Mobilising knowledge in public health: reflections on ten years of collaborative working in Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health

Graaf, Peter van der; Cheetham, Mandy; Lake, Amelia; Welford, Mark R.; Rushmer, Rosemary; Shucksmith, Janet; Rhodes, Avril

doi:10.1332/204080519x15619879036817

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Author details 1 EPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK. 2 Independent Consultant, London, UK.…”

Section: Supplementary Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Collaborative approaches between researchers and research users, including knowledge transfer partnerships and embedded researchers, are gaining traction as promising ways to bridge the gap between research and practice [1,2]. While dependent on a number of factors to succeed [3,4], embedded researchers, with their dual affiliation, have been hypothesised to act as catalysts for change in developing research cultures and capacity through shared, mutually beneficial learning processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The implementation of embedded researchers in policy, public services, and commercial settings: a systematic evidence and gap map

Kneale,

Stansfield,

Goldman

et al. 2024

Implement Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Embedding researchers into policy and other settings may enhance research capacity within organisations to enable them to become more research active. We aimed to generate an evidence map on evaluations of embedded researcher interventions to (i) identify where systematic reviews and primary research are needed and (ii) develop conceptual understandings of ‘embedded researchers’. We define ‘embedded researchers’ through a set of principles that incorporate elements such as the aim of activities, the types of relationships and learning involved, and the affiliations and identities adopted. Methods We included studies published across all sectors, searching fourteen databases, other web sources and two journals for evaluations published between 1991 and spring 2021. Data were extracted using a coding tool developed for this study. We identified new typologies of embedded researcher interventions through undertaking Latent Class Analysis. Results The map describes 229 evaluations spanning a variety of contexts. Our set of principles allowed us to move beyond a narrow focus on embedded researchers in name alone, towards consideration of the wide range of roles, activities, identities, and affiliations related to embedded researchers. We identified 108 different allied terms describing an embedded researcher. Embedded researcher activity spanned a continuum across lines of physical, cultural, institutional, and procedural embeddedness (from weaker to more intense forms of embeddedness) and took a range of forms that bridge or blur boundaries between academia and policy/practice. Conclusions We developed a broad map of international embedded researcher activity in a wide range of sectors. The map suggests that embedded researcher interventions occupy a broader suite of models than previously acknowledged and our findings also offer insight on the type and nature of this literature. Given the clear policy interest in this area, a better understanding of the processes involved with becoming embedded within an organisation is needed. Further work is also necessary to address the challenges of evaluating the work of embedded researchers, including consideration for which outcome measures are most appropriate, to better understand their influence.

show abstract

“…Author details 1 EPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK. 2 Independent Consultant, London, UK.…”

Section: Supplementary Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The implementation of embedded researchers in policy, public services, and commercial settings: a systematic evidence and gap map

Kneale,

Stansfield,

Goldman

et al. 2024

Implement Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…intermediary body (Van der Graaf et al, 2020). Mechanisms are needed to share learning between evidence intermediary bodies and evaluate practice, from tailored outputs to new forms of facilitation.…”

Section: Fundingmentioning

confidence: 99%

From dissemination to engagement: learning over time from a national research intermediary centre (Four Fs)

Lamont

Maxwell

2023

Evidence &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There has been little applied learning from organisations engaged in making evidence useful for decision makers. More focus has been given either to the work of individuals as knowledge brokers or to theoretical frameworks on embedding evidence. More intelligence is needed on the practice of knowledge intermediation.Aims and objectives: This paper describes the evolution of approaches by one UK Centre to promote and embed evidence in health and care services. This is not a formal evaluation, given the lack of critical distance by authors who led work at the Centre, but a reflective analysis which may be helpful for other evidence intermediary bodies.Conclusions: We analyse the founding conditions and theoretical context at the start of our activity and describe four activities we developed over time. These were filter (screening research for relevance and quality); forge (engaging stakeholders in interpreting evidence); fuse (knowledge brokering with hybrid teams); and fulfil (sustained interaction with implementation partners). We reflect on the tensions between rigour and relevance in the evidence we shared and the way in which our approaches evolved from a programme of evidence outputs to greater focus on sustained engagement and deliberative activities to make sense of evidence and reach wider audiences. Over the lifetime of the Centre, we moved from linear and relational modes towards systems type approaches to embed and mobilise evidence. Key messages <ul><li>There is little shared learning on the practice of evidence use by knowledge intermediaries.</li> <li>Our account of a national evidence centre for health decision makers shows the shift towards more engaged and embedded approaches.</li> <li>We identify four central activities – filter, forge, fuse and fulfil – and how they evolved over time.</li> <li>We note the value of sustained engagement with stakeholders in shaping new evidence narratives relevant to practice.</li></ul>

show abstract

Mapping key actors in family support. A European perspective

Jiménez,

Canavan,

Baena

et al. 2024

Children and Youth Services Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mobilising knowledge in public health: reflections on ten years of collaborative working in Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health

Cited by 6 publications

References 20 publications

The implementation of embedded researchers in policy, public services, and commercial settings: a systematic evidence and gap map

The implementation of embedded researchers in policy, public services, and commercial settings: a systematic evidence and gap map

From dissemination to engagement: learning over time from a national research intermediary centre (Four Fs)

Mapping key actors in family support. A European perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About