The potential use, influence and impact of health research is seldom fully realised. This stubborn problem has caused burgeoning global interest in research aiming to address the implementation ‘gap’ and factors inhibiting the uptake of scientific evidence. Scholars and practitioners have questioned the nature of evidence used and required for healthcare, highlighting the complex ways in which knowledge is formed, shared and modified in practice and policy. This has led to rapid expansion, expertise and innovation in the field of knowledge mobilisation and funding for experimentation into the effectiveness of different knowledge mobilisation models. One approach gaining prominence involves stakeholders (e.g. researchers, practitioners, service users, policy-makers, managers and carers) in the co-production, and application, of knowledge for practice, policy and research (frequently termed integrated knowledge translation in Canada). Its popularity stems largely from its potential to address dilemmas inherent in the implementation of knowledge generated using more reductionist methods. However, despite increasing recognition, demands for co-produced research to illustrate its worth are becoming pressing while the means to do so remain challenging. This is due not only to the diversity of approaches to co-production and their application, but also to the ways through which different stakeholders conceptualise, measure, reward and use research. While research co-production can lead to demonstrable benefits such as policy or practice change, it may also have more diffuse and subtle impact on relationships, knowledge sharing, and in engendering culture shifts and research capacity-building. These relatively intangible outcomes are harder to measure and require new emphases and tools. This opinion paper uses six Canadian and United Kingdom case studies to explore the principles and practice of co-production and illustrate how it can influence interactions between research, policy and practice, and benefit diverse stakeholders. In doing so, we identify a continuum of co-production processes. We propose and illustrate the use of a new ‘social model of impact’ and framework to capture multi-layered and potentially transformative impacts of co-produced research. We make recommendations for future directions in research co-production and impact measurement.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0375-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundIn the UK, studies suggest that the transition from hospital to home after an injury can be a difficult time and many patients report feeling inadequately prepared. Patients often use primary care services after hospital discharge. These consultations provide opportunities to consider problems that patients experience and to facilitate recovery. Little is known, however, about how patients and service providers view care after hospital discharge and the role played by primary care services, specifically GPs. AimTo identify good practice and unmet needs in respect of post-discharge support for injured patients. Design and settingQualitative study using semi-structured interviews at four sites (Bristol, Leicester/ Loughborough, Nottingham, and Surrey). MethodQualitative interviews with 40 service providers and 45 hospitalised injured patients. ResultsAlthough there were examples of wellmanaged hospital discharges, many patients felt they were not provided with the information they needed about their injury, what to expect in terms of recovery, pain control, return to work, psychological problems, and services to help meet their needs. They also described difficulty accessing services such as physiotherapy or counselling. Service providers identified problems with communication between secondary and primary care, lack of access to physiotherapy, poor communication about other services that may help patients, GP service and resource constraints, and difficulties in providing information to patients concerning likely prognosis. ConclusionDischarge from hospital after an injury can be problematic for patients. Changes in both secondary and primary care are required to resolve this problem.

Aim: Policymaking decisions are often uninformed by research and research is rarely influenced by policymakers. To bridge this ‘know-do’ gap, a boundary-spanning knowledge mobilisation (KM) team was created by embedding researchers-in-residence and local policymakers into each other’s organisations. Through increasing the two-way flow of knowledge via social contact, KM team members fostered collaborations and the sharing of ‘mindlines’, aiming to generate more relevant research bids and research-informed decision-making. This paper describes the activities of the KM team, types of knowledge and how that knowledge was exchanged to influence mindlines. Discussion: KM team activities were classified into: relational, dissemination, transferable skills, evaluation, research and awareness raising. Knowledge available included: profession-specific (for example, research methods, healthcare landscape), insider (for example, relational, organisation and experiential) and KM theory and practice. KM team members brokered relationships through conversations interweaving different types of knowledge, particularly organisational and relational. Academics were interested in policymakers’ knowledge of healthcare policy and the commissioning landscape. More than research results, policymakers valued researchers’ methodological knowledge. Both groups appreciated each other as ‘critical friends’. Conclusion: To increase research impact, ‘expertise into practice’ could be leveraged, specifically researchers’ critical thinking and research methodology skills. As policymakers’ expertise into practice also bridges the know-do gap, future impact models could focus less on evidence into practice and more on fostering this mutual flow of expertise. Embedded knowledge brokers from the two communities working in teams can influence the mindlines of both. These ambassadors can create improvements in ‘inter-cultural competence’ to draw academia and policymaking closer.

PurposeUnintentional injuries have a significant long-term health impact in working age adults. Depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder are common post-injury, but their impact on self-reported recovery has not been investigated in general injury populations. This study investigated the role of psychological predictors 1 month post-injury in subsequent self-reported recovery from injury in working-aged adults.MethodsA multicentre cohort study was conducted of 668 unintentionally injured adults admitted to five UK hospitals followed up at 1, 2, 4 and 12 months post-injury. Logistic regression explored relationships between psychological morbidity 1 month post-injury and self-reported recovery 12 months post-injury, adjusting for health, demographic, injury and socio-legal factors. Multiple imputations were used to impute missing values.ResultsA total of 668 adults participated at baseline, 77% followed up at 1 month and 63% at 12 months, of whom 383 (57%) were included in the main analysis. Multiple imputation analysis included all 668 participants. Increasing levels of depression scores and increasing levels of pain at 1 month and an increasing number of nights in hospital were associated with significantly reduced odds of recovery at 12 months, adjusting for age, sex, centre, employment and deprivation. The findings were similar in the multiple imputation analysis, except that pain had borderline statistical significance.ConclusionsDepression 1 month post-injury is an important predictor of recovery, but other factors, especially pain and nights spent in hospital, also predict recovery. Identifying and managing depression and providing adequate pain control are essential in clinical care post-injury.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00127-016-1299-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.