Search

Background: The Bristol Knowledge Mobilisation (KM) Team was an unusual collective brokering model, consisting of a multi-professional team of four managers and three academics embedded in both local healthcare policymaking (aka commissioning) and academic primary care. Aims and objectives: They aimed to encourage 'research-informed commissioning' and 'commissioning-informed research'. This paper covers context, structure, processes, advantages, challenges and impact. Methods: Data sources from brokers included personal logs, reflective essays, exit interviews and a team workshop. These were analysed inductively using constant comparison. To obtain critical distance, three external evaluations were conducted, using interviews, observations and documentation. Findings: Stable, solvent organisations; senior involvement with good inter-professional relationships; secure funding; and networks of engaged allies in host organisations supported the brokers. Essential elements were two-way embedding, 'buddying up', team leadership, brokers' interpersonal skills, and two-year, part-time contracts. By working collectively, the brokers fostered cross-community interactions and modelled collaborative behaviour, drawing on each other's 'insider' knowledge, networks and experience. Challenges included too many taskmasters, unrealistic expectations and work overload. However, team-brokering provided a safe space to be vulnerable, share learning, and build confidence. As host organisations benefitted most from embedded brokers, both communities noted changes in attitude, knowledge, skills and confidence. The team were more successful in fostering 'commissioning-informed research' with co-produced research grants than 'research-informed commissioning'. Discussion and conclusions: Although still difficult, the collective support and comradery of an embedded, two-way, multi-professional team made encouraging interactions, and therefore brokering, easier. A team approach modelled collaborative behaviour and created a critical mass to affect cultural change.

Background: People with severe and multiple disadvantage (SMD) who experience combinations of homelessness, substance misuse, violence, abuse, and poor mental health have high health needs and poor access to primary care. Aim: To improve access to general practice for people with SMD by facilitating collaborative service improvement meetings between healthcare staff, people with lived experience of SMD, and those who support them; participants were then interviewed about this work. Design and setting: The Bridging Gaps group is a collaboration between healthcare staff, researchers, women with lived experience of SMD, and a charity that supports them in a UK city. A project was co-produced by the Bridging Gaps group to improve access to general practice for people with SMD, which was further developed with three inner-city general practices. Method: Nine service improvement meetings were facilitated at three general practices, and six of these were formally observed. Nine practice staff and four women with lived experience of SMD were interviewed. Three women with lived experience of SMD and one staff member who supports them participated in a focus group. Data were analysed inductively and deductively using thematic analysis. Results: By providing time and funding opportunities to motivated general practice staff and involving participants with lived experience of SMD, service changes were made in an effort to improve access for people with SMD. These included prioritising patients on an inclusion patient list with more flexible access, providing continuity for patients via a care coordinator and micro-team of clinicians, and developing an information-sharing document. The process and outcomes improved connections within and between general practices, support organisations, and people with SMD. Conclusion: The co-designed strategies described in this study could be adapted locally and evaluated in other areas. Investing in this focused way of working may improve accessibility to health care, health equity, and staff wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Policymaking decisions are often uninformed by research and research is rarely influenced by policymakers. To bridge this 'know-do' gap, a boundary-spanning knowledge mobilisation (KM) team was created by embedding researchers-in-residence and local policymakers into each other's organisations. Through increasing the two-way flow of knowledge via social contact, KM team members fostered collaborations and the sharing of 'mindlines', aiming to generate more relevant research bids and research-informed decision-making. This paper describes the activities of the KM team, types of knowledge and how that knowledge was exchanged to influence mindlines. Discussion: KM team activities were classified into--relational, dissemination, transferable skills, evaluation, research and awareness raising. Knowledge available included: profession-specific (for example, research methods, healthcare landscape), insider (for example, relational, organisation and experiential) and KM theory and practice. KM team members brokered relationships through conversations interweaving different types of knowledge, particularly organisational and relational. Academics were interested in policymakers' knowledge of healthcare policy and the commissioning landscape. More than research results, policymakers valued researchers' methodological knowledge. Both groups appreciated each other as 'critical friends'. Conclusion: To increase research impact, 'expertise into practice' could be leveraged, specifically researchers' critical thinking and research methodology skills. As policymakers' expertise into practice also bridges the know-do gap, future impact models could focus less on evidence into practice and more on fostering this mutual flow of expertise. Embedded knowledge brokers from the two communities working in teams can influence the mindlines of both. These ambassadors can create improvements in 'inter-cultural competence' to draw academia and policymaking closer.

Qualitative and feminist researchers aim to build rapport, show empathy, be non-judgemental, and equalise power imbalances. A crucial challenge researchers face is how to navigate and balance competing aims and values when interacting with and interviewing participants who have perpetrated intimate partner violence and abuse towards women. In this article, four female researchers evaluating perpetrator programmes for abusive men use reflexive analysis to identify the tensions encountered in such research. We outline how these tensions affected us and the data produced, and end with recommendations, which we hope will help prepare researchers, particularly women, for conducting interviews with violent/abusive men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Health, social care, charitable and justice sectors are increasingly recognising the need for trauma‐informed services that seek to recognise signs of trauma, provide appropriate paths to recovery and ensure that services enable people rather than retraumatise. Foundational to the development of trauma‐informed services is collaboration with people with lived experience of trauma. Co‐production principles may provide a useful framework for this collaboration, due to their emphasis on lived experience, and intent to address power imbalances and promote equity. This article aims to examine trauma‐informed and co‐production principles to consider the extent to which they overlap and explore how to tailor co‐production approaches to support people who have experienced trauma. Methods: Bridging Gaps is a collaboration between women who have experienced complex trauma, a charity that supports them, primary care clinicians and health researchers to improve access to trauma‐informed primary care. Using co‐production principles, we aimed to ensure that women who have experienced trauma were key decision‐makers throughout the project. Through reflective notes (n = 19), observations of meetings (n = 3), interviews with people involved in the project (n = 9) and reflective group discussions on our experiences, we share learning, successes and failures. Data analysis followed a framework approach, using trauma‐informed principles. Results: Co‐production processes can require adaptation when working with people who have experienced trauma. We emphasise the need for close partnership working, flexibility and transparency around power dynamics, paying particular attention to aspects of power that are less readily visible. Sharing experiences can retrigger trauma. People conducting co‐production work need to understand trauma and how this may impact upon an individual's sense of psychological safety. Long‐term funding is vital to enable projects to have enough time for the establishment of trust and delivery of tangible results. Conclusions: Co‐production principles are highly suitable when developing trauma‐informed services. Greater consideration needs to be given as to whether and how people share lived experiences, the need for safe spaces, honesty and humility, difficult dynamics between empowerment and safety and whether and when blurring boundaries may be helpful. Our findings have applicability to policy‐making, funding and service provision to enable co‐production processes to become more trauma‐informed. Public Contribution: Bridging Gaps was started by a group of women who have experienced complex trauma, including addiction, homelessness, mental health problems, sexual exploitation, domestic and sexual violence and poverty, with a general practitioner (GP) who provides healthcare to this population, alongside a support worker from the charity One25, a charity that supports some of the most marginalised women in Bristol to heal and thrive. More GPs and healthcare researchers joined the group and they have been meeting fortnightly for a period of 4 years with the aim of improving access to trauma‐informed primary care. The group uses co‐production principles to work together, and we aim to ensure that women who have experienced trauma are key decision‐makers throughout our work together. This article is a summary of our learning, informed by discussion, observations and interviews with members of the group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two studies examine qualities capturing adolescents' images of ideal bodies for both genders. Data from questionnaires and discussions of photographs indicate that body-image ideals are multidimensional, show systematic gender differences, and become more conventional with age. Adolescents' own body mass links systematically to body-image preferences, with heavier adolescents of both genders distancing themselves from conventional female beauty ideals. (SM)

Abstract Background Group Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) may provide a means of improving mental health among people with depression but few studies have explored its effectiveness. Our aim was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a randomised controlled trial of a group intervention based on CBT principles for women with depression in primary care. Methods Women aged 30 to 55 years were recruited and randomly assigned to either 12 weeks of the group intervention or usual care (control). The group intervention was based on a manual and used CBT and problem solving principles with weekly topics including raising activity levels, spotting and catching negative thoughts, problem solving and relaxation. Women were recruited from deprived areas of Bristol. The groups were run by facilitators with some experience and background in group work and one weeks training in use of the course manual. Assessments of mental health were made using measures including the PHQ-9. Follow-up was at 3 and 6 months after the intervention. Qualitative methods were used to support the design of the intervention and to help understand issues of acceptability and feasibility. Interviews were conducted with all participants at baseline and at 3 and 6 months although detailed qualitative analysis was based on a purposive sample of 20 participants at the 3 time points. Results Of the 86 participants assessed for eligibility, 52 were allocated to the intervention arm and 21 to the control group. The intervention was delivered according to the manual despite the limited training of the facilitators. The intervention was received favourably by participants and facilitators, with good attendance at sessions for those who engaged with the intervention. Follow up rates at 3 and 6 months for women in both the intervention and control arms were also good. The trial methodology used was appropriate and feasible. Conclusions This study showed that a randomised controlled trial of group CBT for women with depression is feasible and the intervention is acceptable, and may possibly prove to be effective in a larger trial. The cost effectiveness of group CBT for depression should be explored further in a full trial. Trial registration NCT00663078

The concept of knowledge co-production is used in health services research to describe partnerships (which can involve researchers, practitioners, managers, commissioners or service users) with the purpose of creating, sharing and negotiating different knowledge types used to make improvements in health services. Several knowledge co-production models have been proposed to date, some involving intermediary roles. This paper explores one such model, researchers-in-residence (also known as 'embedded researchers'). In this model, researchers work inside healthcare organisations, operating as staff members while also maintaining an affiliation with academic institutions. As part of the local team, researchers negotiate the meaning and use of research-based knowledge to co-produce knowledge, which is sensitive to the local context. Even though this model is spreading and appears to have potential for using co-produced knowledge to make changes in practice, a number of challenges with its use are emerging. These include challenges experienced by the researchers in embedding themselves within the practice environment, preserving a clear focus within their host organisations and maintaining academic professional identity. In this paper, we provide an exploration of these challenges by examining three independent case studies implemented in the UK, each of which attempted to co-produce relevant research projects to improve the quality of care. We explore how these played out in practice and the strategies used by the researchers-inresidence to address them. In describing and analysing these strategies, we hope that participatory approaches to knowledge co-production can be used more effectively in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ROGER BURROWS, NICHOLAS PLEACE and DEBORAH QUILGARS (Eds), 1997 London: Routledge 266 pp.; £14.99 paperback; £45.00 hardback ISBN 0 415 154561 hardback; 0 415 15457 X paperback Homelessness and Social [...]