Bryony Soper

Who needs what from a national health research system:lessons from reforms to the English Department of Health's R&D system

Health research systems consist of diverse groups who have some role in health research, but the boundaries around such a system are not clear-cut. To explore what various stakeholders need we reviewed the literature including that on the history of English health R&D reforms, and we also applied some relevant conceptual frameworks.We first describe the needs and capabilities of the main groups of stakeholders in health research systems, and explain key features of policymaking systems within which these stakeholders operate in the UK. The five groups are policymakers (and health care managers), health professionals, patients and the general public, industry, and researchers. As individuals and as organisations they have a range of needs from the health research system, but should also develop specific capabilities in order to contribute effectively to the system and benefit from it.Second, we discuss key phases of reform in the development of the English health research system over four decades - especially that of the English Department of Healths R&D system - and identify how far legitimate demands of key stakeholder interests were addressed.Third, in drawing lessons we highlight points emerging from contemporary reports, but also attempt to identify issues through application of relevant conceptual frameworks. The main lessons are: the importance of comprehensively addressing the diverse needs of various interacting institutions and stakeholders; the desirability of developing facilitating mechanisms at interfaces between the health research system and its various stakeholders; and the importance of additional money in being able to expand the scope of the health research system whilst maintaining support for basic science.We conclude that the latest health R&D strategy in England builds on recent progress and tackles acknowledged weaknesses. The strategy goes a considerable way to identifying and more effectively meeting the needs of key groups such as medical academics, patients and industry, and has been remarkably successful in increasing the funding for health research. There are still areas that might benefit from further recognition and resourcing, but the lessons identified, and progress made by the reforms are relevant for the design and coordination of national health research systems beyond England.

Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review

Objective There is a widely held assumption that engagement by clinicians and healthcare organisations in research improves healthcare performance at various levels, but little direct empirical evidence has previously been collated. The objective of this study was to address the question: Does research engagement (by clinicians and organisations) improve healthcare performance? Methods An hourglass-shaped review was developed, consisting of three stages: (1) a planning and mapping stage; (2) a focused review concentrating on the core question of whether or not research engagement improves healthcare performance; and (3) a wider (but less systematic) review of papers identified during the two earlier stages, focusing on mechanisms. Results Of the 33 papers included in the focused review, 28 identified improvements in health services performance. Seven out of these papers reported some improvement in health outcomes, with others reporting improved processes of care. The wider review demonstrated that mechanisms such as collaborative and action research can encourage some progress along the pathway from research engagement towards improved healthcare performance. Organisations that have deliberately integrated the research function into organisational structures demonstrate how research engagement can, among other factors, contribute to improved healthcare performance. Conclusions Current evidence suggests that there is an association between the engagement of individuals and healthcare organisations in research and improvements in healthcare performance. The mechanisms through which research engagement might improve healthcare performance overlap and rarely act in isolation, and their effectiveness often depends on the context in which they operate.

CLAHRCs in practice: combined knowledge transfer and exchange strategies, cultural change, and experimentation

Objectives The nine NIHR CLAHRCs are collaborations between universities and local NHS organizations that seek to improve patient outcomes through the conduct and application of applied health research. The theoretical and practical context within which the CLAHRCs were set up was characterized by a considerable degree of uncertainty, and the CLAHRCs were established as a natural experiment. Methods We adopted a formative and emergent evaluation approach. Drawing on in-depth, multi-method case studies of two CLAHRCs we explored how they pursued their remit by supporting efforts to increase the relevance and use of health research, and building relationships. Results Both CLAHRCs: strengthened local networks and relationships; built capacity in their local academic and NHS communities to undertake and use research that meets the needs of the service; developed research and implementation methodologies; and added to understanding of the complex relation between research and implementation. There was evidence of impact of CLAHRC projects on health and social care services. Informed by the literature on implementing collaborative research initiatives, knowledge transfer and exchange and cultural change, some key lessons can be drawn. Conclusion The CLAHRCs pursued a strategy that can be categorized as one of flexible comprehensiveness; i.e. their programmes have been flexible and responsive and they have used a range of approaches that seek to match the diverse aspects of the complex issues they face. Key features include their work on combining a range of knowledge transfer and exchange strategies, their efforts to promote cultural change, and the freedom to experiment, learn and adapt. Although the CLAHRCs do not, by themselves, have the remit or resources to bring about wholesale service improvement in health care, they do have features that would allow them to play a key role in some of the wider initiatives that encourage innovation.

Lessons from the evaluation of the UK's NHS R&D implementation methods programme.

BackgroundConcern about the effective use of research was a major factor behind the creation of the NHS R&D Programme in 1991. In 1994, an advisory group was established to identify research priorities in research implementation. The Implementation Methods Programme (IMP) flowed from this, and its commissioning group funded 36 projects. In 2000 responsibility for the programme passed to the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R&D, which asked the Health Economics Research Group (HERG), Brunel University, to conduct an evaluation in 2002. By then most projects had been completed. This evaluation was intended to cover: the quality of outputs, lessons to be learnt about the communication strategy and the commissioning process, and the benefits from the projects.MethodsWe adopted a wide range of quantitative and qualitative methods. They included: documentary analysis, interviews with key actors, questionnaires to the funded lead researchers, questionnaires to potential users, and desk analysis.ResultsQuantitative assessment of outputs and dissemination revealed that the IMP funded useful research projects, some of which had considerable impact against the various categories in the HERG payback model, such as publications, further research, research training, impact on health policy, and clinical practice.Qualitative findings from interviews with advisory and commissioning group members indicated that when the IMP was established, implementation research was a relatively unexplored field. This was reflected in the understanding brought to their roles by members of the advisory and commissioning groups, in the way priorities for research were chosen and developed, and in how the research projects were commissioned. The ideological and methodological debates associated with these decisions have continued among those working in this field. The need for an effective communication strategy for the programme as a whole was particularly important. However, such a strategy was never developed, making it difficult to establish the general influence of the IMP as a programme.ConclusionOur findings about the impact of the work funded, and the difficulties faced by those developing the IMP, have implications for the development of strategic programmes of research in general, as well as for the development of more effective research in this field.

Benefits from clinicians and healthcare organisations engaging in research.

In Editor’s Choice, Godlee supports and re-emphasises the positive points about National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) clinical research networks that are made in Gulland’s article.1 2 We welcome this support for research networks and for the part they can play in a more fully integrated research and healthcare system. Research engagement by clinicians …