Search

Abstract Background Co-production is an umbrella term used to describe the process of generating knowledge through partnerships between researchers and those who will use or benefit from research. Multiple advantages of research co-production have been hypothesized, and in some cases documented, in both the academic and practice record. However, there are significant gaps in understanding how to evaluate the quality of co-production. This gap in rigorous evaluation undermines the potential of both co-production and co-producers. Methods This research tests the relevance and utility of a novel evaluation framework: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro). Following a co-production approach ourselves, our team collaborated to develop study objectives, questions, analysis, and results sharing strategies. We used a dyadic field-test design to execute RQ + 4 Co-Pro evaluations amongst 18 independently recruited subject matter experts. We used standardized reporting templates and qualitative interviews to collect data from field-test participants, and thematic assessment and deliberative dialogue for analysis. Main limitations include that field-test participation included only health research projects and health researchers and this will limit perspective included in the study, and, that our own co-production team does not include all potential perspectives that may add value to this work. Results The field test surfaced strong support for the relevance and utility of RQ + 4 Co-Pro as an evaluation approach and framework. Research participants shared opportunities for fine-tuning language and criteria within the prototype version, but also, for alternative uses and users of RQ + 4 Co-Pro. All research participants suggested RQ + 4 Co-Pro offered an opportunity for improving how co-production is evaluated and advanced. This facilitated our revision and publication herein of a field-tested RQ + 4 Co-Pro Framework and Assessment Instrument. Conclusion Evaluation is necessary for understanding and improving co-production, and, for ensuring co-production delivers on its promise of better health.. RQ + 4 Co-Pro provides a practical evaluation approach and framework that we invite co-producers and stewards of co-production—including the funders, publishers, and universities who increasingly encourage socially relevant research—to study, adapt, and apply.

Abstract Background Research co-production is an umbrella term used to describe research users and researchers working together to generate knowledge. Research co-production is used to create knowledge that is relevant to current challenges and to increase uptake of that knowledge into practice, programs, products, and/or policy. Yet, rigorous theories and methods to assess the quality of co-production are limited. Here we describe a framework for assessing the quality of research co-production—Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro)—and outline our field test of this approach. Methods Using a co-production approach, we aim to field test the relevance and utility of the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. To do so, we will recruit participants who have led research co-production projects from the international Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network. We aim to sample 16 to 20 co-production project leads, assign these participants to dyadic groups (8 to 10 dyads), train each participant in the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework using deliberative workshops and oversee a simulation assessment exercise using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro within dyadic groups. To study this experience, we use a qualitative design to collect participant demographic information and project demographic information and will use in-depth semi-structured interviews to collect data related to the experience each participant has using the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. Discussion This study will yield knowledge about a new way to assess research co-production. Specifically, it will address the relevance and utility of using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro, a framework that includes context as an inseparable component of research, identifies dimensions of quality matched to the aims of co-production, and applies a systematic and transferable evaluative method for reaching conclusions. This is a needed area of innovation for research co-production to reach its full potential. The findings may benefit co-producers interested in understanding the quality of their work, but also other stewards of research co-production. Accordingly, we undertake this study as a co-production team representing multiple perspectives from across the research enterprise, such as funders, journal editors, university administrators, and government and health organization leaders.

Abstract This editorial provides a comprehensive consolidated overview of the scope and expectations of Implementation Science and Implementation Science Communications. We remain most interested in rigorous empirical studies of the implementation of evidence-based healthcare practices (including interventions, technologies, and policies) and the de-implementation of practices that are demonstrated to be of low or no benefit. Implementation strategies (e.g., continuing professional education, organizational changes, and financial incentives to enhance the uptake of evidence-based practices) are of central interest to the journals. We see the field as large and complex, with a wide literature that is published in many venues. We urge people for whom it is new to spend some time reading the existing literature, and learning the scope of the work that has already been done, and published, in our journals and in an increasing number of other journals in the field.

Abstract The emergence of SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19 affects all of us and is associated with rapid and massive changes in healthcare and societies. As a response, a range of interventions for patients and populations have been implemented in health and preventive settings, or need to be implemented in the short and long term. Implementation science offers a multidisciplinary perspective and systematic approach for the design, evaluation and analysis of programmes and policies to enhance implementation. The emergence of Covid-19 provides an urgent need to develop new perspectives and approaches in implementation science, such as the addition of innovative and rigorous approaches to the collection, use and analysis of ‘real-world’ data. Above all, we hope that implementation scientists will focus on what they can contribute to manage Covid-19 and its consequences for people, healthcare and society.

Abstract Implementation research in health is a rapidly growing field. Fourteen years after the launch of Implementation Science, submissions to the journal have grown exponentially, and the journal now uses a high bar for assessing submitted manuscripts. The field of implementation research in health, however, is growing largely through entry of junior researchers with keen interest in the field whose funding histories and research experience are still developing. We consider it essential to support newer entrants to the field and boundary-spanning work that may consist of smaller, pilot studies, as well as those that contribute primarily descriptive findings. As a companion journal to Implementation Science, Implementation Science Communications will accept a broad and diverse range of article types, and provide an important platform for smaller scale or more descriptive research. As with Implementation Science, no specific discipline, research design, or paradigm will be favoured.

Abstract In the 13 years since the inception of Implementation Science, we have witnessed a continued rise in the number of submissions, reflecting the growing global interest in methods to enhance the uptake of research findings into healthcare practice and policy. We now receive over 800 submissions annually, and there is a large gap between what is submitted and what gets published. To better serve the needs of the research community, we announce our plans to introduce a new journal, Implementation Science Communications, which we believe will support publication of types of research reports currently not often published in Implementation Science. In this editorial, we state both journals’ scope and current boundaries and set out our expectations for the scientific reporting, quality, and transparency of the manuscripts we receive.

Abstract Background Mis-implementation (i.e., the premature termination or inappropriate continuation of public health programs) contributes to the misallocation of limited public health resources and the sub-optimal response to the growing global burden of chronic disease. This study seeks to describe the occurrence of mis-implementation in four countries of differing sizes, wealth, and experience with evidence-based chronic disease prevention (EBCDP). Methods A cross-sectional study of 400 local public health practitioners in Australia, Brazil, China, and the United States was conducted from November 2015 to April 2016. Online survey questions focused on how often mis-termination and mis-continuation occur and the most common reasons programs end and continue. Results We found significant differences in knowledge of EBCDP across countries with upwards of 75% of participants from Australia (n = 91/121) and the United States (n = 83/101) reporting being moderately to extremely knowledgeable compared with roughly 60% (n = 47/76) from Brazil and 20% (n = 21/102) from China (p

Abstract Background Little is known about the contextual factors affecting the uptake of evidence-based chronic disease interventions in the United States and in other countries. This study sought to better understand the contextual similarities and differences influencing the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based chronic disease prevention (EBCDP) in Australia, Brazil, China, and the United States. Methods Between February and July 2015, investigators in each country conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews (total N = 50) with chronic disease prevention practitioners, using interview guides that covered multiple domains (e.g., use of and access to EBCDP interventions, barriers and facilitators to the implementation of EBCDP interventions). Results Practitioners across the four countries reported only a few programmatic areas in which repositories of EBCDP interventions were used within their workplace. Across countries, academic journals were the most frequently cited channels for accessing EBCDP interventions, though peers were commonly cited as the most useful. Lack of time and heavy workload were salient personal barriers among practitioners in Australia and the United States, while lack of expertise in developing and implementing EBCDP interventions was more pertinent among practitioners from Brazil and China. Practitioners in all four countries described an organizational culture that was unsupportive of EBCDP. Practitioners in Brazil, China and the United States cited an inadequate number of staff support to implement EBCDP interventions. A few practitioners in Australia and China cited lack of access to evidence. Partnerships were emphasized as key facilitators to implementing EBCDP interventions across all countries. Conclusions This study is novel in its cross-country qualitative exploration of multilevel constructs of EBCDP dissemination and implementation. The interviews produced rich findings about many contextual similarities and differences with EBCDP that can inform both cross-country and country-specific research and practice to address barriers and improve EBCDP implementation among the four countries long-term.