Beyond "Two Cultures": Guidance for Establishing Effective Researcher/Health System Partnerships

Understanding the unique and common perspectives of partners engaged in knowledge mobilization activities within pediatric pain management: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Knowledge mobilization (KM) is essential to close the longstanding evidence to practice gap in pediatric pain management. Engaging various partners (i.e., those with expertise in a given topic area) in KM is best practice; however, little is known about how different partners engage and collaborate on KM activities. This mixed-methods study aimed to understand what different KM partner groups (i.e., health professionals, researchers, and patient/caregiver partners) perceive as supporting KM activities within pediatric pain management.

METHODS

This study used a convergent mixed-methods design. Ten partners from each of the three groups participated in interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, where they discussed what impacted KM activities within pediatric pain. Participants then rated and ranked select factors discussed in the interview. Transcripts were analyzed within each group using reflexive thematic analysis. Group-specific themes were then triangulated to identify convergence and divergence among groups. A matrix analysis was then conducted to generate meta-themes to describe overarching concepts. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Unique themes were developed within each partner group and further analysis generated four meta-themes: (1) team dynamics; (2) role of leadership; (3) policy influence; (4) social influence. There was full agreement among groups on the meaning of team dynamics. While there was partial agreement on the role of leadership, groups differed on who they described as taking on leadership positions. There was also partial agreement on policy influence, where health professionals and researchers described different institutions as being responsible for providing funding support. Finally, there was partial agreement on social influence, where the role of networks was seen as serving distinct purposes to support KM. Quantitative analyses indicated that partner groups shared similar priorities (e.g., team relationships, communication quality) when it came to supporting KM in pediatric pain.

CONCLUSIONS

While partners share many needs in common, there is also nuance in how they wish to be engaged in KM activities as well as the contexts in which they work. Strategies must be introduced to address these nuances to promote effective engagement in KM to increase the impact of evidence in pediatric pain.

Reconceptualizing Integrated Knowledge Translation goals: a case study on basic and clinical science investigating the causes and consequences of food allergy

BACKGROUND

Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) and other forms of research co-production are increasingly recognized as valuable approaches to knowledge creation as a way to better facilitate the implementation of scientific findings. However, the nature of some scientific work can preclude direct knowledge to action as a likely outcome. Do IKT approaches have value in such cases?

METHODS

This study used a qualitative case study approach to better understand the function of IKT in a non-traditional application: basic and clinical science investigating the causes and consequences of food allergy. Building off previous baseline findings, data were obtained through in-depth interviews with project scientists and steering committee members and complemented by researcher observation. Data were analyzed through an integrated approach to understand how well participants perceived the stipulated project IKT outcomes had been met and to better understand the relationship between different forms of IKT goals, outcomes, and impacts.

RESULTS

We propose a conceptual model which builds temporal continuity into the IKT work and understands success beyond truncated timelines of any one project. The model proposes project IKT goals be conceptualized through three metaphorical tower blocks: foundational (changing the culture for both scientists and knowledge-users), laying the groundwork (building relationships, networks and sparking scientific inquiry), and putting scientific knowledge to action. Based on this model, this case study demonstrated notable success at the foundational and intermediate blocks, though did not turn basic and clinical research knowledge into actionable outcomes within the project timespan.

CONCLUSIONS

We find that current IKT literature which situates success as filling a knowledge to action gap is conceptually inadequate for understanding the full contributions of IKT activities. This work highlights the need for building cultural and scientific familiarity with IKT in order to better enable knowledge to action translation. Improving understanding and communication of science and empowering knowledge-users to engage with the research agenda are long-term strategies to build towards knowledge implementation and lay the ground work for many future research projects.

The Maritime SPOR SUPPORT Unit (MSSU) Bridge Process: An Integrated Knowledge Translation Approach to Address Priority Health Issues and Increase Collaborative Research in Nova Scotia, Canada

BACKGROUND

There is evidence of the benefits of integrated knowledge translation (IKT), yet there is limited research outlining the purpose of a knowledge broker (KB) within this approach. The Maritime SPOR SUPPORT Unit (MSSU) acts as a KB to support patient-oriented research across the Maritime provinces in Canada. The "Bridge Process" was developed by the Nova Scotia (NS) site as a strategy that involves work leading up to and following the Bridge Event. The process supports research addressing priority health topics discussed at the event by stakeholder groups. The objectives of this paper were to (1) describe the outputs/outcomes of this IKT approach; and (2) examine the role of the KB.

METHODS

Quantitative data were collected from registration and evaluation surveys. Outputs are described with descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were collected through evaluation surveys and internal documents. Data related to KB tasks were categorized into three domains: (1) Knowledge Manager, (2) Linkage and Exchange Agent, and (3) Capacity Developer.

RESULTS

The Bridge Process was implemented four times. A total of 314 participants including government, health, patient/citizen, community, and research personnel attended the events. We identified 24 priority topics, with 7 led by teams receiving support to complete related projects. Participants reported improved understanding of the research gaps and policy needs and engaged with individuals they would not have otherwise. Although patients/citizens attended each Bridge Event, only 61% of participants who completed an evaluation survey indicated that they were 'actively engaged in group discussion.' The KB's role was identified in all three domains including Knowledge Manager (eg, defining questions), Linkage and Exchange Agent (eg, engaging stakeholders), and Capacity Builder (eg, research interpretation).

CONCLUSION

The MSSU facilitated an IKT approach by acting as a KB throughout the Bridge Process. This deliberative and sequential process served as an effective strategy to increase collaborative health research in the province.

An Iterative, Participatory Approach to Developing a Neighborhood-Level Indicator System of Health and Wellbeing

Despite increased awareness of the essential role of neighborhood characteristics for residents' health and wellbeing, the development of neighborhood-level indicator systems has received relatively little attention to date. To address this gap, we describe the participatory development process of a small-area indicator system that includes information on local health needs in a pilot neighborhood in the German city of Mannheim. To identify relevant indicators, we partnered with representatives of the city's public health department and used an iterative approach that included multiple Plan-Do-Check-Act cycles with ongoing feedback from local key stakeholders. The described process resulted in a web-based indicator system with a total of 86 indicators. Additionally, 123 indicators were perceived as relevant by stakeholders but could not be included due to data unavailability. Overall, stakeholders evaluated the participatory approach as useful. Even though the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the lack of some data elements hindered instrument development, close collaboration with public health partners facilitated the process. To identify and target sub-national health inequalities, we encourage local public health stakeholders to develop meaningful and useful neighborhood-level indicator systems, building on our experiences from the applied development process and considering identified barriers and facilitators.

Researchers' and Research Users' Experiences With and Reasons for Working Together in Spinal Cord Injury Research Partnerships: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Research partnership approaches are becoming popular within spinal cord injury (SCI) health research system, providing opportunities to explore experiences of and learn from SCI research partnership champions. This study aimed to explore and describe SCI researchers' and research users' (RU') experiences with and reasons for conducting and/or disseminating (health) research in partnership in order to gain more insight into potentially ways to build capacity for and foster change to support research partnerships within a health research system.

METHODS

Underpinned by a pragmatic perspective, ten semi-structured timeline interviews were conducted with researchers and RU who have experiences with SCI research partnerships. Interviews focused on experiences in participants' lives that have led them to become a person who conducts and/or disseminates research in partnership. Data were analysed using narrative thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We identified three threads from participants' stories: (1) seeing and valuing different perspectives, (2) inspirational role models, and (3) relational and personal aspect of research partnerships. We identified sub-threads related to experiences that participants draw on how they came to be a person who engage in (health) research partnerships, and sub-threads related to participants' reasons for engaging in research partnerships. While most sub-threads were identified from both researchers' and RU' perspectives (eg, partnership successes and failures), some were unique for researchers (morally the right thing to do) or RU (advocating).

CONCLUSION

Using a narrative and pragmatic approach, this study provided a new understanding of SCI researchers' and RU' partnership experiences over time. We found that participants' research partnership experiences and motivations align with components of leadership theories. The findings from this study may be used to inform strategies and policy programs to build capacity for conducting and disseminating (health) research in partnership, within and beyond SCI research.

Systematic overviews of partnership principles and strategies identified from health research about spinal cord injury and related health conditions: A scoping review

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping review.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and provide systematic overviews of partnership principles and strategies identified from health research about spinal cord injury (SCI) and related health conditions.

METHODS

Four health electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were searched from inception to March 2019. We included articles that described, reflected, and/or evaluated one or more collaborative research activities in health research about SCI, stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, amputation, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, acquired brain injury, or wheelchair-users. Partnership principles (i.e. norms or values) and strategies (i.e. observable actions) were extracted and analyzed using directed qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

We included 39 articles about SCI (n = 13), stroke (n = 15), multiple sclerosis (n = 5), amputation (n = 2), cerebral palsy (n = 2), Parkinson's disease (n = 1), and wheelchair users (n = 1). We extracted 110 principles and synthesized them into 13 overarching principles. Principles related to building and maintaining relationships between researchers and research users were most frequently reported. We identified 32 strategies that could be applied at various phases of the research process and 26 strategies that were specific to a research phase (planning, conduct, or dissemination).

CONCLUSION

We provided systematic overviews of principles and strategies for research partnerships. These could be used by researchers and research users who want to work in partnership to plan, conduct and/or disseminate their SCI research. The findings informed the development of the new SCI Integrated Knowledge Translation Guiding Principles (www.iktprinciples.com) and will support the implementation of these Principles within the SCI research system.

Pressure Injury Surveillance and Prevention in Australia: Monash Partners Capacity Building Framework

A hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) is a common complication across the globe. The severity of HAPI ranges from skin redness and no skin breakdown to full skin and tissue loss, exposing the tendons and bones. HAPI can significantly impact the quality of life. In addition to the human cost, this injury carries a high economic burden with the cost of treatment far outweighing the preventative measures. The HAPI rates are a key indicator of health services performance. Globally, healthcare services aim to reduce its incidence. In Australia, the federal health minister has prioritised the need for improvement in HAPI surveillance and prevention. Capacity building is vital to optimise pressure injury (PI) surveillance and prevention in acute care services. In this perspective article, we provide a framework for capacity building to optimise HAPI prevention and surveillance in a large cross-sector collaborative partnership in Australia. This framework comprises six key action areas in capacity building to optimise the HAPI outcomes, such as research, organisational development, workforce development, leadership, collaboration, and consumer involvement.

Involvement of professionals in research: knowledge integration, development of practice, and challenges: a group concept mapping study

BACKGROUND

Research and practice are often considered as two different worlds with different values, which causes a gap between them. Involving professionals such as practitioners, managers, decision-makers, and policy-makers in research on ageing and health might address the gap between research and practice, strengthen the healthcare system, and increase older people's possibilities for healthy ageing. The aim of this study was to conceptualize professionals' involvement in research on ageing and health from the perspective of the professionals themselves.

METHODS

A mixed method called group concept mapping was used. Professionals with experience being involved in research on ageing and health participated in qualitative data collection through brainstorming sessions (n = 29) and by sorting statements (n = 29). Afterwards, they participated in a quantitative data collection by rating statements according to how much each statement strengthened practice (n = 30) and strengthened research (n = 28). Multidimensional scaling analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis were used to conduct quantitative analysis. Latent qualitative analysis was also conducted.

RESULTS

Analysis resulted in eight clusters which illustrated conceptual areas of professionals' involvement in research projects. The qualitative latent construct of the cluster map resulted in the themes: challenges for professionals; prerequisites and professionals' learning can contribute to development of practice; and integrated knowledge benefits older people. There was a strong correlation between what strengthens practice and research (r = 0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

This study illustrates conceptual areas of professionals' own perspectives on what their involvement in research can lead to. Their involvement may lead to knowledge being integrated, and the professionals may learn through their involvement, which can contribute to the development of practice. However, there can also be challenges that need to be handled when professionals are involved in research. The study can be useful for improving the understanding of and actual involvement of professionals in research, and for optimizing the involvement of professionals.

How does embedded implementation research work? Examining core features through qualitative case studies in Latin America and the Caribbean

Innovative strategies are needed to improve the delivery of evidence-informed health interventions. Embedded implementation research (EIR) seeks to enhance the generation and use of evidence for programme improvement through four core features: (1) central involvement of programme/policy decision-makers in the research cycle; (2) collaborative research partnerships; (3) positioning research within programme processes and (4) research focused on implementation. This paper examines how these features influence evidence-to-action processes and explores how they are operationalized, their effects and supporting conditions needed. We used a qualitative, comparative case study approach, drawing on document analysis and semi-structured interviews across multiple informant groups, to examine three EIR projects in Bolivia, Colombia and the Dominican Republic. Our findings are presented according to the four core EIR features. The central involvement of decision-makers in EIR was enhanced by decision-maker authority over the programme studied, professional networks and critical reflection. Strong research-practice partnerships were facilitated by commitment, a clear and shared purpose and representation of diverse perspectives. Evidence around positioning research within programme processes was less conclusive; however, as all three cases made significant advances in research use and programme improvement, this feature of EIR may be less critical than others, depending on specific circumstances. Finally, a research focus on implementation demanded proactive engagement by decision-makers in conceptualizing the research and identifying opportunities for direct action by decision-makers. As the EIR approach is a novel approach in these low-resource settings, key supports are needed to build capacity of health sector stakeholders and create an enabling environment through system-level strategies. Key implications for such supports include: promoting EIR and creating incentives for decision-makers to engage in it, establishing structures or mechanisms to facilitate decision-maker involvement, allocating funds for EIR, and developing guidance for EIR practitioners.

How do advisory groups contribute to healthy public policy research?

OBJECTIVES

This paper reflects on experiences of Australian public health researchers and members of research policy advisory groups (PAGs) in working with PAGs. It considers their benefits and challenges for building researcher and policy actor collaboration and ensuring policy relevance of research.

METHODS

Four research projects conducted between 2015 and 2020 were selected for analysis. 68 PAG members from Australian federal, state and local governments, NGOs and academics participated in providing feedback. Thematic analysis of participant feedback and researchers' critical reflections on the effectiveness and capacity of PAGs to support research translation was undertaken.

RESULTS

PAGs benefit the research process and can facilitate knowledge translation. PAG membership changes, differing researcher and policy actor agendas, and researchers' need to balance policy relevance and research independence are challenges when working with PAGs. Strategies to improve the function of health policy research PAGs are identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The paper suggests a broader adapted approach for gaining the benefits and addressing the challenges of working with PAGs. It opens theoretical and practical discussion of PAGs' role and how they can increase research translation into policy.

Health system decision-makers at the helm of implementation research: development of a framework to evaluate the processes and effectiveness of embedded approaches

Background

Embedded approaches to implementation research (IR), whereby health system decision-makers participate actively in the research process, are gaining traction as effective approaches to optimise the delivery of health programmes and policies. However, the evidence base on the processes and effectiveness of such collaborative research remains inchoate. Standardised approaches to evaluate these initiatives are needed to identify core elements of ‘embeddedness’, unveil the underlying pathways of change, and assess contribution to evidence uptake in decision-making and overall outcomes of effect. The framework presented in this paper responds to this need, designed to guide the systematic evaluation of embedded IR.

Methods

This evaluation framework for embedded IR approaches is based on the experience of a joint initiative by the Pan American Health Organization/Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, which has supported 19 IR grants in 10 Latin American and Caribbean countries from 2014 to 2017. The conceptualisation of this framework drew on various sources of information, including empirical evidence and conceptual insights from the literature, interviews with content experts, and a prospective evaluation of the 2016 cohort that included semi-structured key informant interviews, document analysis, and a research team survey to examine key aspects of embedded research.

Results

We developed a widely applicable conceptual framework to guide the evaluation of embedded IR in various contexts. Focused on uncovering how this collaborative research approach influences programme improvement, it outlines expected processes and intermediate outcomes. It also highlights constructs with which to assess ‘embeddedness’ as well as critical contextual factors. The framework is intended to provide a structure by which to systematically examine such embedded research initiatives, proposing three key stages of evidence-informed decision-making – co-production of evidence, engagement with research, and enactment of programme changes.

Conclusion

Rigorous evaluation of embedded IR is needed to build the evidence on its processes and effectiveness in influencing decision-making. The evaluation framework presented here addresses this gap with consideration of the complexity of such efforts. Its applicability to similar initiatives is bolstered by virtue of being founded on real-world experience; its potential to contribute to a nuanced understanding of embedded IR is significant.

How to Work Collaboratively Within the Health System: Workshop Summary and Facilitator Reflection

Effectiveness in health services research requires development of specific knowledge and skills for working in partnership with health system decision-makers. In an initial effort to frame capacity-building activities for researchers, we designed a workshop on working collaboratively within the health system. The workshop, based on recent research exploring health system experience and perspectives on research collaborations, was trialed at the annual Canadian Health Services and Policy Research (CAHSPR) conference in May 2019. Participants reported positive evaluations of the workshop. However, further efforts should target health services researchers that may not be as motivated to develop skills in collaborative research. Additional attention to equipping researchers with the skills needed to work in partnerships is recommended, including approaches and materials that avoid oversimplification of complex challenges.

A practical model for research with learning health systems: Building and implementing effective complex case management

For researchers to contribute meaningfully to the creation of learning health systems, practical tools are required to operationalize existing conceptual frameworks. We describe a model currently in use by the University of Wisconsin Health Innovation Program (HIP). The HIP model consolidates and enhances existing learning health system frameworks by defining specific steps needed to create sustainable change based on research conducted within the health system. As an example of the model's application, we describe its use to improve patient identification for the University of Wisconsin health system's case management program. Our case study shows the importance of culture, infrastructure, and strong leadership support in realizing a learning health systems research project and creating sustainable change within the health system. By articulating the foundational elements and steps to conduct research with learning health systems, our model supports researchers in achieving the challenge of moving learning health systems from concept to action.

A literature review of knowledge translation and partnership research training programs for health researchers

BACKGROUND

Researchers and policy-makers are increasingly working together with the goal of creating research that is focused on solving real-world problems; however, knowledge translation (KT) activities, and the partnerships they often require, can be challenging. The aim of this review is to determine the extent of the literature on training programs designed to improve researcher competency in KT and to describe existing training methods that may be used by those hoping to build capacity for partnership research.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched for peer review articles published between January 2000 and July 2019. Studies were eligible for inclusion in the review if they described the development of, curriculum for, or evaluation of KT and/or partnership research training programs. Data extraction included information on evaluation methods, outcomes and implications as well as the format, aims and themes of each capacity-building program.

RESULTS

The review identified nine published articles that met inclusion criteria - four papers described training events, two papers described participant experiences of specific learning sessions within a larger training course, two papers described part time secondments for KT capacity-building and one paper described a plan for KT training embedded within an existing research training course. All programs were delivered face-to-face, all included practical skills-building opportunities, and all employed multiple learning modalities such as seminars and small group discussions. Evaluation of the training programs was primarily conducted through qualitative interviews or feedback surveys.

CONCLUSION

To date, few KT training initiatives have been described in the literature and none of these have been rigorously evaluated. The present review offers insights into the planning, development and participant experiences associated with the small number of training initiatives that have been described. There is insufficient evidence available at present to identify the most effective models for training researchers in KT and partnership skills.

Experience of Health Leadership in Partnering With University-Based Researchers in Canada - A Call to "Re-imagine" Research

BACKGROUND

Emerging evidence that meaningful relationships with knowledge users are a key predictor of research use has led to promotion of partnership approaches to health research. However, little is known about health system experiences of collaborations with university-based researchers, particularly with research partnerships in the area of health system design and health service organization. The purpose of the study was to explore the experience and perspectives of senior health managers in health service organizations, with health organization-university research partnerships.

METHODS

In-depth, semi-structured interviews (n = 25) were conducted with senior health personnel across Canada to explore their perspectives on health system research; experiences with health organization-university research partnerships; challenges to partnership research; and suggested actions for improving engagement with knowledge users and promoting research utilization. Participants, recruited from organizations with regional responsibilities, were responsible for system-wide planning and support functions.

RESULTS

Research is often experienced as unhelpful or irrelevant to decision-making by many within the system. Research, quality improvement (QI) and evaluation are often viewed as separate activities and coordinated by different responsibility areas. Perspectives of senior managers on barriers to partnership differed from those identified in the literature: organizational stress and restructuring, and limitations in readiness of researchers to work in the fast-paced healthcare environment, were identified as major barriers. Although the need for strong executive leadership was emphasized, "multi-system action" is needed for effective partnerships.

CONCLUSION

Common approaches to research and knowledge translation are often not appropriate for addressing issues of health service design and health services organization. Nor is the research community providing expertise to many important activities that the healthcare system is taking to improve health services. A radical rethinking of how we prepare health service researchers; position research within the health system; and fund research activities and infrastructure is needed if the potential benefits of research are to be achieved. Lack of response to health system needs may contribute to research and 'evidence-informed' practice being further marginalized from healthcare operations. Interventions to address barriers must respond to the perspectives and experience of health leadership.

Collaborative health research partnerships: a survey of researcher and knowledge-user attitudes and perceptions

BACKGROUND

Integrated knowledge translation describes the process of partnered research between different stakeholders with the goal of producing research that ultimately achieves a greater impact when put into practice. A better understanding of research partnerships and integrated knowledge translation has implications for future partnerships and collaborative initiatives in practice. Our research describes and expands upon previous work done to identify barriers and attitudes toward collaboration in the context of research funding opportunities that required researcher-knowledge-user partnerships.

METHODS

A survey was sent out to researchers funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and knowledge-users who worked collaboratively on their research projects. There were two mirror versions of the survey, one for researchers and one for knowledge-users. Descriptive statistics, χ² analysis and Mann-Whitney U analysis were used to understand the processes, barriers, perceived impact and sustainability of the partnerships.

RESULTS

The results revealed that, although there were differences in the roles of researchers and knowledge-users, both groups felt very positive towards their partnerships. Some of the barriers identified as inhibiting effective partnerships were resource constraints (funding/time) and differences in contribution and involvement amongst team members. Despite these barriers, both researchers and knowledge-users felt that the partnership was not only sustainable, but also helped create an impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide useful information for funding agencies launching opportunities requiring or encouraging collaborative research projects between researchers and knowledge-users.

What happened and why? A programme theory-based qualitative evaluation of a healthcare-academia partnership reform in primary care

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in and demands for partnerships between academia and healthcare practices. Few empirical studies have described the influence of such partnerships from a practice perspective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a reform launched to increase integration between primary care and academia and to identify potential reasons for why the observed impact occurred in three areas targeted by the reform: research, student education, and continued professional development.

METHODS

The study was conducted in Stockholm County, the largest healthcare region in Sweden, at the introduction of a partnership between primary care and academia, including eight coordinating centres and approximately 500 surrounding primary care units. A programme theory-based qualitative approach to evaluation was used, building on document analysis, and in-depth interviews with the centre managers (n = 6) and coordinators (n = 8) conducted 42-66 months after the initiation of the reform.

RESULTS

The analysis showed that the reform had some impact on all three areas targeted by the reform: research, student education, and continued professional development. The input that contributed most extensively to the impact was the establishment of facilitating roles. Most changes occurred at the coordinating centres and primarily in the area of student education. The effect on student education was primarily due to having prior experience in this area and perceptions of timely benefits of students to care practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Partnerships between primary care and academia hold the potential of practice impact. To increase integration between primary care and academia, the components of the integration must be understandable and relevant for primary care practitioners, and importantly, compliant with delivery of primary care.

Toward Relational Practices for Enabling Knowledge-to-Action in Health Systems: The Example of Deliberative Dialogue

Despite widespread emphasis on evidence-informed decision making in health care, there remain persistent challenges in actualizing this ideal. An integrated strategy to knowledge translation can help bridge perspectives across sectors, communities, and organizations, and bridge the "knowledge-to-action" gap. One such strategy is a deliberative dialogue method. Deliberative dialogue has unique potential to mobilize partnered changes and improvements across health care, and we believe, is most salient when enacted relationally through practices of relational engagement and relational accountability. Drawing from our own scholarship, we reflect on how these practices can help establish both processes and outcomes that can affect meaningful change.

Evidence of commitment to research partnerships? Results of two web reviews

BACKGROUND

Partnerships between academic researchers and health system leadership are often promoted by health research funding agencies as an important strategy in helping ensure that funded research is relevant and the results used. While potential benefits of such partnerships have been identified, there is limited guidance in the scientific literature for either healthcare organisations or researchers on how to select, build and manage effective research partnerships. Our main research objective was to explore the health system perspective on partnerships with researchers with a focus on issues related to the design and organisation of the health system and services. Two structured web reviews were conducted as one component of this larger study.

METHODS

Two separate structured web reviews were conducted using structured data extraction tools. The first review focused on sites of health research bodies and those providing information on health system management and knowledge translation (n = 38) to identify what guidance to support partnerships might be available on websites commonly accessed by health leaders and researchers. The second reviewed sites from all health 'regions' in Canada (n = 64) to determine what criteria and standards were currently used in guiding decisions to engage in research partnerships; phone follow-up ensured all relevant information was collected.

RESULTS

Absence of guidance on partnerships between research institutions and health system leaders was found. In the first review, absence of guidance on research partnerships and knowledge coproduction was striking and in contrast with coverage of other forms of collaboration such as patient/community engagement. In the second review, little evidence of criteria and standards regarding research partnerships was found. Difficulties in finding appropriate contact information for those responsible for research and obtaining a response were commonly experienced.

CONCLUSION

Guidance related to health system partnerships with academic researchers is lacking on websites that should promote and support such collaborations. Health region websites provide little evidence of partnership criteria and often do not make contact information to research leaders within health systems readily available; this may hinder partnership development between health systems and academia.

It's All About the IKT Approach: Three Perspectives on an Embedded Research Fellowship Comment on "CIHR Health System Impact Fellows: Reflections on 'Driving Change' Within the Health System"

As a group of Health System Impact (HSI) postdoctoral fellows, Sim and colleagues offer their reflections on ‘driving change’ within the health system and present a framework for understanding the HSI fellow as an embedded researcher. Our commentary offers a different perspective of the fellow’s role by highlighting the integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach we consider to be foundational to the fellowship experience. Further, we provide several recommendations to enhance Sim and colleagues’ framework to ensure we capture the full value of the fellowship program to the HSI fellow, health system organization, and academic institution.

How are evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers enacted in practice? A qualitative interview study

Background

Evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers are a potential method for producing more relevant research with greater potential to impact on policy and practice. Little is known about how such partnerships are enacted in practice, however, or how to increase their effectiveness. We aimed to determine why researchers and policy-makers choose to work together, how they work together, which partnership models are most common, and what the key (1) relationship-based and (2) practical components of successful research partnerships are.

Methods

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 18 key informants largely based in New South Wales, Australia, who were (1) researchers experienced in working in partnership with policy in health or health-related areas or (2) policy and programme developers and health system decision-makers experienced in working in partnership with researchers. Data was analysed thematically by two researchers.

Results

Researcher-initiated and policy agency-initiated evidence generation partnerships were common. While policy-initiated partnerships were thought to be the most likely to result in impact, researcher-initiated projects were considered important in advancing the science and were favoured by researchers due to greater perceived opportunities to achieve key academic career metrics. Participants acknowledged that levels of collaboration varied widely in research/policy partnerships from minimal to co-production. Co-production was considered a worthy goal by all, conferring a range of benefits, but one that was difficult to achieve in practice. Some participants asserted that the increased time and resources required for effective co-production meant it was best suited to evaluation and implementation projects where the tacit, experiential knowledge of policy-makers provided critical nuance to underpin study design, implementation and analysis. Partnerships that were mutually considered to have produced the desired outcomes were seen to be underpinned by a range of both relationship-based (such as shared aims and goals and trust) and practical factors (such as sound governance and processes).

Conclusions

Our findings highlight the important role of policy-makers in New South Wales in ensuring the relevance of research. There is still much to understand about how to initiate and sustain successful research/policy partnerships, particularly at the highly collaborative end.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-019-0441-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Nurturing Practitioner-Researcher Partnerships to Improve Adoption and Delivery of Research-Based Social and Public Health Services Worldwide

Research-based practices—psychosocial, behavioral, and public health interventions—have been demonstrated to be effective and often cost-saving treatments, but they can take up to two decades to reach practitioners within the health and human services workforce worldwide. Practitioners often rely on anecdotal evidence and their “practice wisdom” rather than on research, and may thus unintentionally provide less effective or ineffective services. Worldwide, community engagement in research is recommended, particularly in low-resource contexts. However, practitioner involvement has not been adequately explored in its own right as an innovative community-engaged practice that requires a tailored approach. The involvement of practitioners in research has been shown to improve their use of research-based interventions, and thus the quality of care and client outcomes. Nevertheless, the literature is lacking specificity about when and how (that is, using which tasks and procedures) to nurture and develop practitioner–researcher partnerships. This paper offers theoretical and empirical evidence on practitioner–researcher partnerships as an innovation with potential to enhance each phase of the research cycle and improve services, using data from the United States, Brazil, and Spain. Recommendations for partnership development and sustainability are offered, and a case is made for involving practitioners in research in order to advance social justice by amplifying the local relevance of research, increasing the likelihood of dissemination to community settings, and securing the sustainability of research-based interventions in practice settings.

Blending integrated knowledge translation with global health governance: an approach for advancing action on a wicked problem

BACKGROUND

The persistence of health inequities is a wicked problem for which there is strong evidence of causal roots in the maldistribution of power, resources and money within and between countries. Though the evidence is clear, the solutions are far from straightforward. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) ought to be well suited for designing evidence-informed solutions, yet current frameworks are limited in their capacity to navigate complexity. Global health governance (GHG) also ought to be well suited to advance action, but a lack of accountability, inclusion and integration of evidence gives rise to politically driven action. Recognising a persistent struggle for meaningful action, we invite contemplation about how blending IKT with GHG could leverage the strengths of both processes to advance health equity.

DISCUSSION

Action on root causes of health inequities implicates disruption of structures and systems that shape how society is organised. This infinitely complex work demands sophisticated examination of drivers and disrupters of inequities and a vast imagination for who (and what) should be engaged. Yet, underlying tendencies toward reductionism seem to drive superficial responses. Where IKT models lack consideration of issues of power and provide little direction for how to support cohesive efforts toward a common goal, recent calls from the field of GHG may provide insight into these issues. Additionally, though GHG is criticised for its lack of attention to using evidence, IKT offers approaches and strategies for collaborative processes of generating and refining knowledge. Contemplating the inclusion of governance in IKT requires re-examining roles, responsibilities, power and voice in processes of connecting knowledge with action. We argue for expanding IKT models to include GHG as a means of considering the complexity of issues and opening new possibilities for evidence-informed action on wicked problems.

CONCLUSION

Integrated learning between these two fields, adopting principles of GHG alongside the strategies of IKT, is a promising opportunity to strengthen leadership for health equity action.

Variable participation of knowledge users in cancer health services research: results of a multiple case study

BACKGROUND

Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a research approach in which knowledge users (KUs) co-produce research. The rationale for IKT is that it leads to research that is more relevant and useful to KUs, thereby accelerating uptake of findings. The aim of the current study was to evaluate IKT activities within a cancer health services research network in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

An embedded multiple case study design was used. The cases were 5 individual studies within an overarching cancer health services research network. These studies focused on one of the following topics: case costing of cancer treatment, lung cancer surgery policy analysis, patient and provider-reported outcomes, colorectal cancer screening, and a team approach to women's survivorship. We conducted document reviews and held semi-structured interviews with researchers, KUs, and other stakeholders within a cancer system organization. The analysis examined patterns across and within cases.

RESULTS

Researchers and their respective knowledge users from 4 of the 5 cases agreed to participate. Eighteen individuals from 4 cases were interviewed. In 3 of 4 cases, there were mismatched expectations between researchers and KUs regarding KU role; participants recommended that expectations be made explicit from the beginning of the collaboration. KUs perceived that frequent KU turnover may have affected both KU engagement and the uptake of study results within the organization. Researchers and KUs found that sharing research results was challenging because the organization lacked a framework for knowledge translation. Uptake of research findings appeared to be related to the researcher having an embedded role in the cancer system organization and/or close alignment of the study with organizational priorities. Document reviews found evidence of planned IKT strategies in 3 of 4 cases; however, actual KU role/engagement on research teams was variable.

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers to KU co-production of cancer health services research include mismatched expectations of KU role and frequent KU turnover. When a research study directly aligns with organizational priorities, it appears more likely that results will be considered in programming. Research teams that take an IKT approach should consider specific strategies to address barriers to KU engagement.

Advancing the evaluation of integrated knowledge translation

Background

Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) flows from the premise that knowledge co-produced with decision-makers is more likely to inform subsequent decisions. However, evaluations of manager/policy-maker-focused IKT often concentrate on intermediate outcomes, stopping short of assessing whether research findings have contributed to identifiable organisational action. Such hesitancy may reflect the difficulty of tracing the causes of this distal, multifactorial outcome. This paper elucidates how an approach based on realistic evaluation could advance the field.

Main Text

Realistic evaluation views outcomes as a joint product of intervention mechanisms and context. Through identification of context–mechanism–outcome configurations, it enables the systematic testing and refinement of ‘mid-range theory’ applicable to diverse interventions that share a similar underlying logic of action. The ‘context-sensitive causal chain’ diagram, a tool adapted from the broader theory-based evaluation literature, offers a useful means of visualising the posited chain from activities to outcomes via mechanisms, and the context factors that facilitate or disrupt each linkage (e.g. activity–mechanism, mechanism–outcome).

Drawing on relevant literature, this paper proposes a context-sensitive causal chain by which IKT may generate instrumental use of research findings (i.e. direct use to make a concrete decision) and identifies an existing tool to assess this outcome, then adapts the chain to describe a more subtle, indirect pathway of influence. Key mechanisms include capacity- and relationship-building among researchers and decision-makers, changes in the (perceived) credibility and usability of findings, changes in decision-makers’ beliefs and attitudes, and incorporation of new knowledge in an actual decision. Project-specific context factors may impinge upon each linkage; equally important is the organisation’s absorptive capacity, namely its overall ability to acquire, assimilate and apply knowledge. Given a sufficiently poor decision-making environment, even well-implemented IKT that triggers important mechanisms may fall short of its desired outcomes. Further research may identify additional mechanisms and context factors.

Conclusion

By investigating ‘what it is about an intervention that works, for whom, under what conditions’, realistic evaluation addresses questions of causality head-on without sacrificing complexity. A realist approach could contribute greatly to our ability to assess – and, ultimately, to increase – the value of IKT.

'Collective making' as knowledge mobilisation: the contribution of participatory design in the co-creation of knowledge in healthcare

The discourse in healthcare Knowledge Mobilisation (KMb) literature has shifted from simple, linear models of research knowledge production and action to more iterative and complex models. These aim to blend multiple stakeholders' knowledge with research knowledge to address the research-practice gap. It has been suggested there is no 'magic bullet', but that a promising approach to take is knowledge co-creation in healthcare, particularly if a number of principles are applied. These include systems thinking, positioning research as a creative enterprise with human experience at its core, and paying attention to process within the partnership. This discussion paper builds on this proposition and extends it beyond knowledge co-creation to co-designing evidenced based interventions and implementing them. Within a co-design model, we offer a specific approach to share, mobilise and activate knowledge, that we have termed 'collective making'. We draw on KMb, design, wider literature, and our experiences to describe how this framework supports and extends the principles of co-creation offered by Geenhalgh et al. [1] in the context of the state of the art of knowledge mobilisation. We describe how collective making creates the right 'conditions' for knowledge to be mobilised particularly addressing issues relating to stakeholder relationships, helps to discover, share and blend different forms of knowledge from different stakeholders, and puts this blended knowledge to practical use allowing stakeholders to learn about the practical implications of knowledge use and to collectively create actionable products. We suggest this collective making has three domains of influence: on the participants; on the knowledge discovered and shared; and on the mobilisation or activation of this knowledge.

Collaborative and partnership research for improvement of health and social services: researcher's experiences from 20 projects

BACKGROUND

Getting research into policy and practice in healthcare is a recognised, world-wide concern. As an attempt to bridge the gap between research and practice, research funders are requesting more interdisciplinary and collaborative research, while actual experiences of such processes have been less studied. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to gain more knowledge on the interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research process by investigating researchers' experiences of and approaches to the process, based on their participation in an inventive national research programme. The programme aimed to boost collaborative and partnership research and build learning structures, while improving ways to lead, manage and develop practices in Swedish health and social services.

METHODS

Interviews conducted with project leaders and/or lead researchers and documentation from 20 projects were analysed using directed and conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

Collaborative approaches were achieved by design, e.g. action research, or by involving practitioners from several levels of the healthcare system in various parts of the research process. The use of dual roles as researcher/clinician or practitioner/PhD student or the use of education designed especially for practitioners or 'student researchers' were other approaches. The collaborative process constituted the area for the main lessons learned as well as the main problems. Difficulties concerned handling complexity and conflicts between different expectations and demands in the practitioner's and researcher's contexts, and dealing with human resource issues and group interactions when forming collaborative and interdisciplinary research teams. The handling of such challenges required time, resources, knowledge, interactive learning and skilled project management.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaborative approaches are important in the study of complex phenomena. Results from this study show that allocated time, arenas for interactions and skills in project management and communication are needed during research collaboration to ensure support and build trust and understanding with involved practitioners at several levels in the healthcare system. For researchers, dealing with this complexity takes time and energy from the scientific process. For practitioners, this puts demands on understanding a research process and how it fits with on-going organisational agendas and activities and allocating time. Some of the identified factors may be overlooked by funders and involved stakeholders when designing, performing and evaluating interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research.

Moving knowledge into action for more effective practice, programmes and policy: protocol for a research programme on integrated knowledge translation

BACKGROUND

Health research is conducted with the expectation that it advances knowledge and eventually translates into improved health systems and population health. However, research findings are often caught in the know-do gap: they are not acted upon in a timely way or not applied at all. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is advanced as a way to increase the relevance, applicability and impact of research. With IKT, knowledge users work with researchers throughout the research process, starting with identification of the research question. Knowledge users represent those who would be able to use research results to inform their decisions (e.g. clinicians, managers, policy makers, patients/families and others). Stakeholders are increasingly interested in the idea that IKT generates greater and faster societal impact. Stakeholders are all those who are interested in the use of research results but may not necessarily use them for their own decision-making (e.g. governments, funders, researchers, health system managers and policy makers, patients and clinicians). Although IKT is broadly accepted, the actual research supporting it is limited and there is uncertainty about how best to conduct and support IKT. This paper presents a protocol for a programme of research testing the assumption that engaging the users of research in phases of its production leads to (a) greater appreciation of and capacity to use research; (b) the production of more relevant, useful and applicable research that results in greater impact; and (c) conditions under which it is more likely that research results will influence policy, managerial and clinical decision-making.

METHODS

The research programme will adopt an interdisciplinary, international, cross-sector approach, using multiple and mixed methods to reflect the complex and social nature of research partnerships. We will use ongoing and future natural IKT experiments as multiple cases to study IKT in depth, and we will take advantage of the team's existing relationships with provincial, national and international organizations. Case studies will be retrospective and prospective, and the 7-year grant period will enable longitudinal studies. The initiation of partnerships, funding processes, the research lifecycle and then outcomes/impacts post project will be studied in real time. These living laboratories will also allow testing of strategies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the IKT approach.

DISCUSSION

This is the first interdisciplinary, systematic and programmatic research study on IKT. The research will provide scientific evidence on how to reliably and validly measure collaborative research partnerships and their impacts. The proposed research will build the science base for IKT, assess its relationship with research use and identify best practices and appropriate conditions for conducting IKT to achieve the greatest impact. It will also train and mentor the next generation of IKT researchers.