Search

Background: In healthcare, bridging the research-to-practice gap is a top priority. Knowledge mobilisation scholars suggest that this gap can be closed through collaboration between knowledge users and producers. The concept of boundary objects ‐ shared things and ideas that enable communication ‐ has gained popularity across various collaborative work practices, but their potential within knowledge mobilisation in health care is understudied. An ongoing challenge for designers of boundary objects is how to create objects that are valued and shared both in principle and in practice.Aims and objectives: This paper reports on a study of boundary objects used during knowledge mobilisation through NHS-university partnerships called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). The distinction is investigated between boundary objects-in-theory and boundary objects-in-use, considering whether the latter possess specific characteristics which make them more effective during knowledge mobilisation.Methods: A qualitative case study of three CLAHRCs was conducted. Twenty-one people employed as ‘boundary spanners’ were interviewed to explore whether boundary objects played a role in knowledge mobilisation.Findings: The most effective boundary objects-in-use were co-produced through a process of bricolage. These possessed high levels of meaningfulness and resonance, and reconciled multiple user perspectives. Together these properties contributed to the overall authenticity of boundary objects-in-use.Discussion and conclusion: This paper helps to explain why designated boundary objects frequently fail in practice, and why there is a need to focus on understanding boundary objects based on symbolic, rather than structural, dimensions.

Overall health spending across OECD countries accounted for 9.3% of GDP on average in 2012 (OECD Health Statistics 2014). Policymakers are keen to ensure that this money is spent wisely and that healthcare organisations are effi cient, effective and equitable in delivering healthcare services and interventions. They are spurred on by the fact that citizens are also concerned about the cost, quality and accessibility of healthcare. Opinion polls in the UK consistently show that healthcare is one of the three most important issues in deciding which political party the public will vote for (Ipsos MORI 2014). But how can policymakers, health service managers and healthcare practitioners ensure that healthcare funds are spent wisely? One response is that they should pay more attention to what we know as a result of healthcare research. There is widespread recognition that research has the potential to inform and guide the improvement of healthcare services, but there is frustration that this potential is often not fulfi lled (Cooksey 2006; CERAG 2008). A gulf continues to exist between what researchers know (the state of the science) and what practitioners do (the state of the art) (Rycroft-Malone et al. 2013). As a result, the quality, cost and patient experience of healthcare continue to be compromised (Davis 2006).

A group of researchers and practitioners interested in advancing knowledge utilization met as a colloquium in Belfast (KU 11) and used a "world café" approach to exploit the social capital and shared understanding built up over previous events to consider the research and practice agenda. We considered three key areas of relevance to knowledge use: (1) understanding the nature of research use, influence and impact; (2) blended and collaborative approaches to knowledge production and use; and (3) supporting sustainability and spread of evidence-informed innovations. The approach enabled the development of artifacts that reflected the three areas and these were analyzed using a creative hermeneutic approach. The themes that emerged and which are outlined in this commentary are not mutually exclusive. There was much overlap in the discussions and therefore of the themes, reflecting the complex nature of knowledge translation work. The agenda that has emerged from KU 11 also reflects the participatory and creative approach in which the meeting was structured and focused, and therefore emphasizes the processual, relational and contingent nature of some of the challenges we face. The past 20 years has seen an explosion in activity around understanding KU, and we have learned much about the difficulties. Whilst the agenda for the next decade may be becoming clearer, colloquia such as KU 11, using creative and engaging approaches, have a key role to play in dissecting, articulating and sharing that agenda. In this way, we also build an ever-expanding international community that is dedicated to working towards increasing the chances of success for better patient care.

A group of researchers and practitioners interested in advancing knowledge utilization met as a colloquium in Belfast (KU 11) and used a "world café" approach to exploit the social capital and shared understanding built up over previous events to consider the research and practice agenda. We considered three key areas of relevance to knowledge use: (1) understanding the nature of research use, influence and impact; (2) blended and collaborative approaches to knowledge production and use; and (3) supporting sustainability and spread of evidence-informed innovations. The approach enabled the development of artifacts that reflected the three areas and these were analyzed using a creative hermeneutic approach. The themes that emerged and which are outlined in this commentary are not mutually exclusive. There was much overlap in the discussions and therefore of the themes, reflecting the complex nature of knowledge translation work. The agenda that has emerged from KU 11 also reflects the participatory and creative approach in which the meeting was structured and focused, and therefore emphasizes the processual, relational and contingent nature of some of the challenges we face. The past 20 years has seen an explosion in activity around understanding KU, and we have learned much about the difficulties. Whilst the agenda for the next decade may be becoming clearer, colloquia such as KU 11, using creative and engaging approaches, have a key role to play in dissecting, articulating and sharing that agenda. In this way, we also build an ever-expanding international community that is dedicated to working towards increasing the chances of success for better patient care.

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 in-depth 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 ther

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 in-depth 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 ther