Rycroft-Malone, Jo, Wilkinson, Joyce E., Burton, Christopher R., Andrews, Gavin J., 1970-, Ariss, Steven, Baker, Richard, Dopson, Sue, Graham, Ian D., Harvey, Gill , Martin, Graham P., McCormack, Brendan, Staniszewska, Sophie and Thompson, Carl, DPhil. (2011) Implementing health research through academic and clinical partnerships : a realistic evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). Implementation Science, Vol.6 (No.1). p. 74. ISSN 1748-5908

Preview

PDF WRAP_Rycroft_Malone_1748-5908-6-74.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (456Kb)

Abstract

Background: The English National Health Service has made a major investment in nine partnerships between higher education institutions and local health services called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). They have been funded to increase capacity and capability to produce and implement research through sustained interactions between academics and health services. CLAHRCs provide a natural ‘test bed’ for exploring questions about research implementation within a partnership model of delivery. This protocol describes an externally funded evaluation that focuses on implementation mechanisms and processes within three CLAHRCs. It seeks to uncover what works, for whom, how, and in what circumstances. Design and methods: This study is a longitudinal three-phase, multi-method realistic evaluation, which deliberately aims to explore the boundaries around knowledge use in context. The evaluation funder wishes to see it conducted for the process of learning, not for judging performance. The study is underpinned by a conceptual framework that combines the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services and Knowledge to Action frameworks to reflect the complexities of implementation. Three participating CLARHCS will provide indepth comparative case studies of research implementation using multiple data collection methods including interviews, observation, documents, and publicly available data to test and refine hypotheses over four rounds of data collection. We will test the wider applicability of emerging findings with a wider community using an interpretative forum. Discussion: The idea that collaboration between academics and services might lead to more applicable health research that is actually used in practice is theoretically and intuitively appealing; however the evidence for it is limited. Our evaluation is designed to capture the processes and impacts of collaborative approaches for implementing research, and therefore should contribute to the evidence base about an increasingly popular (e.g., Mode two, integrated knowledge transfer, interactive research), but poorly understood approach to knowledge translation. Additionally we hope to develop approaches for evaluating implementation processes and impacts particularly with respect to integrated stakeholder involvement.

[error in script] [error in script]

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Divisions:	Faculty of Social Sciences > School of Health and Social Studies
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Medical care -- Research
Journal or Publication Title:	Implementation Science
Publisher:	BioMed Central Ltd.
ISSN:	1748-5908
Date:	19 July 2011
Volume:	Vol.6
Number:	No.1
Page Range:	p. 74
Identification Number:	10.1186/1748-5908-6-74
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
Funder:	National Institute for Health Research (Great Britain) (NIHR), Great Britain. Dept. of Health (DoH)
Grant number:	SDO 09/1809/1072 (NIHR)
References:	1. Schuster ME, McGlynn E, Brook RH: How good is the quality of healthcare in the United States? Milbank Quarterly 1998, 76:517-563. 2. Grol R: Success and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Medical Care 2001, 39(8 Suppl 2):1146-1154. 3. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, Kerr EA: The quality of care delivered to adults in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine 2003, 348(26):2635-2645. 4. Clinical Effectiveness Research Agenda Group (CERAG): An Implementation Research agenda Report 2008 [http://preview.implementationscience.com/ content/supplementary/1748-5908-4-18-s1.pdf], (last accessed 13 February 2011). 5. Eccles M, Armstrong D, Baker R, Clearly K, Davies H, Dvaies S, Glasziou P, Illott I, Kinmonth AL, Leng G, Logan S, Marteau T, Michie S, Rogers H, Rycroft-Malone J, Sibbald B: An implementation research agenda. Implementation Science 2009, 4:18. 6. Denis JL, Beaulieu MD, Hebert Y, Langley A, Lozeau D, Pineault R, Trottier LH: Clinical and Organizational Innovation in Healthcare Organizations Ontario: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation/ Fondation Canadienne de la recherché sur les services de santé; 2001. 7. Antil T, Desrochers M, Joubert P, Bouchard C: Implementation of an innovative grant programme to build partnerships between researchers, decision-makers and practitioners: the experience of the Quebec Social Research Council. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 2003, 8(Suppl 2):35-43. 8. Denis JL, Lomas J: Editorial: Convergent evolution: the academic and policy roots of collaborative research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 2003, 8(Suppl 2):S2:1-S2:6. 9. Goering P, Butterill D, Jacobson N, Sturtevant D: Linkage and exchange at the organizational level: a model of collaboration between research and policy. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 2003, 8(Suppl 2): S2:14-S2:19. 10. Bowen S, Martens P, The Need to Know Team: Demystifying knowledge translation: learning from the community. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 2005, 10(4):203-211. 11. Gagliardi AR, Fraser N, Wright FC, Lemieux-Charles L, Davis D: Fostering knowledge exchange between researchers and decision-makers: Exploring the effectiveness of a mixed-methods approach. Health Policy 2008, 86:53-63. 12. Baker R, Robertson N, Rogers S, Davies M, Brunskill N, Khunti K, Steiner M, Williams M, Sinfield P: The Natinoal Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland (LNR): a programme protocol. Implementation Science 2009, 4:72. 13. NIHR: Collaborations for leadership in applied health research and care. Call for proposals to establish pilots 2007 [http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/files/ researchcall/1072-brief.pdf]. 14. Dopson S, Fitzgerald L, Ferlie E, Gabbay J, Locock L: No magic targets! Changing clinical practice to become more evidence based. Health Care Management Review 2002, 27(3):35-47. 15. Rycroft-Malone J, Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B, Seers K, Titchen A, Eastbrooks C: Ingredients for Change: Revisiting a conceptual model. Qual Saf Health Care 2002, 11:174-180. 16. Lomas J, Culyer T, McCutcheon C, McAuley L, Law S: Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) 2005 [http://www.chsrf.ca]. 17. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N: Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professionals 2006, 26:13-24. 18. Hirschkorn KA: Exclusive versus everyday forms of professional knowledge: legitimacy claims in conventional and alternative medicine. Sociol Health Illn 2006, 28(5):533-57. 19. Davies HTO, Nutley S, Walter I: Why ‘knowledge transfer’ is misconceived for applied social research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 2008, 13(3):188-190. 20. Treasury HM: A review of UK health research funding: Sir David Cooksey. London. HM Treasury; 2006 [http://62.164.176.164/d/ pbr06_cooksey_final_report_636.pdf]. 21. Davies HTO, Nutley S, Smith PC: What Works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services Bristol: The Policy Press; 2000. 22. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, McFarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organisations: Systematic Review and Recommendations. The Millbank Quarterly 2004, 82(4):581-629. 23. Dopson S, Fitzgerald L, (Eds): Knowledge to Action? Evidence-based health care in context Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. 24. Harrison MB, Graham ID, Lorimer K, Griedberg E, Pierscianowski T, Brandys T: Leg-ulcer care in the community, before and after implementation of an evidence-based service. CMAJ 2005, 172(11):1447-1452. 25. Davies H, Powell A, Rushmer R: Healthcare professionals’ views on clinician engagement in quality improvement. A literature review London, The Health Foundation; 2007. 26. Nutley SM, Walter I, Davies HTO: Using Evidence: How research can inform public services Bristol: The Policy Press; 2007. 27. Estabrooks CA, Scott S, Squires JE, Stevens B, O’Brien-Pallas L, Watt- Watson J, Profetto-McGarth J, McGilton K, Golden-Biddle K, Lander J, Donner G, Boschma G, Humphrey CK, Williams J: Patterns of research utilization on patient care units. Implementation Science 2008, 3:31. 28. Van de Ven A: Central Problems in the Management of Innovation. Management Science 1986, 32(5):590-607. 29. Nutley S, Davies HTO: Making a Reality of Evidence-Based Practice: Some Lessons from the Diffusion of Innovations. Public Money and Management 2000, 35-42. 30. Iles V, Sutherland K: Organisational change: A review for health care managers, professionals and researchers London: National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation; 2001. 31. Sheldon TA, Cullum N, Dawson D, Lankshear A, Lowson K, Watt I, West P, Wright D, Wright J: What’s the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients’ notes, and interviews. British Medical Journal 2004, 329(7473):999. 32. Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A, Johnston M, Pitts N: Changing the behaviour of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005, 58:107-112. 33. Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Waye Perry B: Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: Review and Synthesis of the Literature. The Millbank Quarterly 2007, 85(4):729-768. 34. McNulty T, Ferlie E: Reengineering health care: The complexities of organisational transformation Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002. 35. McCormack B, Kitson A, Harvey G, Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Titchen A: Getting Evidence into Practice: The meaning of ‘context’. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2002, 38(1):94-104. 36. Scott T, Mannion R, Davies H, Marshall M: Healthcare Performance & Organisational Culture Radcliffe Medical Press: Oxford; 2003. 37. Kitson A, Rycroft-Malone J, Harvey G, McCormack B, Seers K, Titchen A: Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARIHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges. Implementation Science 2008, 3:1. 38. Scott SD, Estabrooks CA, Allen M, Pollock C: A Context of Uncertainty: How context shapes nurses’ research utilization behaviours. Qualitative Health Research 2008, 18(3):347-357. 39. Ferlie E, Fitzgerald L, Wood M, Hawkins C: The nonspread of innovations: The mediating role of professionals. Academy of Management Journal 2005, 48(1):117-134. 40. Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J, The Knowledge Transfer Study Group: How Can Research Organizations More Effectively Transfer Research Knowledge to Decision Makers? The Millbank Quarterly 2003, 81(2):221-248. 41. Wenger E: communities of practice: Learning, Meaning & Identity Cambridge University Press: New York; 1998. 42. Locock L, Dopson S, Chambers D, Gabbay J: Understanding the role of opinion leaders in improving clinical effectiveness. Social Science and Medicine 2001, 53:745-757. 43. Swan J, Scarbrough H, Robertson M: The Construction of ‘communities of practice’ in the Management of Innovation. Management Learning 2002, 33(4):477-496. 44. Gabbay J, le May A, Jefferson H, Webb D, Lovelock R, Powell J, Lathlean J: A case study of knowledge management in multi-agency consumerinformed ‘communities of practice’: implications for evidence-based policy development in health and social services. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine 2003, 7(3):283-310. 45. le May A: communities of practice in Health and Social Care West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2009. 46. Braithwaite J, Westbrook JI, Ranmuthugala G, Cunningham F, Plumb J, Wiley J, Ball D, Huckson S, Hughes C, Johnston B, Callen J, Creswick N, Georgiou A, Betbeder-Maibet L, Debono D: The development, design, testing, refinement, simulation and application of an evaluation framework for communities of practice and social-professional networks. BMC Health Services Research 2009, 9:162. 47. Li L, Grimshaw J, Nielson C, Judd M, Coyle PC, Graham ID: Use of communities of practice in business and health care sectors: A systematic review. Implementation Science 2009, 4:27. 48. Li L, Grimshaw J, Nielson C, Judd M, Coyle PC, Graham ID: Evolution of Wenger’s concept of community of practice. Implementation Science 2009, 4:11. 49. Gabbay J, le May A: Evidence-based guidelines or collectively constructed ‘mindlines?’ Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care? British Medical Journal 2004, 329:1013. 50. Star SL, Griesemer JR: Institutional Ecology. ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 1989, 19(1989):387-420. 51. Guston DH: Stabilizing the Boundary between US Politics and Science: The Rôle of the Office of Technology Transfer as a Boundary Organization. Social Studies of Science 1999, 29(1):87-111. 52. Carlile PR: A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science 2002, 13(4):442-455. 53. Swan J, Bresnen M, Newell S, Robertson M: The object of knowledge: The role of objects in biomedical intervention. Human Relations 2007, 60(12):1809-1837. 54. McGivern G, Dopson S: Inter-epistemic power and transferring knowledge objects in a biomechanical network. Organization Studies 2010, 31(12):1667-1286. 55. ICEBeRG Group: Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions. Implementation Science 2006, 1:4 [http://www. implementationscience.com/content/1/1/4]. 56. Rycroft-Malone J: Theory and Knowledge Translation: Setting some coordinates. Nursing Research 2007, 56(4S):S78-S85. 57. Rycroft-Malone J, Harvey G, Seers K, Kitson A, McCormack B, Titchen A: An exploration of the factors that influence the implementation of evidence into practice. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2004, 13:913-924. 58. Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Titchen A, Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B: What counts as evidence in evidence based practice? Journal of Advanced Nursing 2004, 47(1):81-90. 59. Pawson R, Tilley N: Realistic Evaluation London: Sage Publications; 1997. 60. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K: Realist Synthesis: an introduction. ESRC Research Methods Programme: University of Manchester RMP: Methods Paper 2/2004; [http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/methods/ publications/documents/RMPmethods2.pdf]. 61. Sridharan S, Campbell B, Zinzow H: Developing a Stakeholder-Driver Anticipated Timeline of Impact for Evaluation of Social Programs. American Journal of Evaluation 2006, 27(2):148-162. 62. Sullivan H, Barnes M, Matka E: Building collaborative capacity through ‘theories of change’. Early lessons from the evaluation of health action zones in England. Evaluation 2002, 8(2):205-226. 63. Greenhalgh T, Humphrey C, Hughes J, Macfarlane F, Butler C, Pawson R: How do you modernize a Health Service? A realist evaluation of wholescale transformation in London. Millbank Quarterly 2009, 87(2):391-417. 64. Rycroft-Malone J, Fontenla M, Bick D, Seers K: Protocol-Based Care Evaluation Project Final Report; 2008a. NIHR Service Delivery & Organisation Programme SDO/78/2004; [http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/files/project/78-finalreport. pdf]. 65. Rycroft-Malone J, Fontenla M, Bick D, Seers K: Protocol-based care: Impact on roles and service delivery. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2008, 14:867-873. 66. Rycroft-Malone J, Fontenla M, Bick D, Seers K: A Realistic Evaluation: the case of protocol-based care. Implementation Science 2010, 5(38). 67. Byng R, Norman I, Redfern S: Using realistic evaluation to evaluate a practice-level intervention to improve primary healthcare for patients with long-term mental illness. Evaluation 2005, 11(1):69-93. 68. Marchal B, Dedzo M, Kegels G: A realist evaluation of the management of well-performing regional hospital in Ghana. Health Service Research 2010, 10:24. 69. Pittam G, Boyce M, Sesker J, Lockett H, Samele C: Employment advice in primary care: a realistic evaluation. Health and Social Care in the Community 2010, 18(6):598-606. 70. Weiss CH: The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review 1979, 39(5):426-431. 71. Wilkinson JE: Research impact - hard hitting or subtle change? Worldviews on Evidence-based Nursing 2010, 7(1):1-3. 72. Wilkinson JE, Johnson N, Wimpenny P: Models and approaches to inform the impacts of implementation of evidence-based practice. In Evaluating the Impact of Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice. Edited by: Bick D, Graham I. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell; 2010:. 73. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S: The new production of knowledge - The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies London. Sage; 1994. 74. Denis JL, Lehoux P, Hivon M, Champagne F: Creating a new articulation between research and practice through policy? The views and experiences of researchers and practitioners. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 2003, 8(Suppl 2):S2:44-S2:50. 75. Martens PJ, Roos NP: When Health Services Researchers and Policy Makers Interact: Tales from the Tectonic Plates. Healthcare Policy 2005, 1(1):72-84. 76. Kothari A, Birch S, Charles C: ’Interaction’ and research utilisation in health policies and programs: does it work? Health Policy 2005, 71:117-125. 77. Cargo M, Mercer SL: The Value and Challenges of Participatory Research: Strengthening Its Practice. Annu Rev Public Health 2007, 29(24):1-24. 78. Guba EG, Lincoln YS: 4th Generation Evaluation Newbury Park: Sage; 1989. 79. Kemmis S: Participatory Action Research and the Public Sphere. EDUCATIONAL ACTION RESEARCH 2006, 14(4):459-476. 80. Seale C: The quality of qualitative research Sage: London; 1999. 81. Yin RK: Case study research - design and methods. 3 edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2003. 82. Patton M: Utilization-Focused Evaluation. 4 edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2008. 83. Andrews GJ, Evans J: Understanding the reproduction of health care: towards geographies in healthcare work. Progress in Human Geography 2008, 32(6):759-780. 84. Spradley JP: Participant Observation Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers; 1980. 85. Nowotny H: Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy 2003, 30(3):151-156. 86. Bartunek J, Trullen J, Bonet E, Sauquet A: Sharing and expanding academic and practitioner knowledge in health care. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 2003, 8(Suppl 2):S2:62-S2:68. 87. Huberman AM, Miles MB: Data management and analysis methods. In Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Edited by: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA; 1998:179-210. 88. Kass N, Pronovost PJ, Sugarman J, Goeschel C, Lubomski L, Faden R: Controversy and quality improvement: lingering questions about ethics, oversight and patient safety research. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety 2008, 34(6):349-353. 89
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/37639

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item