Localising and tailoring research evidence helps public health decision making

Graaf, Peter van der; Cheetham, Mandy; McCabe, Karen; Rushmer, Rosemary

doi:10.1111/hir.12219

Cited by 20 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In another study data drawn from an NIHR-funded project examined how evidence is used in commissioning and planning, and also concluded the role of localised knowledge. They found that published evidence is "made fit" for local commission and planning by relating the evidence to local context and needs and tailored into local actionable messages [27].…”

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

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

show abstract

“…(3) Use an interactive team approach to data selection and extraction (4) Provide quantitative summary and qualitative thematic analysis in the report, as well as discussing implications for research and practice (5) Include consultations with stakeholders as mandatory knowledge translation component of scoping review…”

Section: Nonementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to time constraints and accessibility, practitioners may lack the skills to nd, appraise and synthesise relevant evidence (3). The role of evidence-brie ng services and information professionals is to nd evidence relevant to local context and needs, and present them to commissioners as concise, actionable points (4,5). However, it is crucial that evidence guiding services and care provision comes from reliable sources, is critically appraised, and interpreted in the light of the overall body of available evidence (6).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing methodology for scoping reviews: recommendations arising from a scoping literature review (SLR) to inform transformation of children and adolescent mental health services.

Anderson

Howarth

Vainre

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is consensus that health services commissioning and clinical practice should be driven by scientific evidence. However, workload pressures, accessibility of peer reviewed publications and skills to find, appraise, and synthesise relevant evidence are often cited as barriers to uptake of research evidence by practitioners and commissioners alike. In recent years a growing requirement for rapid evidence synthesis to inform commissioning decisions about healthcare service delivery and provision of care contributed to an increasing popularity of scoping literature reviews (SLRs). Yet, published guidelines for conducting and reporting SLRs are still relatively scarce. Methods: The exemplar review used as a worked example aimed to provide a readily available, comprehensive, and user-friendly repository of research evidence for local commissioners to help them make evidence-informed decisions about redesigning East of England Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services. In conducting the review, we were broadly guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, however some modifications were made at different stages to better reflect the largely pragmatic objective of this review. This paper compares the methodology used with existing methodological frameworks for scoping studies, to add to the existing knowledge base.Results: We proposed the following advancements to the existing SLR frameworks: (i) Assemble a research team with complementary skills and expertise; (ii); Draw on expertise of external partners, particularly practitioners, decision-makers and commissioners who will be translating findings into practice; (iii) Pre-register the review protocol. Keep a detailed record of all steps and decisions and consider how they would impact on generalisability and utility of review findings; (iv) Use systematic procedures for literature searchers, selection of studies, data extraction and analysis; (v) If feasible, appraise the quality of included evidence; (vi) Be transparent about limitations of findings.Conclusions: Despite some methodological limitations, scoping literature reviews are a useful method of rapidly synthesising a large body of evidence to inform commissioning and transformation of CAMHS. SLRs allow researchers to start with a broader questions, to explore the issue from different perspectives and perhaps find more comprehensive solutions that are not only effective, but also accounted for their feasibility and acceptability to key stakeholders.

show abstract

“…A core component of a health library and information services is the provision of research evidence to inform decision making, and van der Graaf, Cheetham, Mccabe and Rushmer (2018) have been explored the mechanisms used to facilitate decision making in the planning of public health interventions. Data were drawn from 11 interviews, observations at meetings and documentary analysis.…”

Section: Evaluation and Impact Are Key Themes In This Issue Of The Hementioning

confidence: 99%

Maintaining your momentum

Grant

2018

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After the excitement of this summer's Health Libraries Group conference, it is important to maintain that sense of momentum and enthusiasm that being with like-minded library and information workers can bring. #HLG2018 certainly presented plenty of opportunities for collaboration and the enthusiasm to put ideas into action. The launch of CILIP's Health Hub, bringing together content and resources co-produced with CILIP members, together with additional categories specifically designed for those working in health to extend CILIP's. Professional Knowledge and Skills Base (PKSB) to that of PKSB for Health means there is every reason and resource available to help maintain your momentum and enthusiasm.

show abstract

Localising and tailoring research evidence helps public health decision making

Abstract: Information professionals are instrumental in shaping what evidence enters local decision making processes. Identifying and supporting knowledge mobilisation roles within health libraries should be the focus of future research and training.

Cited by 20 publications

References 14 publications

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

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

Advancing methodology for scoping reviews: recommendations arising from a scoping literature review (SLR) to inform transformation of children and adolescent mental health services.

Maintaining your momentum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About