Supporting and enabling health research in a local authority (SERLA): an exploratory study

Abstract

Background The use of research evidence to underpin public health practice and policy decisions in local government is strongly promoted but its implementation has not been straightforward. This study aimed to explore the factors, relationships and processes that contribute towards accessing, using, and generating research evidence that is relevant to local authority public health and social care and shapes its practice. Methods Semi-structured individual interviews with elected councillors, officers directly involved with public health and social care and with community members from one urban unitary authority in South England were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Results Fourteen participants took part in the semi-structured interviews. Local knowledge and evidence are prioritised, and anecdotal evidence is valued. The Director of Public Health was the principal source of information and support. Academics were rarely mentioned as information sources, and their involvement was ad hoc. The use of research evidence varied between individuals and departments, with wider engagement among public health specialists. Key barriers to the use of research evidence included access (not reported among public health professionals), research timeliness, local applicability, competence in finding and interpreting evidence and the role of research evidence within a political context. Public health and adult social care teams are not currently research active or research ready. Major barriers exist due to financial constraints and the socio-political context of local authorities. COVID-19 disrupted siloed ways of working, strengthening and opening potential collaborations within the local authority. This changed perspectives about the value of research but is likely time-limited unless underpinned by sustainable funding. Conclusion Creating strategic level roles within local government to work with the Director of Public Health to champion the research agenda and embedding researchers within and across teams would build capacity for local authorities to sustainably co-create, undertake, and use evidence to better inform future actions.

Examining the influences on the use of behavioural science within UK local authority public health: Qualitative thematic analysis and deductive mapping to the COM-B model and Theoretical Domains Framework

“…However, attempts to use behavioural science were reported to have increased since the COVID-19 pandemic. This supports previous qualitative work (38,63) which reported that public health teams' desire to use behavioural science and wider research evidence within their practice had increased significantly since the beginning of the pandemic. This increased interest is thought to be due to the greater value placed on scientific evidence during this time (63).…”

“…Participants felt that this theory-practice gap could be bridged through the use of contextualised examples, such as case studies, and via the provision of training, guidance tools, checklists and in-house expert support. The need for tools and support to guide the implementation of new knowledge into practice and build capacity has been identified as a facilitator across health systems and local authorities ( 44 , 63 , 67 – 71 ), and was outlined as a key priority within the national strategy produced by PHE and partners ( 8 ). In-house expert support and collaborative partnerships with universities have also been recommended by the Local Government Association ( 72 ).…”

Examining the influences on the use of behavioural science within UK local authority public health: Qualitative thematic analysis and deductive mapping to the COM-B model and Theoretical Domains Framework

“…However, attempts to use behavioural science were reported to have increased since the Covid-19 pandemic. This supports previous qualitative work (35,60) which reported that public health teams' desire to use behavioural science and wider research evidence within their practice had increased significantly since the beginning of the pandemic. This increased interest is thought to be due to the greater value placed on scientific evidence during this time (60).…”

“…Participants felt that this theory-practice gap could be bridged through the use of contextualised examples, such as case studies, and via the provision of training, guidance tools, checklists and inhouse expert support. The need for tools and support to guide the implementation of new knowledge into practice and build capacity has been identified as a facilitator across health systems and local authorities (40,60,(64)(65)(66)(67)(68), and was outlined as a key priority within the national strategy produced by PHE and partners (8). In-house expert support and collaborative partnerships with universities have also been recommended by the Local Government Association (69).…”

Horizon scanning, rapid reviews and living evidence to support decision-making: lessons from the work of the Critical Intelligence Unit in New South Wales, Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…Establishing a strong governance process to underpin the responsiveness and accountability of the unit was key. As described in other jurisdictions, creating strategic roles within government to embed research within and across teams builds capacity for the use of evidence to better inform actions 25. Embedding the CIU within NSW Health structures (with a direct reporting line to the health secretary/incident controller), rather than outsourcing to an academic unit, may have contributed to its success.…”