Search

Abstract Background Effective stakeholder engagement in health research is increasingly being recognised and promoted as an important pathway to closing the gap between knowledge production and its use in health systems. However, little is known about its process and impacts, particularly in low-and middle-income countries. This opinion piece draws on the stakeholder engagement experiences from a global health research programme on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) led by clinician researchers in Brazil, China, Georgia and North Macedonia, and presents the process, outcomes and lessons learned. Main body Each country team was supported with an overarching engagement protocol and mentored to develop a tailored plan. Patient involvement in research was previously limited in all countries, requiring intensive efforts through personal communication, meetings, advisory groups and social media. Accredited training programmes were effective incentives for participation from healthcare providers; and aligning research findings with competing policy priorities enabled interest and dialogue with decision-makers. The COVID-19 pandemic severely limited possibilities for planned engagement, although remote methods were used where possible. Planned and persistent engagement contributed to shared knowledge and commitment to change, including raised patient and public awareness about COPD, improved skills and practice of healthcare providers, increased interest and support from clinical leaders, and dialogue for integrating COPD services into national policy and practice. Conclusion Stakeholder engagement enabled relevant local actors to produce and utilise knowledge for small wins such as improving day-to-day practice and for long-term goals of equitable access to COPD care. For it to be successful and sustained, stakeholder engagement needs to be valued and integrated throughout the research and knowledge generation process, complete with dedicated resources, contextualised and flexible planning, and commitment.

Background: Effective stakeholder engagement in health research is increasingly being recognised and promoted as an important pathway to closing the gap between knowledge production and its use in health systems. However, little is known about its process and impacts, particularly in low-and middle-income countries. This opinion piece draws on the stakeholder engagement experiences from a global health research programme on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) led by clinician researchers in Brazil, China, Georgia and North Macedonia, and presents the process, outcomes and lessons learned. Main body: Each country team was supported with an overarching engagement protocol and mentored to develop a tailored plan. Patient involvement in research was previously limited in all countries, requiring intensive efforts through personal communication, meetings, advisory groups and social media. Accredited training programmes were effective incentives for participation from healthcare providers; and aligning research findings with competing policy priorities enabled interest and dialogue with decision-makers. The COVID-19 pandemic severely limited possibilities for planned engagement, although remote methods were used where possible. Planned and persistent engagement contributed to shared knowledge and commitment to change, including raised patient and public awareness about COPD, improved skills and practice of healthcare providers, increased interest and support from clinical leaders, and dialogue for integrating COPD services into national policy and practice. Conclusion: Stakeholder engagement enabled relevant local actors to produce and utilise knowledge for small wins such as improving day-to-day practice and for long-term goals of equitable access to COPD care. For it to be successful and sustained, stakeholder engagement needs to be valued and integrated throughout the research and knowledge generation process, complete with dedicated resources, contextualised and flexible planning, and commitment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is an ambitious target to create a UK clinical academic workforce representing 1% of clinicians from nursing, midwifery, the allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs). Understanding and recording the impact that clinical academics make across healthcare services is crucial if we are to grow, value and support this highly skilled workforce group. However, it is currently difficult to systematically record, collate and report the impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. The aims of this project were to i) develop a framework outlining the impacts that were important for key stakeholder groups, and ii) create and pilot a research impact capture tool to record these impacts. Methods: The framework was developed from the existing literature. It was refined, remodelled and approved by multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement, including patient and public representatives, healthcare managers and research-active clinicians. The framework was converted into a series of questions to create an electronic research impact capture tool, which was also refined through feedback from these stakeholder groups. The impact capture tool was piloted with research-active clinicians across a large NHS Trust and its associated organisations. Results: The impact framework contained eight elements: clinical background, research and service improvement activities, research capacity building, research into practice, patients and service users, research dissemination, economics and research funding, and collaborations. Thirty individuals provided data for the research impact capture tool pilot (55% response rate). Respondents reported a range of positive impacts representing all elements of the framework. Importantly, research-activity appeared to be a key driver for recruitment and retention in the sample population. Conclusions: The impact capture tool is a feasible method of recording the breadth of impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. We encourage other organisations to collaboratively use and refine our impact capture tool, with the aim of standardising reporting, and facilitating discussions about research activity within clinical appraisal. Pooling and comparing data will also allow comparison between organisations, and assessment of change over time or after implementation of interventions aimed at supporting and increasing research activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background There are increasing opportunities for healthcare professionals outside medicine to be involved in and lead clinical research. However, there are few roles within these professions that include time for research. In order to develop such roles, and evaluate effective use of this time, the range of impacts of this clinical academic activity need to be valued and understood by healthcare leaders and managers. To date, these impacts have not been comprehensively explored, but are suggested to extend beyond traditional quantitative impact metrics, such as publications, citations and funding awards. Methods Ten databases, four grey literature repositories and a naïve web search engine were systematically searched for articles reporting impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine. Specifically, this did not include the direct impacts of the research findings, rather the impacts of the research activity. All stages of the review were performed by a minimum of two reviewers and reported impacts were categorised qualitatively according to a modified VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) framework. Results Of the initial 2704 identified articles, 20 were eligible for inclusion. Identified impacts were mapped to seven themes: impacts for patients; impacts for the service provision and workforce; impacts to research profile, culture and capacity; economic impacts; impacts on staff recruitment and retention; impacts to knowledge exchange; and impacts to the clinical academic. Conclusions Several overlapping sub-themes were identified across the main themes. These included the challenges and benefits of balancing clinical and academic roles, the creation and implementation of new evidence, and the development of collaborations and networks. These may be key areas for organisations to explore when looking to support and increase academic activity among healthcare professionals outside medicine. The modified VICTOR tool is a useful starting point for individuals and organisations to record the impact of their research activity. Further work is needed to explore standardised methods of capturing research impact that address the full range of impacts identified in this systematic review and are specific to the context of clinical academics outside medicine.

Abstract Background Health Research Priority Setting (HRPS) in the Ministry of Health (MOH) Malaysia was initiated more than a decade ago to drive effort toward research for informed decision and policy-making. This study assessed the impact of funded prioritised research and identified research gaps to inform future priority setting initiatives for universal access and quality healthcare in Malaysia. Methods Research impact of universal access and quality healthcare projects funded by the National Institutes of Health Malaysia were assessed based on the modified Payback Framework, addressing categories of informing policy, knowledge production, and benefits to health and health sector. For the HRPS process, the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative methodology was adapted and adopted, with the incorporation of stakeholder values using weights and monetary allocation survey. Workshop discussions and interviews with stakeholders and research groups were conducted to identify research gaps, with the use of conceptual frameworks to guide the search. Results Seventeen ongoing and 50 completed projects were identified for research funding impact analysis. Overall, research fund allocation differed from stakeholders’ expectation. For research impact, 48 out of 50 completed projects (96.0%) contributed to some form of policy-making efforts. Almost all completed projects resulted in outputs that contributed to knowledge production and were expected to lead to health and health sector benefits. The HRPS process led to the identification of research priority areas that stemmed from ongoing and new issues identified for universal access and quality healthcare. Conclusion The concerted efforts of evaluation of research funding impact, prioritisation, dissemination and policy-maker involvement were valuable for optimal health research resource utilisation in a resource constrained developing country. Embedding impact evaluation into a priority setting process and funding research based on national needs could facilitate health research investment to reach its potential.

Background: There are increasing opportunities for healthcare professionals outside medicine to be involved in and lead clinical research. However, there are few roles within these professions that include time for research. In order to develop such roles, and evaluate effective use of this time, the range of impacts of this clinical academic activity need to be valued and understood by healthcare leaders and managers. To date, these impacts have not been comprehensively explored, but are suggested to extend beyond traditional quantitative impact metrics, such as publications, citations and funding awards.Methods: Ten databases, four grey literature repositories and a naïve web search engine were systematically searched for articles reporting impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine. Specifically, this did not include the direct impacts of the research findings, rather the impacts of the research activity. All stages of the review were performed by a minimum of two reviewers and reported impacts were categorised qualitatively according to a modified VICTOR (making Visible the ImpaCT Of Research) framework.Results: Of the initial 2704 identified articles, 20 were eligible for inclusion. Identified impacts were mapped to seven themes: impacts for patients; impacts for the service provision and workforce; impacts to research profile, culture and capacity; economic impacts; impacts on staff recruitment and retention; impacts to knowledge exchange; and impacts to the clinical academic.Conclusions: Several overlapping sub-themes were identified across the main themes. These included the challenges and benefits of balancing clinical and academic roles, the creation and implementation of new evidence, and the development of collaborations and networks. These may be key areas for organisations to explore when looking to support and increase academic activity among healthcare professionals outside medicine. The modified VICTOR tool is a useful starting point for individuals and organisations to record the impact of their research activity. Further work is needed to explore standardised methods of capturing research impact that address the full range of impacts identified in this systematic review and are specific to the context of clinical academics outside medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]