Collaborative research and the co-production of knowledge for practice: an illustrative case study

Heaton, Janet; Day, Jo; Britten, Nicky

doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0383-9

Cited by 153 publications

(216 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

201

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The political imperative in the past two decades to base the organization and delivery of public services more firmly on ‘evidence’ (Nutley et al ) together with the more recent and growing requirement for researchers across all disciplines to demonstrate ‘impact’ from their research (Fazey et al ; Pardoe ) have drawn greater research and policy attention towards the processes by which research can inform practice in public service sectors including education, criminal justice and health and social care. A range of initiatives, agencies and roles have emerged that are intended to increase the use of research in policy and practice (Cooksey ; Marshall et al ; Heaton et al ) and to address the ‘wicked problems’ faced in public services through new organizational forms like networks that have been suggested as better suited to collaboration and knowledge sharing (Ferlie et al ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facing the challenges of research‐informed knowledge mobilization: ‘Practising what we preach’?

Powell

Davies

Nutley

2017

Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The political imperative to make public services more evidence based has contributed to the growth in the past two decades of both research and practice in the field of knowledge mobilization: the range of approaches to encourage the creation, sharing and use of research‐informed knowledge alongside other forms of knowledge. Paradoxically the growth of the field has made the challenge of encouraging research use much more complex and uncertain, and the roles of knowledge mobilizers much more diverse and demanding. This in‐depth interview study of knowledge mobilization in 51 agencies concerned with knowledge for public services breaks new ground in exploring a paradox at the heart of knowledge mobilization practice: the challenges that research agencies face in practising in research‐informed ways themselves.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facing the challenges of research‐informed knowledge mobilization: ‘Practising what we preach’?

Powell

Davies

Nutley

2017

Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This literature suggests that many impacts develop over time through formal and informal professional networks and processes. These processes include 'knowledge mobilisation' [10], the use of an embedded researcher [11], and 'co-production' methods between researchers and practitioners [12]. There is also evidence suggesting that some impacts are achieved during the research process itself, especially in cases where the research was co-created with beneficiaries.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms and pathways to impact in public health research: a preliminary analysis of research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)

Boulding

Kamenetzky

Ghiga

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(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.

show abstract

“…Our study drew on the co-production principles of equal partnership working and collaboration, reciprocity and mutuality between users and providers of services [45], using stakeholder group meetings, focus groups and nominal group techniques, as well as interviews with professionals unable to attend. Ethical approval was granted for this study by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee North East-Tyne and Wear South (REC reference number: 14/NE/1149).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shaping innovations in long-term care for stroke survivors with multimorbidity through stakeholder engagement

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundStroke, like many long-term conditions, tends to be managed in isolation of its associated risk factors and multimorbidity. With increasing access to clinical and research data there is the potential to combine data from a variety of sources to inform interventions to improve healthcare. A ‘Learning Health System’ (LHS) is an innovative model of care which transforms integrated data into knowledge to improve healthcare. The objective of this study is to develop a process of engaging stakeholders in the use of clinical and research data to co-produce potential solutions, informed by a LHS, to improve long-term care for stroke survivors with multimorbidity.MethodsWe used a stakeholder engagement study design informed by co-production principles to engage stakeholders, including service users, carers, general practitioners and other health and social care professionals, service managers, commissioners of services, policy makers, third sector representatives and researchers. Over a 10 month period we used a range of methods including stakeholder group meetings, focus groups, nominal group techniques (priority setting and consensus building) and interviews. Qualitative data were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.Results37 participants took part in the study. The concept of how data might drive intervention development was difficult to convey and understand. The engagement process led to four priority areas for needs for data and information being identified by stakeholders: 1) improving continuity of care; 2) improving management of mental health consequences; 3) better access to health and social care; and 4) targeting multiple risk factors. These priorities informed preliminary design interventions. The final choice of intervention was agreed by consensus, informed by consideration of the gap in evidence and local service provision, and availability of robust data. This shaped a co-produced decision support tool to improve secondary prevention after stroke for further development.ConclusionsStakeholder engagement to identify data-driven solutions is feasible but requires resources. While a number of potential interventions were identified, the final choice rested not just on stakeholder priorities but also on data availability. Further work is required to evaluate the impact and implementation of data-driven interventions for long-term stroke survivors.

show abstract

Collaborative research and the co-production of knowledge for practice: an illustrative case study

Cited by 153 publications

References 17 publications

Facing the challenges of research‐informed knowledge mobilization: ‘Practising what we preach’?

Facing the challenges of research‐informed knowledge mobilization: ‘Practising what we preach’?

Mechanisms and pathways to impact in public health research: a preliminary analysis of research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)

Shaping innovations in long-term care for stroke survivors with multimorbidity through stakeholder engagement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About