Dataset Information

Taking a systems approach to explore the impacts and outcomes of a research and evaluation capacity building partnership: a protocol.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Partnership models that bring researchers, policymakers and service providers closer together are gaining traction as a strategy to improve public health practice. Yet, there is little evidence of how these models work, or indeed if they do work. The Sexual Health and Blood-borne Virus Applied Research and Evaluation Network (SiREN) is one such model. SiREN is a partnership between researchers, policymakers and service providers that aims to develop the research and evaluation capacity and evidence-informed decision making capability of professionals working to address sexual health and bloodborne virus issues in Western Australia. This study will use a systems approach to identify the mechanisms of action, impacts and outcomes of SiREN and inform the development of evaluation tools. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Data will be collected from organisational documents, surveys, in-depth interviews and a workshop. It will be analysed using a complex adaptive systems lens and findings will be used to inform the development of a type of qualitative systems model called a causal loop diagram. The causal loop diagram will illustrate the: contextual factors influencing engagement; mechanisms of action; and impacts and outcomes of SiREN. Evaluation tools will then be developed that can be used to assess the indicators identified in the causal loop diagram. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval was obtained from the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number: HRE2017-0090). Participants will be free to withdraw from the study at any point and confidentiality will be maintained by de-identifying participant responses in any published or shared data. The findings from this study will be shared in conference presentations, reports, peer-reviewed journals and online through websites and social media.

SUBMITTER: Tobin R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6756426 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Taking a systems approach to explore the impacts and outcomes of a research and evaluation capacity building partnership: a protocol.

Tobin Rochelle R Hallett Jonathan J Lobo Roanna R Maycock Bruce Richard BR

BMJ open 20190920 9

<h4>Introduction</h4>Partnership models that bring researchers, policymakers and service providers closer together are gaining traction as a strategy to improve public health practice. Yet, there is little evidence of how these models work, or indeed if they do work. The Sexual Health and Blood-borne Virus Applied Research and Evaluation Network (SiREN) is one such model. SiREN is a partnership between researchers, policymakers and service providers that aims to develop the research and evaluati ...[more]

PMID: 31542735

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPublic health policy and practice is strengthened by the application of quality evidence to decision making. However, there is limited understanding of how initiatives that support the generation and use of evidence in public health are operationalised. This study examines factors that support the internal functioning of a partnership, the Western Australian Sexual Health and Blood-borne Virus Applied Research and Evaluation Network (SiREN). SiREN aims to build research and evaluation capacity and increase evidence-informed decision making in a public health context.MethodsThis study was informed by systems concepts. It developed a causal loop diagram, a type of qualitative system model that illustrated the factors that influence the internal operation of SiREN. The causal loop diagram was developed through an iterative and participatory process with SiREN staff and management (n = 9) via in-depth semi-structured interviews (n = 4), workshops (n = 2), and meetings (n = 6).ResultsFindings identified critical factors that affected the functioning of SiREN. Central to SiREN's ability to meet its aims was its capacity to adapt within a dynamic system. Adaptation was facilitated by the flow of knowledge between SiREN and system stakeholders and the expertise of the team. SiREN demonstrated credibility and capability, supporting development of new, and strengthening existing, partnerships. This improved SiREN's ability to be awarded new funding and enhanced its sustainability and growth. SiREN actively balanced divergent stakeholder interests to increase sustainability.ConclusionThe collaborative development of the diagram facilitated a shared understanding of SiREN. Adaptability was central to SiREN achieving its aims. Monitoring the ability of public health programs to adapt to the needs of the systems in which they work is important to evaluate effectiveness. The detailed analysis of the structure of SiREN and how this affects its operation provide practical insights for those interested in establishing a similar project.

Project description:IntroductionCollaborative research approaches, such as co-production, co-design, engaged scholarship and integrated knowledge translation (IKT), aim to bridge the evidence to practice and policy gap. There are multiple benefits of collaborative research approaches, but studies report many challenges with establishing and maintaining research partnerships. Researchers often do not have the opportunity to learn how to build collaborative relationships, and most graduate students do not receive formal training in research partnerships. We are unlikely to make meaningful progress in strengthening graduate and postgraduate training on working collaboratively with the health system until we have a better understanding of how students are currently engaging in research partnership approaches. In response, this scoping review aims to map and characterise the evidence related to using an IKT or other research partnership approach from the perspective of health research trainees.Methods and analysisWe will employ methods described by the Joanna Briggs Institute and Arksey and O'Malley's framework for conducting scoping reviews. The reporting will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for scoping reviews checklist. We will include both published and unpublished grey literature and search the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global databases, Google Scholar and websites from professional bodies and other organisations. Two reviewers will independently screen the articles and extract data using a standardised data collection form. We will narratively describe quantitative data and conduct a thematic analysis of qualitative data. We will map the IKT and other research partnership activities onto the Knowledge to Action cycle and IAP2 Levels of Engagement Framework.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required for this study. We will share the results in a peer-reviewed, open access publication, conference presentation and stakeholder communications.

Project description:Inadequate research capacity impedes the development of evidence-based health programming in sub-Saharan Africa. However, funding for research capacity building (RCB) is often insufficient and restricted, limiting institutions' ability to address current RCB needs. The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's African Health Initiative (AHI) funded Population Health Implementation and Training (PHIT) partnership projects in five African countries (Ghana, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania and Zambia) to implement health systems strengthening initiatives inclusive of RCB.Using Cooke's framework for RCB, RCB activity leaders from each country reported on RCB priorities, activities, program metrics, ongoing challenges and solutions. These were synthesized by the authorship team, identifying common challenges and lessons learned.For most countries, each of the RCB domains from Cooke's framework was a high priority. In about half of the countries, domain specific activities happened prior to PHIT. During PHIT, specific RCB activities varied across countries. However, all five countries used AHI funding to improve research administrative support and infrastructure, implement research trainings and support mentorship activities and research dissemination. While outcomes data were not systematically collected, countries reported holding 54 research trainings, forming 56 mentor-mentee relationships, training 201 individuals and awarding 22 PhD and Masters-level scholarships. Over the 5 years, 116 manuscripts were developed. Of the 59 manuscripts published in peer-reviewed journals, 29 had national first authors and 18 had national senior authors. Trainees participated in 99 conferences and projects held 37 forums with policy makers to facilitate research translation into policy.All five PHIT projects strongly reported an increase in RCB activities and commended the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation for prioritizing RCB, funding RCB at adequate levels and time frames and for allowing flexibility in funding so that each project could implement activities according to their trainees' needs. As a result, many common challenges for RCB, such as adequate resources and local and international institutional support, were not identified as major challenges for these projects. Overall recommendations are for funders to provide adequate and flexible funding for RCB activities and for institutions to offer a spectrum of RCB activities to enable continued growth, provide adequate mentorship for trainees and systematically monitor RCB activities.

Dataset Information

Taking a systems approach to explore the impacts and outcomes of a research and evaluation capacity building partnership: a protocol.

Publications

Taking a systems approach to explore the impacts and outcomes of a research and evaluation capacity building partnership: a protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets