Embedded research: a promising way to create evidence-informed impact in public health?

Cheetham, Mandy; Wiseman, Alice; Khazaeli, B; Gibson, Emma; Gray, Patricia; Graaf, Peter van der; Rushmer, Rosemary

doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdx125

Cited by 76 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The model provided a collaborative working framework for librarians and health care staff and encouraged new ways of working as library and information professionals embedded themselves in clinical and improvement teams to facilitate the transfer of knowledge. This is in line with wider developments to facilitate evidence use in public health through embedded approaches (Cheetham et al., ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Localising and tailoring research evidence helps public health decision making

Graaf

Cheetham

McCabe

et al. 2018

Health Info Libraries J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Localising and tailoring research evidence helps public health decision making

Graaf

Cheetham

McCabe

et al. 2018

Health Info Libraries J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This collective brokering model would have been hampered in less affluent or more turbulent climates, without the time afforded by ring-fenced funding from solvent, stable organisations. Previous senior inter-organisational relationships created mutually receptive environments, which other studies have also found important (Uneke et al, 2017, Cheetham et al, 2018. Allies, champions and chaperones formed a multi-level network at all levels within host organisations, without which KM team members struggled to find direction or make progress.…”

Section: Summary Of Findingsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Collective knowledge brokering: the model and impact of an embedded team

Wye

Cramer

Beckett

et al. 2020

Evidence &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe Bristol Knowledge Mobilisation (KM) Team was an unusual collective brokering model, consisting of a multi-professional team of four managers and three academics embedded in both local healthcare policymaking (aka commissioning) and academic primary care. They aimed to encourage ‘research-informed commissioning’ and ‘commissioning-informed research’. This paper covers context, structure, processes, advantages, challenges and impact. Methods Data sources from brokers included personal logs, reflective essays, exit interviews and a team workshop. These were analysed inductively using constant comparison. To obtain critical distance, three external evaluations were conducted, using interviews, observations and documentation. Results Stable, solvent organisations; senior involvement with good inter-professional relationships; secure funding; and networks of engaged allies in host organisations supported the brokers. Essential elements were two-way embedding, ‘buddying up’, team leadership, brokers’ interpersonal skills, and two-year, part-time contracts. By working collectively, the brokers fostered cross-community interactions and modelled collaborative behaviour, drawing on each other’s ‘insider’ knowledge, networks and experience. Challenges included too many taskmasters, unrealistic expectations and work overload. However, team-brokering provided a safe space to be vulnerable, share learning, and build confidence. As host organisations benefitted most from embedded brokers, both communities noted changes in attitude, knowledge, skills and confidence. The team were more successful in fostering ‘commissioning-informed research’ with co-produced research grants than ‘research-informed commissioning’. Conclusion Although still difficult, the collective support and comradery of an embedded, two-way, multi-professional team made encouraging interactions, and therefore brokering, easier. A team approach modelled collaborative behaviour and created a critical mass to affect cultural change. key messages An embedded two-way collective team makes brokering easier. It provides a safe space for brokers to be vulnerable, share learning and navigate problems. Team-brokering models collaborative behaviour and creates a critical mass. But many brokering challenges still exist.

show abstract

“…Ward [10] provides a useful framework for identifying and making use of 'knowledge mobilisers' who can facilitate getting evidence into practice or policy. The use of an 'embedded researcher' has been shown to be productive also in mobilising knowledge in general quality improvement [11] but also specifically in exchanging knowledge between public health research and a local authority in the UK [29]. Another mechanism is the use of the researcher in residence model [30].…”

Section: Considerations For Public Health Research Institutions and Fmentioning

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

Embedded research: a promising way to create evidence-informed impact in public health?

Abstract: With increased situated understanding of organizational culture and norms and greater awareness of the socio-political realities of PH, ER enables new co-produced solutions to become possible.

Cited by 76 publications

References 38 publications

Localising and tailoring research evidence helps public health decision making

Localising and tailoring research evidence helps public health decision making

Collective knowledge brokering: the model and impact of an embedded team

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About