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

Abstract

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.

Researchers’ perspective of real-world impact from UK public health research: A qualitative study

“…Whilst [ 17 ] found that researchers questioned the type of evidence needed from public health research to inform policy, our findings suggest that researchers were aware of the type of evidence needed and were using non-standard research designs to ensure that the research generated relevant evidence. Evidence derived from realist reviews, natural experiments, non-randomised trials, novel statistical methods and complex systems approaches provide alternative ways to explore complex interventions [ 26 , 29 ] and some of these approaches were used by the researchers.…”

“…The interviewer and note-taker undertook the interviews together in a private room at the NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre in Southampton. The interview framework was adapted from [ 17 ], which aligned to the Payback Framework, and sought to understand the nature of the influence or impact the research had realised. However, it also sought to understand how change came about or what stopped it, thereby investigating the way in which knowledge from research was mobilised.…”

“…This is especially relevant in Public Health (PH) research. Within the UK, PH research is funded through diverse mechanisms and has many pathways to impact [ 17 ]. The effectiveness of these pathways and the impact the research has have been found to depend on a number of factors.…”

A guide to systems-level, participatory, theory-informed implementation research in global health

“…Ensuring implementation research is participatory, by creating opportunities involving engagement with key stakeholders, is key to achieving that change. Several other disciplines have described such processes, including 'knowledge mobilisation', 63 the use of 'embedded researchers', 64 'co-production' methods between researchers and practitioners, 65 as well as studies examining how societal impact stems from research. 63 66 67 Generally these are intended to create opportunities for stakeholders to understand, adopt and sustain outcomes 68 These activities can be parts of intervention design itself (ie, in codesign or coproduction activities), and at other times they are activities occurring in parallel to the research and considered to be activities which complement the research process in facilitating its adoption and scale-up.…”

A guide to systems-level, participatory, theory-informed implementation research in global health

“…Ensuring implementation research is participatory, by creating opportunities involving engagement with key stakeholders, is key to achieving that change. Several other disciplines have described such processes, including 'knowledge mobilisation', 63 the use of 'embedded researchers', 64 'co-production' methods between researchers and practitioners, 65 as well as studies examining how societal impact stems from research. 63 66 67 Generally these are intended to create opportunities for stakeholders to understand, adopt and sustain outcomes BMJ Global Health from research, or create opportunities for 'productive interactions'.…”