy that can be categorized as one of flexible comprehensiveness; i.e. their programmes have been flexible and responsive and they have used a range of approaches that seek to match the diverse aspects of the complex issues they face. Key features include their work on combining a range of knowledge transfer and exchange strategies, their efforts to promote cultural change, and the freedom to experiment, learn and adapt. Although the CLAHRCs do not, by themselves, have the remit or resources to bring about wholesale service improvement in health care, they do have features that would allow them to play a key role in some of the wider initiatives that encourage innovation.

BackgroundIn 2008, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in England established nine Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) to develop partnerships between universities and local NHS organisations focused on improving patient outcomes through the conduct and application of applied health research.ObjectivesThe study explored how effectively the CLAHRCs supported the ‘translation’ of research into patient benefit, and developed ways of doing applied research that maximised its chances of being useful to the service and the capacity of the NHS to respond. It focused on three issues: (1) how the NHS influenced the CLAHRCs, and vice versa; (2) how effective multistakeholder and multidisciplinary research and implementation teams were built in the CLAHRCs; (3) how the CLAHRCs supported the use of research knowledge to change commissioning and clinical behaviour for patient benefit.MethodsThe study adopted an adaptive and emergent approach and incorporated a formative evaluation. An initial phase mapped the landscape of all nine CLAHRCs and the context within which they were established, using document analysis, workshops and interviews, and a literature review. This mapping exercise identified the three research questions that were explored in phase 2 through a stakeholder survey of six CLAHRCs, in-depth case studies of two CLAHRCs, validation interviews with all nine CLAHRCs and the NIHR, and document review.Results(1) The local remit and the requirement for matched NHS funding enhanced NHS influence on the CLAHRCs. The CLAHRCs achieved positive change among those most directly involved, but the larger issue of whether or not the CLAHRCs can influence others in and across the NHS remains unresolved. (2) The CLAHRCs succeeded in engaging different stakeholder groups, and explored what encouraged specific groups to become involved. Being responsive to people’s concerns and demonstrating ‘quick wins’ were both important. (3) There was some evidence that academics were becoming more interested in needs-driven research, and that commissioners were seeing the CLAHRCs as a useful source of support. A growing number of completed projects had demonstrated an impact on clinical practice.ConclusionsThe CLAHRCs have included NHS decision-makers in research and researchers in service decision-making, and encouraged research-informed practice. All the CLAHRCs (as collaborations) adopted relationship models. However, as the complexities of the challenges they faced became clearer, it became obvious that a focus on multidisciplinary relationships was necessary, but not sufficient on its own. Attention also has to be paid to the systems within and through which these relationships operate.Recommendations for researchFuture research should compare areas with an Academic Health Science Network (AHSN) and a CLAHRC with areas with just an AHSN, to understand the difference CLAHRCs make. There should be work on understanding implementation, such as the balancing of rigour and relevance in intervention studies; systemic barriers to and facilitators of implementation; and tailoring improvement interventions. There is also a need to better understand the factors that support the explicit use of research evidence across the NHS, and the processes and mechanisms that support the sustainability and scale-up of implementation projects. Research should place emphasis on examining the role of patient and public involvement in CLAHRCs and of the relation between CLAHRCs and NHS commissioners.FundingThe NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme.