BackgroundClosing the gap between research production and research use is a key challenge for the health research system. Stakeholder engagement is being increasingly promoted across the board by health research funding organisations, and indeed by many researchers themselves, as an important pathway to achieving impact. This opinion piece draws on a study of stakeholder engagement in research and a systematic literature search conducted as part of the study.Main bodyThis paper provides a short conceptualisation of stakeholder engagement, followed by ‘design principles’ that we put forward based on a combination of existing literature and new empirical insights from our recently completed longitudinal study of stakeholder engagement. The design principles for stakeholder engagement are organised into three groups, namely organisational, values and practices. The organisational principles are to clarify the objectives of stakeholder engagement; embed stakeholder engagement in a framework or model of research use; identify the necessary resources for stakeholder engagement; put in place plans for organisational learning and rewarding of effective stakeholder engagement; and to recognise that some stakeholders have the potential to play a key role. The principles relating to values are to foster shared commitment to the values and objectives of stakeholder engagement in the project team; share understanding that stakeholder engagement is often about more than individuals; encourage individual stakeholders and their organisations to value engagement; recognise potential tension between productivity and inclusion; and to generate a shared commitment to sustained and continuous stakeholder engagement. Finally, in terms of practices, the principles suggest that it is important to plan stakeholder engagement activity as part of the research programme of work; build flexibility within the research process to accommodate engagement and the outcomes of engagement; consider how input from stakeholders can be gathered systematically to meet objectives; consider how input from stakeholders can be collated, analysed and used; and to recognise that identification and involvement of stakeholders is an iterative and ongoing process.ConclusionIt is anticipated that the principles will be useful in planning stakeholder engagement activity within research programmes and in monitoring and evaluating stakeholder engagement. A next step will be to address the remaining gap in the stakeholder engagement literature concerned with how we assess the impact of stakeholder engagement on research use.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0337-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveThere is a widely held assumption that engagement by clinicians and healthcare organisations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels, but little direct empirical evidence has previously been collated. The objective of this study was to address the question: Does research engagement (by clinicians and organisations) improve healthcare performance?MethodsAn hourglass-shaped review was developed, consisting of three stages: (1) a planning and mapping stage; (2) a focused review concentrating on the core question of whether or not research engagement improves healthcare performance; and (3) a wider (but less systematic) review of papers identified during the two earlier stages, focusing on mechanisms.ResultsOf the 33 papers included in the focused review, 28 identified improvements in health services performance. Seven out of these papers reported some improvement in health outcomes, with others reporting improved processes of care. The wider review demonstrated that mechanisms such as collaborative and action research can encourage some progress along the pathway from research engagement towards improved healthcare performance. Organisations that have deliberately integrated the research function into organisational structures demonstrate how research engagement can, among other factors, contribute to improved healthcare performance.ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that there is an association between the engagement of individuals and healthcare organisations in research and improvements in healthcare performance. The mechanisms through which research engagement might improve healthcare performance overlap and rarely act in isolation, and their effectiveness often depends on the context in which they operate.

There is a growing interest in ‘evidence-based policy making’ in the UK. However, there remains some confusion about what evidence-based policy making actually means. This paper outlines some of the models used to understand how evidence is thought to shape or inform policy in order to explore the assumptions underlying ‘evidence-based policy making.’ By way of example, it considers the process of evidence seeking and in particular the systematic review as a presumed ‘gold standard’ of the EBP movement. It highlights some of the opportunities and challenges represented in this approach for policy research. The final part of the paper outlines some questions of capacity that need to be addressed if the social sciences are to make a more effective contribution to policy debate in Britain.

BackgroundThe gap between research findings and clinical practice is well documented and a range of interventions has been developed to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice.FindingsA review of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the use of research in clinical practice. A search for relevant systematic reviews was conducted of Medline and the Cochrane Database of Reviews 1998-2009. 13 systematic reviews containing 313 primary studies were included. Four strategy types are identified: audit and feedback; computerised decision support; opinion leaders; and multifaceted interventions. Nine of the reviews reported on multifaceted interventions. This review highlights the small effects of single interventions such as audit and feedback, computerised decision support and opinion leaders. Systematic reviews of multifaceted interventions claim an improvement in effectiveness over single interventions, with effect sizes ranging from small to moderate. This review found that a number of published systematic reviews fail to state whether the recommended practice change is based on the best available research evidence.ConclusionsThis overview of systematic reviews updates the body of knowledge relating to the effectiveness of key mechanisms for improving clinical practice and service development. Multifaceted interventions are more likely to improve practice than single interventions such as audit and feedback. This review identified a small literature focusing explicitly on getting research evidence into clinical practice. It emphasizes the importance of ensuring that primary studies and systematic reviews are precise about the extent to which the reported interventions focus on changing practice based on research evidence (as opposed to other information codified in guidelines and education materials).

BackgroundThere is a widely held assumption that research engagement improves health-care performance at various levels, but little direct empirical evidence.ObjectivesTo conduct a theoretically and empirically grounded synthesis to map and explore plausible mechanisms through which research engagement might improve health services performance. A review of the effects on patients of their health-care practitioner's or institution's participation in clinical trials was published after submission of the proposal for this review. It identified only 13 relevant papers and, overall, suggested that the evidence that research engagement improves health-care performance was less strong than some thought. We aimed to meet the need for a wider review.MethodsAn hourglass review was developed, consisting of three stages: (1) a planning and mapping stage; (2) a focused review concentrating on the core question of whether or not research engagement improves health care; and (3) a wider (but less systematic) review of papers identified during the two earlier stages. Studies were included inthe focused review if the concept of ‘engagementinresearch’ was an input and some measure of ‘performance’ an output. The search strategy covered the period 1990 to March 2012. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science and other relevant databases were searched. A total of 10,239 papers were identified through the database searches, and 159 from other sources. A further relevance and quality check on 473 papers was undertaken, and identified 33 papers for inclusion in the review. A standard meta-analysis was not possible on the heterogeneous mix of papers in the focused review. Therefore an explanatory matrix was developed to help characterise the circumstances in which research engagement might improve health-care performance and the mechanisms that might be at work, identifying two main dimensions along which to categorise the studies:the degree of intentionalityandthe scope of the impact.ResultsOf the 33 papers in the focused review, 28 were positive (of which six were positive/mixed) in relation to the question of whether or not research engagement improves health-care performance. Five papers were negative (of which two were negative/mixed). Seven out of 28 positive papers reported some improvement in health outcomes. For the rest, the improved care took the form of improved processes of care. Nine positive papers were at a clinician level and 19 at an institutional level. The wider review demonstrated, for example, how collaborative and action research can encourage some progress along the pathway from research engagement towards improved health-care performance. There is also evidence that organisations in which the research function is fully integrated into the organisational structure out-perform other organisations that pay less formal heed to research and its outputs. The focused and wider reviews identified the diversity in the mechanisms through which research engagement might improve health care: there are many circumstances and mechanisms at work, more than one mechanism is often operative, and the evidence available for each one is limited.LimitationsTo address the complexities of this evidence synthesis of research we needed to spend significant time mapping the literature, and narrowed the research question to make it feasible. We excluded many potentially relevant papers (though we partially addressed this by conducting a wider additional synthesis). Studies assessing the impact made on clinician behaviour by small, locally conducted pieces of research could be difficult to interpret without full knowledge of the context.ConclusionsDrawing on the focused and wider reviews, it is suggested that when clinicians and health-care organisations engage in research there is the likelihood of a positive impact on health-care performance. Organisations that have deliberately integrated the research function into organisational structures demonstrate how research engagement can, among other factors, contribute to improved health-care performance. Further explorations are required of research networks and schemes to promote the engagement of clinicians and managers in research. Detailed observational research focusing on research engagement within organisations would build up an understanding of mechanisms.Study registrationPROSPERO: CRD42012001990.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

BackgroundMeasuring, understanding and improving patients’ experiences is of central importance to health care systems, but there is debate about the best methods for gathering and understanding patient experiences and how to then use them to improve care. Experience-based co-design (EBCD) has been evaluated as a successful approach to quality improvement in health care, drawing on video narrative interviews with local patients and involving them as equal partners in co-designing quality improvements. However, the time and cost involved have been reported as a barrier to adoption. The Health Experiences Research Group at the University of Oxford collects and analyses video and audio-recorded interviews with people about their experiences of illness. It now has a national archive of around 3000 interviews, covering around 75 different conditions or topics. Selected extracts from these interviews are disseminated for a lay audience onwww.healthtalkonline.org. In this study, we set out to investigate whether or not this archive of interviews could replace the need for discovery interviews with local patients.ObjectivesTo use a national video and audio archive of patient experience narratives to develop, test and evaluate a rapid patient-centred service improvement approach (‘accelerated experience-based co-design’ or AEBCD). By using national rather than local patient interviews, we aimed to halve the overall cycle from 12 to 6 months, allowing for EBCD to be conducted in two clinical pathways rather than one. We observed how this affected the process and outcomes of the intervention.DesignThe intervention was an adapted form of EBCD, a participatory action research approach in which patients and staff work together to identify and implement quality improvements. The intervention retained all six components of EBCD, but used national trigger films, shortened the time frame and employed local service improvement facilitators. An ethnographic process evaluation was conducted, including observations, interviews, questionnaires, cost and documentary analysis including previous EBCD evaluation reports.SettingIntensive care and lung cancer services in two English NHS hospital trusts (Royal Berkshire and Royal Brompton and Harefield).ParticipantsNinety-six clinical staff (primarily nursing and medical) and 63 patients and family members.InterventionFor this accelerated intervention, the trigger film was derived from pre-existing national patient experience interviews. Local facilitators conducted staff discovery interviews. Thereafter, the process followed the usual EBCD pattern: the film was shown to local patients in a workshop meeting, and staff had a separate meeting to discuss the results of their feedback. Staff and patients then came together in a further workshop to view the film, agree priorities for improvement and set up co-design working groups to take these priorities forward.ResultsThe accelerated approach proved readily acceptable to staff and patients; using films of national rather than local narratives did not adversely affect local NHS staff engagement, and may in some cases have made the process less threatening or challenging. Local patients felt that the national films generally reflected important themes, although a minority felt that they were more negative than their own personal experience. However, they served their purpose as a ‘trigger’ to discussion, and the resulting 48 co-design activities across the four pathways were similar in nature to those in EBCD but achieved at reduced cost. AEBCD was nearly half the cost of EBCD. However, where a trigger film already exists, pathways can be implemented for as little as 40% of the cost of traditional EBCD. It was not necessary to do additional work locally to supplement the national interviews. The intervention carried a ‘cost’ in terms of heavy workload and intensive activity for the local facilitators, but also brought benefits in terms of staff development/capacity-building. Furthermore, as in previous EBCDs, the approach was subsequently adopted in other clinical pathways in the trusts.ConclusionsAccelerated experience-based co-design delivered an accelerated version of EBCD, generating a comparable set of improvement activities. The national film acted as an effective trigger to the co-design process. Based on the results of the evaluation, AEBCD offers a rigorous and effective patient-centred quality improvement approach. We aim to develop further trigger films from the archived material as resources permit, and to investigate different ways of conducting the analysis (e.g. involving patients in doing the analysis).FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Accelerated EBCD offers a rigorous and relatively cost-effective patient-centered quality improvement approach.

IntroductionThe aims of this study were to describe the key features of acute NHS Trusts with different levels of research activity and to investigate associations between research activity and clinical outcomes.MethodsNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Comprehensive Clinical Research Network (CCRN) funding and number of patients recruited to NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) portfolio studies for each NHS Trusts were used as markers of research activity. Patient-level data for adult non-elective admissions were extracted from the English Hospital Episode Statistics (2005-10). Risk-adjusted mortality associations between Trust structures, research activity and, clinical outcomes were investigated.ResultsLow mortality Trusts received greater levels of funding and recruited more patients adjusted for size of Trust (n = 35, 2,349 £/bed [95% CI 1,855–2,843], 5.9 patients/bed [2.7–9.0]) than Trusts with expected (n = 63, 1,110 £/bed, [864–1,357] p<0.0001, 2.6 patients/bed [1.7–3.5] p<0.0169) or, high (n = 42, 930 £/bed [683–1,177] p = 0.0001, 1.8 patients/bed [1.4–2.1] p<0.0005) mortality rates. The most research active Trusts were those with more doctors, nurses, critical care beds, operating theatres and, made greater use of radiology. Multifactorial analysis demonstrated better survival in the top funding and patient recruitment tertiles (lowest vs. highest (odds ratio & 95% CI: funding 1.050 [1.033–1.068] p<0.0001, recruitment 1.069 [1.052–1.086] p<0.0001), middle vs. highest (funding 1.040 [1.024–1.055] p<0.0001, recruitment 1.085 [1.070–1.100] p<0.0001).ConclusionsResearch active Trusts appear to have key differences in composition than less research active Trusts. Research active Trusts had lower risk-adjusted mortality for acute admissions, which persisted after adjustment for staffing and other structural factors.