Collaborative research and the co-production of knowledge for practice: an illustrative case study

Janet Heaton, Jo Day, Nicky Britten, Janet Heaton, Jo Day, Nicky Britten

Abstract

Background: In 2008, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) began funding a major 5-year pilot research programme of translational research in England, establishing nine 'Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care' (CLAHRCs). A number of evaluations were carried out to examine whether or not the various collaborations worked as intended and why. In this paper, we examine what the theory of co-production adds to understanding of processes of knowledge creation and translation we observed in one of the CLAHRCs.

Methods: A case study of a successful knowledge translation project was identified from our wider realist evaluation of the mechanisms of closer collaboration at play in the CLAHRC. In the project, a computer simulation model of an emergency pathway for acute ischaemic stroke was built to explore if and how the time between the onset and treatment of the condition could be minimised by redesigning the pathway. The aim of the case study was to improve our understanding of the nature and workings of the mechanisms of closer collaboration that were associated with the more successful projects by examining the relevance of the theory of co-production. Qualitative methods of analysis were used to explore the fit between the mechanisms of closer collaboration we observed in the realist evaluation and the principles of co-production we identified from the literature.

Results: We found a close fit between the nine mechanisms of closer collaboration at work in the project and the principles of co-production (active agents; equality of partners; reciprocity and mutuality; transformative; and facilitated). The successful style of collaborative working exemplified by the project was consistent with a strong form of co-production.

Conclusions: In our view, the theory of co-production provides useful insights into what it is about the qualities of collaborative working that inspire the requisite mechanisms for generating knowledge that is translated into practice. The theory provides a potentially useful basis for future knowledge translation programmes and projects in applied health research in a range of contexts.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Concept map of the correspondence between mechanisms of closer collaboration and the core elements of co-production

References

    1. Walshe K, Davies HTO. Health research, development and innovation in England from 1988 to 2013: from research production to knowledge mobilisation. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(Suppl.3):1–12. doi: 10.1177/1355819613502011.
    1. Treasury HM. A review of UK health research funding: Sir David Cooksey. London: HM Treasury; 2006.
    1. Department of Health (DH) Report of the high level group on clinical effectiveness, chaired by Professor Sir John Tooke. London: DH; 2007.
    1. Baker R, Robertson N, Rogers S, Davies M, Brunskill N, Khunti K, et al. The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland (LNR): a programme protocol. Implement Sci. 2009;4:72. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-72.
    1. Nicholson D. Innovation, health and wealth: accelerating adoption and diffusion in the NHS. London: Department of Health; 2011.
    1. Currie G, Lockett A, Enany NE. From what we know to what we do: lessons learned from the translational CLAHRC initiative in England. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(Suppl.3):27–39. doi: 10.1177/1355819613500484.
    1. D’Andreta D, Scarbrough H, Evans S. The enactment of knowledge translation: a study of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care initiative within the English National Health Service. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(Suppl.3):40–52. doi: 10.1177/1355819613499902.
    1. Rycroft-Malone J, Wilkinson J, Burton CR, Harvey G, McCormack B, Graham I. Collaborative action around implementation in Collaborations in Applied Health Research and Care: towards a programme theory. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(Suppl.3):13–26. doi: 10.1177/1355819613498859.
    1. Soper B, Yaqub O, Hinrichs S, Marjanovich S, Drabble S, Hanney S. CLAHRCs in practice: combined knowledge transfer and exchange strategies, cultural change, and experimentation. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(Suppl.3):53–64. doi: 10.1177/1355819613499903.
    1. Martin GP, Ward V, Hendy J, Rowley E, Nancarrow S, Heaton J, et al. The challenges of evaluating large-scale, multi-partner programmes: the case of NIHR CLAHRCs. Evid Policy. 2011;6(4):489–509. doi: 10.1332/174426411X603470.
    1. PenCLAHRC website: Accessed 26 August 2015.
    1. Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic evaluation. London: Sage; 1997/2008.
    1. Heaton J, Day J, Britten N. Inside the 'black box' of a knowledge translation program in applied health research. Qual Health Res. 2015;25(11):1477–91. doi: 10.1177/1049732315580104.
    1. Ostrom E. Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Dev. 1996;24(6):1073–87. doi: 10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X.
    1. Needham C, Carr S. Co-production: an emerging evidence base for adult social care transformation. Research briefing 31. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE); 2009.
    1. Boyle D, Coote A, Sherwood C, Slay J. Right here, right now: taking co-production into the mainstream. Discussion paper. London: Nesta; 2010.
    1. Boyle D, Harris M. The challenge of co-production: how equal partnerships between professionals and the public are crucial to improving public services. Discussion Paper. London: Nesta; 2009.
    1. Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) Co-production in social care: what it is and how to do it. Adults’ Services Guide 51. London: SCIE; 2013.
    1. Pettigrew AM. Co-producing knowledge and the challenges of international collaborative research. In: Pettigrew AM, Whittington R, Melin L, Sánchez-Runde C, van den Bosch F, Ruigrok W, editors. Innovative Forms of Organizing: international perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2003. pp. 352–75.
    1. Martin S. Co-production of social research: strategies for engaged scholarship. Public Money Manage. 2010;30(4):211–8. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2010.492180.
    1. Nutley S. Debate: are we all co-producers of research now? Public Money Manage. 2010;30(5):263–5. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2010.509170.
    1. Hewison A, Gale N, Shapiro J. Co-production in research: some reflections on the experience of engaging practitioners in health research. Public Money Manage. 2012;32(4):297–302. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2012.691311.
    1. Monks T, Pitt M, Stein K, James M. Maximising the population benefit from thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke: a modeling study of in-hospital delays. Stroke. 2012;43:2706–11. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.663187.
    1. Novak JD, Cañas AJ. Theoretical origins of concept maps, how to construct them, and uses in education. Reflecting Educ. 2007;3(1):29–42.
    1. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess R, editors. Analysing Qualitative Data. London: Sage; 1994. pp. 173–194.
    1. Van de Ven AH, Johnson PE. Knowledge for theory and practice. Acad Manage Rev. 2006;31:802–21. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.22527385.
    1. Pearson M, Monks T, Gibson A, Allen M, Komashieb A, Fordyce A, et al. Involving patients and the public in healthcare operational research—the challenges and opportunities. Oper Res for Health Care. 2013;2(4):86–9. doi: 10.1016/j.orhc.2013.09.001.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir