Is it worth engaging in multi-stakeholder health services research collaborations? Reflections on key benefits, challenges and enabling mechanisms

Hinchcliff, Reece; Greenfield, David; Braithwaite, Jeffrey

doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzu009

Cited by 58 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…4 187 The emergence of complex forms for mode 2 research in health care in the UK is mirrored in other countries, for example the Canadian Community-University Research Alliances, 188 the Dutch Academic Collaborative Centres for Public Health 189 and the Australian Accreditation Collaborative for the Conduct of Research, Evaluation and Designated Investigations through Teamwork. 190 One recent publication coined the term 'multi-stakeholder health services research collaborations' to describe the increasingly complex, intersectoral and networked structure of contemporary medical and health services research. 190 These complex forms should be seen as part of the wider emergence of 'health research systems' -organised networks of researchers, knowledge intermediaries, policy-makers and others who provide a context for health sciences research and its uptake and application.…”

Section: Glasgow Et Al's 'Evidence Implementation Triangle' (Figure 7)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…190 One recent publication coined the term 'multi-stakeholder health services research collaborations' to describe the increasingly complex, intersectoral and networked structure of contemporary medical and health services research. 190 These complex forms should be seen as part of the wider emergence of 'health research systems' -organised networks of researchers, knowledge intermediaries, policy-makers and others who provide a context for health sciences research and its uptake and application. 35,191 We include brief mention of them here, as even though the HTA programme is not directly linked to such forms, it must take account of their indirect influence on the UK research landscape.…”

Section: Glasgow Et Al's 'Evidence Implementation Triangle' (Figure 7)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…competing goals' 193 and 'multiple accountabilities'. 189 Hinchcliff et al 190 distinguish between the sanitised written accounts of multistakeholder interactions ('draped in the formal collaborative language and procedures prescribed by funding agency protocols') and the reality in which 'participants . .…”

Section: Glasgow Et Al's 'Evidence Implementation Triangle' (Figure 7)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…view each other pragmatically as consultants, clients or even competitors, rather than partners'. 190 The analysis of developments such as CLAHRCs has (rightly) drawn on a range of different perspectives, approaches and models. Although they are empirically diverse and philosophically heterogeneous, they Critics have questioned if, and to what extent, mode 2 knowledge production (in which multiple stakeholders negotiate a research agenda that may not meet scientists' standards of rigour) counts as science at all.…”

Section: Glasgow Et Al's 'Evidence Implementation Triangle' (Figure 7)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment programme

Raftery

Hanney

Greenhalgh

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis report reviews approaches and tools for measuring the impact of research programmes, building on, and extending, a 2007 review.Objectives(1) To identify the range of theoretical models and empirical approaches for measuring the impact of health research programmes; (2) to develop a taxonomy of models and approaches; (3) to summarise the evidence on the application and use of these models; and (4) to evaluate the different options for the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme.Data sourcesWe searched databases including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and The Cochrane Library from January 2005 to August 2014.Review methodsThis narrative systematic literature review comprised an update, extension and analysis/discussion. We systematically searched eight databases, supplemented by personal knowledge, in August 2014 through to March 2015.ResultsThe literature on impact assessment has much expanded. The Payback Framework, with adaptations, remains the most widely used approach. It draws on different philosophical traditions, enhancing an underlying logic model with an interpretative case study element and attention to context. Besides the logic model, other ideal type approaches included constructionist, realist, critical and performative. Most models in practice drew pragmatically on elements of several ideal types. Monetisation of impact, an increasingly popular approach, shows a high return from research but relies heavily on assumptions about the extent to which health gains depend on research. Despite usually requiring systematic reviews before funding trials, the HTA programme does not routinely examine the impact of those trials on subsequent systematic reviews. The York/Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation toolkits provide ways of assessing such impact, but need to be evaluated. The literature, as reviewed here, provides very few instances of a randomised trial playing a major role in stopping the use of a new technology. The few trials funded by the HTA programme that may have played such a role were outliers.DiscussionThe findings of this review support the continued use of the Payback Framework by the HTA programme. Changes in the structure of the NHS, the development of NHS England and changes in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s remit pose new challenges for identifying and meeting current and future research needs. Future assessments of the impact of the HTA programme will have to take account of wider changes, especially as the Research Excellence Framework (REF), which assesses the quality of universities’ research, seems likely to continue to rely on case studies to measure impact. The HTA programme should consider how the format and selection of case studies might be improved to aid more systematic assessment. The selection of case studies, such as in the REF, but also more generally, tends to be biased towards high-impact rather than low-impact stories. Experience for other industries indicate that much can be learnt from the latter. The adoption of researchfish®(researchfish Ltd, Cambridge, UK) by most major UK research funders has implications for future assessments of impact. Although the routine capture of indexed research publications has merit, the degree to which researchfish will succeed in collecting other, non-indexed outputs and activities remains to be established.LimitationsThere were limitations in how far we could address challenges that faced us as we extended the focus beyond that of the 2007 review, and well beyond a narrow focus just on the HTA programme.ConclusionsResearch funders can benefit from continuing to monitor and evaluate the impacts of the studies they fund. They should also review the contribution of case studies and expand work on linking trials to meta-analyses and to guidelines.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.

show abstract

Section: Glasgow Et Al's 'Evidence Implementation Triangle' (Figure 7)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Glasgow Et Al's 'Evidence Implementation Triangle' (Figure 7)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Glasgow Et Al's 'Evidence Implementation Triangle' (Figure 7)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Glasgow Et Al's 'Evidence Implementation Triangle' (Figure 7)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment programme

Raftery

Hanney

Greenhalgh

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patients' satisfaction is regarded as a crucial issue with respect to the creation of a high quality, safe and effective health care system (Tucker, 2002; National Health Service Corporation, 2010; Hinchcliff et al, 2014). Satisfied patients are more willing to undergo recommended therapies, thus entailing better health outcomes including a lower mortality rate (Chue, 2006; Glickman et al, 2010).…”

Section: Consumers' Satisfaction and Health Care Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Socio-Economic Inequalities, Out-of-Pocket Payment and Consumers' Satisfaction with Primary Health Care: Data from the National Adult Consumers' Satisfaction Survey in Serbia 2009–2015

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A hybrid health service accreditation program model incorporating mandated standards and continuous improvement: interview study of multiple stakeholders in Australian health care

Greenfield

Hinchcliff

Hogden

et al. 2015

Health Planning & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aim was to investigate the understandings and concerns of stakeholders regarding the evolution of health service accreditation programs in Australia. Stakeholder representatives from programs in the primary, acute and aged care sectors participated in semi-structured interviews. Across 2011-12 there were 47 group and individual interviews involving 258 participants. Interviews lasted, on average, 1 h, and were digitally recorded and transcribed. Transcriptions were analysed using textual referencing software. Four significant issues were considered to have directed the evolution of accreditation programs: altering underlying program philosophies; shifting of program content focus and details; different surveying expectations and experiences and the influence of external contextual factors upon accreditation programs. Three accreditation program models were noted by participants: regulatory compliance; continuous quality improvement and a hybrid model, incorporating elements of these two. Respondents noted the compatibility or incommensurability of the first two models. Participation in a program was reportedly experienced as ranging on a survey continuum from "malicious compliance" to "performance audits" to "quality improvement journeys". Wider contextual factors, in particular, political and community expectations, and associated media reporting, were considered significant influences on the operation and evolution of programs. A hybrid accreditation model was noted to have evolved. The hybrid model promotes minimum standards and continuous quality improvement, through examining the structure and processes of organisations and the outcomes of care. The hybrid model appears to be directing organisational and professional attention to enhance their safety cultures. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Is it worth engaging in multi-stakeholder health services research collaborations? Reflections on key benefits, challenges and enabling mechanisms

Cited by 58 publications

References 26 publications

Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment programme

Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment programme

Socio-Economic Inequalities, Out-of-Pocket Payment and Consumers' Satisfaction with Primary Health Care: Data from the National Adult Consumers' Satisfaction Survey in Serbia 2009–2015

A hybrid health service accreditation program model incorporating mandated standards and continuous improvement: interview study of multiple stakeholders in Australian health care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About