Collaboration between Health Services Managers and Researchers: Making a Difference?

Bullock, Alison Deborah; Morris, Zoë Slote; Atwell, Christine

doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011099

Cited by 44 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We start by considering an example of the latter from the field of health services management, an area in which it is often thought difficult to achieve evidence-based management 163 let alone to demonstrate that research engagement by managers leads to improved health-care performance. In 2012, Bullock et al 164 published an article, 'Collaboration between health service managers and researchers: making a difference?' describing key findings from their formative evaluation of the SDO's Management Fellowship Programme that was set up to 'encourage greater engagement, linkage and exchange between research and practice communities in health-care management ' (p. 12).…”

Section: Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…165 This indicates that this particular mechanism has not been used very much. As a more general context to the article describing the evaluation, Bullock et al 164 highlight some of the most relevant previous studies, and claim 'The few evaluations of collaborative research programmes, largely from outside the UK, indicate positive outcomes ' (p. 3). Three articles are cited to support this statement, [166][167][168] but none of these three studies met the inclusion criteria for our focused review.…”

Section: Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Engagement in research: an innovative three-stage review of the benefits for health-care performance

Hanney

Boaz

Jones

et al. 2013

Health Services and Delivery Research

102

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engagement in research: an innovative three-stage review of the benefits for health-care performance

Hanney

Boaz

Jones

et al. 2013

Health Services and Delivery Research

102

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…patience and approachability). 148 This includes their role and seniority within the organisation and how they are perceived by others; for example, 66 Soper et al 44 note the importance of 'understanding each other's incentives and constraints'. However, the skills and attitudes of the KIT agent or knowledge broker are a recurrent theme in the literature.…”

Section: Individual Dispositionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…102 A fuller discussion of linear and interactive models can be found elsewhere. 66 To address the commissioning brief, in this report we have adopted the term 'KIT' and we describe those supporting this activity as 'KIT agents'. However, in our application of the term, we wish to include that sense of interaction and mobilisation, not the limited narrow notion of linear transfer.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15,17,21,22,113 We note that a proportion of the literature, particularly relating to collaboration programmes, refers to relationships between researchers and clinical practitioners 114 with little on how managers interact with research, 115 which may or may not be different from relationships between researchers and clinicians. Existing research 14,66 suggests that in exploring how KIT works in practice, both organisations and individuals need to be taken into account. Enthusiastic individuals can be stonewalled by indifferent organisations, and organisations keen to learn and innovate can be hindered by reticent individuals, for example.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Bullock

Barnes

Morris³

et al. 2016

Health Serv Deliv Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundKnowledge and innovation transfer (KIT) is recognised internationally as a complex, dynamic process that is difficult to embed in organisations. There is growing use of health service–academic–industry collaborations in the UK, with knowledge brokers linking producers with the users of knowledge and innovation.AimFocusing on KIT ‘agent’ roles within Academic Health Science Networks in England and Partnerships in Wales, we show how individual dispositions, processes and content contribute to desired outcomes.MethodsWe studied the KIT intentions of all Academic Health Science Networks in England, and the South East Wales Academic Health Science Partnership. Using a qualitative case study design, we studied the work of 13 KIT agents purposively sampled from five networks, by collecting data from observation of meetings, documentation, KIT agent audio-diaries, and semistructured interviews with KIT agents, their line managers and those they supported (‘Links’). We also used a consensus method in a meeting of experts (nominal group technique) to discuss the measurement of outcomes of KIT agent activity.FindingsThe case study KIT agents were predominantly from a clinical background with differing levels of experience and expertise, with the shared aim of improving services and patient care. Although outside of recognised career structures, the flexibility afforded to KIT agents to define their role was an enabler of success. Other helpful factors included (1) time and resources to devote to KIT activity; (2) line manager support and a team to assist in the work; and (3) access and the means to use data for improvement projects. The organisational and political context could be challenging. KIT agents not only tackled local barriers such as siloed working, but also navigated shifting regional and national policies. Board-level support for knowledge mobilisation together with a culture of reflection (listening to front-line staff), openness to challenges and receptivity to research all enabled KIT agents to achieve desired outcomes. Nominal group findings underscored the importance of relating measures to specific intended outcomes. However, the case studies highlighted that few measures were employed by KIT agents and their managers. Using social marketing theory helped to show linkages between processes, outcomes and impact, and drew attention to how KIT agents developed insight into their clients’ needs and tailored work accordingly.LimitationsLevel of KIT agent participation varied; line managers and Links were interviewed only once; and outcomes were self-reported.ConclusionsSocial marketing theory provided a framework for analysing KIT agent activity. The preparatory work KIT agents do in listening, understanding local context and building relationships enabled them to develop ‘insight’ and adapt their ‘offer’ to clients to achieve desired outcomes.Future workThe complexity of the role and the environment in which it is played out justifies more research on KIT agents. Suggestions include (1) longitudinal study of career pathways; (2) how roles are negotiated within teams and how competing priorities are managed; (3) how success is measured; (4) the place of improvement methodologies within KIT work; (5) the application of social marketing theory to comparative study of similar roles; and (6) patients as KIT agents.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

Processes and Responsibilities for Knowledge Transfer and Mobilisation in Health Services Organisations in Wales

Barnes

Bullock

Warren

2017

Managing Improvement in Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaboration between Health Services Managers and Researchers: Making a Difference?

Abstract: Collaborations between managers and researchers can improve research relevance and quality and research capacity development. Factors critical to success relate to the fit between the project and the management fellow and how clearly the purpose is understood.

Cited by 44 publications

References 22 publications

Engagement in research: an innovative three-stage review of the benefits for health-care performance

Engagement in research: an innovative three-stage review of the benefits for health-care performance

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

Processes and Responsibilities for Knowledge Transfer and Mobilisation in Health Services Organisations in Wales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About