Dataset Information

Flipping the paradigm: a qualitative exploration of research translation centres in the United Kingdom and Australia

ABSTRACT: Background Over the past decade, Research Translation Centres (RTCs) have been established in many countries. These centres (sometimes referred to as Academic Health Science Centres) are designed to bring universities and healthcare providers together in order to accelerate the generation and translation of new evidence that is responsive to health service and community priorities. This has the potential to effectively ‘flip’ the traditional research and education paradigms because it requires active participation and continuous engagement with stakeholders (especially service users, the community and frontline clinicians). Although investment and expectations of RTCs are high, the literature confirms a need to better understand the processes that RTCs use to mobilise knowledge, build workforce capacity, and co-produce research with patients and the public to ensure population impact and drive healthcare improvement. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with selected leaders and members from select RTCs in England and Australia. Convenience sampling was utilised to identify RTCs, based on their geography, accessibility and availability. Purposive sampling and a snowballing approach were employed to recruit individual participants for interviews, which were conducted face to face or via videoconferencing. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a reflexive and inductive approach. This involved two researchers comparing codes and interrogating themes that were analysed inductively against the study aims and through meetings with the research team. Results A total of 41 participants, 22 from England and 19 from Australia were interviewed. Five major themes emerged, including (1) dissonant metrics, (2) different models of leadership, (3) public and patient involvement and research co-production, (4) workforce development and (5) barriers to collaboration. Conclusions Participants identified the need for performance measures that capture community impact. Better aligned success metrics, enhanced leadership, strategies to partner with patients and the public, enhanced workforce development and strategies to enhance collaboration were all identified as crucial for RTCs to succeed.

SUBMITTER: Robinson T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7523298 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Large-scale partnerships between universities and health services are widely seen as vehicles for bridging the evidence-practice gap and for accelerating the adoption of new evidence in healthcare. Recently, different versions of these partnerships - often called academic health science centres - have been established across the globe. Although they differ in structure and processes, all aim to improve the integration of research and education with health services. Collectively, these entities are often referred to as Research Translation Centres (RTCs) and both England and Australia have developed relatively new and funded examples of these collaborative centres. METHODS:This paper presents findings from a rapid review of RTCs in Australia and England that aimed to identify their structures, leadership, workforce development and strategies for involving communities and service users. The review included published academic and grey literature with a customised search of the Google search engine and RTC websites. RESULTS:RTCs are complex system-level interventions that will need to disrupt the current paradigms and silos inherent in healthcare, education and research in order to meet their aims. This will require vision, leadership, collaborations and shared learnings, alongside structures, processes and strategies to deliver impact in the face of complexity. The impact of RTCs in overcoming the deeply entrenched silos across organisations, disciplines and sectors needs to be captured at the systems, organisation and individual levels. This includes workforce capacity and public and patient involvement that are vital to understanding the evolution of RTCs. In addition, new models of leadership are needed to support the brokering and mobilisation of knowledge in complex organisations. CONCLUSIONS:The development and funding of RTCs represents one of the most significant shifts in the health research landscape and it is imperative that we continue to explore how we can progress the integration of research and healthcare and ensure research meets stakeholder needs and is translated via the collaborations supported by these organisations. Because RTCs are a recent addition to the healthcare landscape in Australia, it is instructive to review the processes and infrastructure needed to support their implementation and applied health research in England.

Project description:BACKGROUND:People living in rural and remote communities commonly experience significant health disadvantages. Geographical barriers and reduced specialist and generalist services impact access to care when compared with metropolitan context. Innovative models of care have been developed for people living with chronic diseases in rural areas with the goal of overcoming these inequities. The aim of this paper was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of studies investigating innovative models of care for people living with chronic disease in rural areas of developed countries where a metropolitan comparator was included. METHODS:An integrative systematic review was undertaken. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method was used to understand the empirical and theoretical data on clinical outcomes for people living with chronic disease in rural compared with metropolitan contexts and their models of care in Australia, New Zealand, United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. RESULTS:Literature searching revealed 620 articles published in English between 1st January 2000 and 31st March 2019. One hundred sixty were included in the review including 68 from the United States, 59 from Australia and New Zealand (5), 21 from Canada and 11 from the United Kingdom and Ireland. 53% (84) focused on cardiovascular disease; 27% (43) diabetes mellitus; 8% (12) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and 13% (27) chronic kidney disease. Mortality was only reported in 10% (16) of studies and only 18% (29) reported data on Indigenous populations. CONCLUSIONS:This integrated review reveals that the published literature on common chronic health issues pertaining to rural and remote populations is largely descriptive. Only a small number of publications focus on mortality and comparative health outcomes from health care models in both urban and non-urban populations. Innovative service models and telehealth are together well represented in the published literature but data on health outcomes is relatively sparse. There is significant scope for further directly comparative studies detailing the effect of service delivery models on the health outcomes of urban and rural populations. We believe that such data would further knowledge in this field and help to break the deadly synergy between increased rurality and poorer outcomes for people with chronic disease.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the volume and quality of original research in primary care published by researchers from primary care in the United Kingdom against five countries with well established academic primary care.DesignBibliometric analysis.SettingUnited Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands. Studies reviewed Research publications relevant to comprehensive primary care and authored by researchers from primary care, recorded in Medline and Embase, with publication dates 2001-7 inclusive.Main outcome measuresVolume of published activity of generalist primary care researchers and the quality of the research output by those publishing the most using citation metrics: numbers of cited papers, proportion of cited papers, and mean citation scores.Results82,169 papers published between 2001 and 2007 in the six countries were classified as research on primary care. In a 15% pragmatic random sample of these records, 40% of research on primary care from the United Kingdom and 46% from the Netherlands was authored by researchers employed in a primary care setting or employed in academic departments of primary care. The 141 researchers with the highest volume of publications reporting research findings published between 2001 and 2007 (inclusive) authored or part authored 8.3% of the total sample of papers. For authors with the highest proportion of publications cited at least five times, the best performers came from the United States (n=5), United Kingdom (n=4), and the Netherlands (n=2). In the top 10 of authors with the highest proportions of publications achieving 20 or more citations, six were from the United Kingdom and four from the United States. The mean Hirsch index (measure of a researcher's productivity and impact of the published work) was 14 for the Netherlands, 13 for the United Kingdom, 12 for the United States, 7 for Canada, 4 for Australia, and 3 for Germany.ConclusionThis international comparison of the volume and citation rates of papers by researchers from primary care consistently placed UK researchers among the best performers internationally.

Dataset Information

Flipping the paradigm: a qualitative exploration of research translation centres in the United Kingdom and Australia

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets