Search

Background: With increasing financial pressures on public health in England, the need for evidence of high relevance to policy is now stronger than ever. However, the ways in which public health professionals (PHPs) and researchers relate to one another are not necessarily conducive to effective knowledge translation. This study explores the perspectives of PHPs and researchers when interacting, with a view to identifying barriers to and opportunities for developing practice that is effectively informed by research., Methods: This research focused on examples from two responsive research schemes, which provide university-based support for research-related enquiries from PHPs: the NIHR SPHR Public Health Practitioner Evaluation Scheme 1 and the responsive research service AskFuse 2 . We examined enquiries that were submitted to both between 2013 and 2015, and purposively selected eight enquiries for further investigation by interviewing the PHPs and researchers involved in these requests. We also identified individuals who were eligible to make requests to the schemes but chose not to do so. In-depth interviews were conducted with six people in relation to the PHPES scheme, and 12 in relation to AskFuse. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic framework analysis. Verification and extension of the findings were sought in a stakeholder workshop., Results: PHPs recognised the importance of research findings for informing their practice. However, they identified three main barriers when trying to engage with researchers: 1) differences in timescales; 2) limited budgets; and 3) difficulties in identifying appropriate researchers. The two responsive schemes addressed some of these barriers, particularly finding the right researchers to work with and securing funding for local evaluations. The schemes also supported the development of new types of evidence. However, other barriers remained, such as differences in timescales and the resources needed to scale-up research., Conclusions: An increased mutual awareness of the structures and challenges under which PHPs and researchers work is required. Opportunities for frequent and meaningful engagement between PHPs and researchers can help to overcome additional barriers to co-production of evidence. Collaborative models, such as the use of researchers embedded in practice might facilitate this; however, flexible research funding schemes are needed to support these models.

Background: In 2008, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) began funding a major 5-year pilot research programme of translational research in England, establishing nine 'Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care' (CLAHRCs). A number of evaluations were carried out to examine whether or not the various collaborations worked as intended and why. In this paper, we examine what the theory of co-production adds to understanding of processes of knowledge creation and translation we observed in one of the CLAHRCs., Methods: A case study of a successful knowledge translation project was identified from our wider realist evaluation of the mechanisms of closer collaboration at play in the CLAHRC. In the project, a computer simulation model of an emergency pathway for acute ischaemic stroke was built to explore if and how the time between the onset and treatment of the condition could be minimised by redesigning the pathway. The aim of the case study was to improve our understanding of the nature and workings of the mechanisms of closer collaboration that were associated with the more successful projects by examining the relevance of the theory of co-production. Qualitative methods of analysis were used to explore the fit between the mechanisms of closer collaboration we observed in the realist evaluation and the principles of co-production we identified from the literature., Results: We found a close fit between the nine mechanisms of closer collaboration at work in the project and the principles of co-production (active agents; equality of partners; reciprocity and mutuality; transformative; and facilitated). The successful style of collaborative working exemplified by the project was consistent with a strong form of co-production., Conclusions: In our view, the theory of co-production provides useful insights into what it is about the qualities of collaborative working that inspire the requisite mechanisms for generating knowledge that is translated into practice. The theory provides a potentially useful basis for future knowledge translation programmes and projects in applied health research in a range of contexts.

Calls for successful knowledge translation (KT) in health care have multiplied over recent years. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) program is a policy initiative in the United Kingdom aimed at speeding-up the translation of research into health care practice. Using multiple qualitative research methods and drawing on the ongoing processes used by individuals to interpret and contextualize information, we explore how new organizational forms for KT bridge the gap between research and practice. We pay particular attention to the relationship between the organization and practices of KT and leadership. Our empirical data demonstrate how the relationship between leadership and KT shifted over time from a push model where the authoritarian top-down leadership team set outcome measures by which to judge KT performance to one which aimed to distribute leadership capacity across a wide range of stakeholders in health and social care systems. The relationship between the organization and practices of KT and leadership is affected by local contextual influences on policies directed at increasing the uptake of research in clinical practice. Policy makers and service leaders need to recognize that more dispersed type of leadership is needed to accommodate the idiosyncratic nature of collective action., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

International attention has focussed on the variations between research evidence and practice in healthcare. This prompted the creation of formalized translational networks consisting of academic-service partnerships. The English Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) are one example of a translational network. Using longitudinal, archival case study data from one CLAHRC over a 3-year period (2008-11), this article explores the relationship between organizational form and the function(s) of a translational network. The article focuses on the research gaps on the effective structures and appropriate governance to support a translational network. Data analysis suggested that the policy of setting up translational networks is insufficient of itself to produce positive translational activity. The data indicate that to leverage the benefits of the whole network, attention must be paid to devising a structure which integrates research production and use and facilitates lateral cross-disciplinary and cross-organizational communication. Equally, appropriate governance arrangements are necessary, particularly in large, multi-stakeholder networks, where shared governance may be questionable. Inappropriate network structure and governance inhibits the potential of the translational network. Finally, the case provides insights into the movement of knowledge within and between network organizations. The data demonstrate that knowledge mobilization extends beyond knowledge translation; knowledge mobilization includes the negotiated utilization of knowledge - a balanced power form of collaboration. Whilst much translational effort is externally focused on the health system, our findings highlight the essential need for the internal negotiation and mobilization of knowledge within academia., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The contraction in research within pharma has seen a renaissance in drug discovery within the academic setting. Often, groups grow organically from academic research laboratories, exploiting a particular area of novel biology or new technology. However, increasingly, new groups driven by industrial staff are emerging with demonstrable expertise in the delivery of medicines. As part of a strategic review by Cancer Research UK (CR-UK), the drug discovery team at the Manchester Institute was established to translate novel research from the Manchester cancer research community into drug discovery programmes. From a standing start, we have taken innovative approaches to solve key issues faced by similar groups, such as hit finding and target identification. Herein, we share our lessons learnt and successful strategies., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In contrast to previous studies, which focus upon the professional dynamics of translational health research between clinician scientists and social scientists (inter-professional contestation), we focus upon contestation within social science (intra-professional contestation). Drawing on the empirical context of Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) in England, we highlight that although social scientists accept subordination to clinician scientists, health services researchers attempt to enhance their position in translational health research vis-à-vis organisation scientists, whom they perceive as relative newcomers to the research domain. Health services researchers do so through privileging the practical impact of their research, compared to organisation scientists' orientation towards development of theory, which health services researchers argue is decoupled from any concern with healthcare improvement. The concern of health services researchers lies with maintaining existing patterns of resource allocation to support their research endeavours, working alongside clinician scientists, in translational health research. The response of organisation scientists is one that might be considered ambivalent, since, unlike health services researchers, they do not rely upon a close relationship with clinician scientists to carry out research, or more generally, garner resource., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We contribute to existing knowledge translation (KT) literature by developing the notion of 'enactment' and illustrate this through an interpretative, comparative case-study analysis of three Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) initiatives. We argue for a focus on the way in which the CLAHRC model has been 'enacted' as central to the different KT challenges and capabilities encountered., Methods: A comparative, mixed method study created a typology of enactments (Classical, Home-grown and Imported) using qualitative analysis and social network analysis., Results: We identify systematic differences in the enactment of the CLAHRC model. The sources of these different enactments are subsequently related to variation in formative interpretations and leadership styles, the implementation of different governance structures, and the relative epistemic differences between the professional groups involved., Conclusions: Enactment concerns the creative agency of individuals and groups in constituting a particular context for their work through their local interpretation of a particular KT model. Our theory of enactment goes beyond highlighting variation between CLAHRCs, to explore the mechanisms that influence the way a particular model is interpreted and acted upon. We thus encourage less focus on conceptual models and more on the formative role played by leaders of KT initiatives.

Objectives: There exists a translation gap between academic research and clinical practice in health care systems. One policy-driven initiative to address the translation gap in England are the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs), funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR). These aim to bring together NHS organizations and universities to accelerate the translation of evidence-based innovation into clinical practice. Our aim was to draw out lessons for policy-makers regarding the mobilization of such initiatives., Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with 174 participants across nine CLAHRCs plus in-depth case studies across four CLAHRCs. Those interviewed were staff who were central to the CLAHRCs including senior managers and directors, junior and senior academics, and health care practitioners., Results: Social positions of the CLAHRC leaders, conceived as institutional entrepreneurs, together with the antecedent conditions for CLAHRC bids, had an impact on the vision for a CLAHRC. The process of envisioning encompassed diagnostic and prognostic framing. Within the envisioning process, the utilization of existing activities and established relationships in the CLAHRC bid influenced early mobilization. However, in some cases, it led to a translational 'lock in' towards established models regarding applied research., Conclusions: The CLAHRC experiment in England holds important lessons for policy-makers regarding how to address the translation gap. First, policy makers need to consider whether they set out a defined template for translational initiatives or whether variation is encouraged. We might expect a degree of learning from pilot activities within a CLAHRC that allows for greater clarity in the design of subsequent translational initiatives. Second, policy makers and practitioners need to understand the importance of both antecedent conditions and the social position of senior members of a CLAHRC (institutional entrepreneurs) leading the development of a bid. Whilst established and well-known clinical academics are likely to be trusted to lead CLAHRCs, and the presence of pre-existing organizational relationships are important for mobilization, privileging these aspects may constrain more radical change.

Background: To address the problem of translation from research-based evidence to routine healthcare practice, the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and Lincolnshire (CLAHRC-NDL) was funded by the National Institute for Health Research as one of nine CLAHRCs across England. This paper outlines the underlying theory and its application that CLAHRC-NDL has adopted, as a case example that might be generalised to practice outside the CLAHRC, in comparison to alternative models of implementation., Discussion: Conventional approaches to health research frequently generate evidence in isolation from the environment in which it is intended for use. The premise of the CLAHRC-NDL model is that barriers to implementation can be overcome if knowledge is co-produced by academic and clinical service staff, taking account of the organisational context in which it is to be applied. This approach is founded on organisational learning theory, recognising that change is a social and political phenomenon. Evidence is produced in real time, taking full account of the environment in which it is to be implemented. To support this process, senior health service staff are seconded to the CLAHRC as 'diffusion fellows' (DFs) to actively bridge the research to practice gap by being a full member of both the research team and their area of clinical practice. To facilitate innovation and embed change in the local health community, existing communities of practice are enhanced and new ones are fostered around specific themes. Our approach has been adopted by 16 clinical research studies in the areas of mental health, children and young people, primary care, and stroke rehabilitation., Summary: The CLAHRC-NDL model of implementation applies organisational learning theory by addressing the social and situational barriers and enablers to implementation, and adopting a philosophy of co-production. Two key mechanisms for translation of innovation have been utilised: DFs, to actively bridge the research to practice gap, and communities of practice, to underpin and sustain improvements in healthcare. The model shows promising results in putting research into practice, which may be transferable to other healthcare contexts.