Optimizing the Impact of Public-Academic Partnerships in Fostering Policymakers’ Use of Research Evidence: Proposal to Test a Conceptual Framework

Abstract

Background Previous research has reported that public-academic partnerships (PAPs) can effectively promote PAP leaders’ use of research evidence in improving youth outcomes. However, the existing literature has not yet clarified whether and how PAP leaders’ use of research evidence evolves along the PAP life cycle and whether PAP partners’ concordant perceptions of usefulness of their PAP has an impact on PAP leaders’ use of research evidence. Developing a conceptual framework that recognizes the PAP life cycle and empirically identifying contexts and mechanisms of PAPs that promote PAP leaders’ use of research evidence from the PAP life cycle perspective are imperative to guide researchers and policymakers to successfully lead PAPs and foster policymakers’ use of research evidence for improving youth outcomes. Objective Utilizing an integrated framework of organizational life cycle perspective, a social partnership perspective, and a realist evaluation, this study examines the extent to which PAP development and PAP leaders’ use of research evidence can be characterized into life cycle stages and identifies PAP contexts and mechanisms that explain the progress of PAPs and PAP leaders’ use of research evidence through life cycle stages. Methods Recruiting PAPs across the United States that aim to improve mental health and promote well-being of youth aged 12-25 years, the study conducts a document analysis and an online survey of PAPs to inform policymakers and academic researchers on the contexts and mechanisms to increase PAP sustainability and promote policymakers’ use of research evidence in improving youth outcomes. Results Fifty-three PAPs that meet the recruitment criteria have been identified, and document review of PAPs and participant recruitment for the online survey of PAP experience have been conducted. Conclusions This paper will help policymakers and researchers gain a deeper knowledge of the contexts and mechanisms for each PAP life cycle stage in order to optimize PAP leaders’ use of research evidence in achieving positive youth outcomes. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/14382

Purpose Formulation, Coalition Building, and Evidence Use in Public–Academic Partnerships: Web-Based Survey Study

“…Although previous studies have demonstrated the positive impact of PAPs on youth mental health and well-being outcomes, few empirical studies have examined whether and how PAP contexts and mechanisms evolve through the PAP life cycle and which PAP contexts and mechanisms foster public agency leaders’ use of research evidence to improve youth mental health and well-being [ 11 ]. Public mental health and child welfare agencies are expected to increase the use of evidence-based care to improve mental health and well-being of vulnerable youth [ 12 - 16 ].…”

“…Although research on individual components of the partnership process has revealed important information about factors that support successful partnerships, the literature has yet to bring these components together into an integrated framework [ 11 ]. Such a framework would offer a way to examine the totality of PAPs, including the contexts in which they initiate and mature, the mechanisms that propel them forward, and the outcomes that they define and achieve at various stages in relation to public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence.…”

“…Such a framework would offer a way to examine the totality of PAPs, including the contexts in which they initiate and mature, the mechanisms that propel them forward, and the outcomes that they define and achieve at various stages in relation to public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence. The integrated framework by Kang-Yi [ 11 ] introduces concrete components of partnership purpose formulation and coalition building as the key contexts and mechanisms of PAPs that lead to policy makers’ use of research evidence. The framework consists of three theoretical perspectives: the social partnerships perspective [ 21 , 22 ], the organizational life cycle perspective [ 23 - 26 ], and the realist evaluation perspective [ 27 , 28 ].…”

“…PAPs can play diverse primary functions, including generating knowledge related to the development and implementation of evidence-based policy making and practices, generalizing practices to a larger population, disseminating knowledge related to the implementation of evidence-based practices, and offering technical assistance, such as professional training and program evaluation in improving service quality and outcomes [ 11 ]. Given that public care agencies and academic institutes pursue diverse missions and primary functions, alignment in primary functions between a public care agency and an academic research institute can influence PAP sustainability and use of evidence by policy makers.…”

“…Research evidence was defined as relevant conceptual frameworks or reviews and empirical findings from systematic qualitative, quantitative, or mixed research methods projects [ 38 ]. The study was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Pennsylvania (see Kang-Yi [ 11 ] for the published study protocol).…”