Evidence of commitment to research partnerships? Results of two web reviews.
Administrative Personnel
/ organization & administration
Canada
Cooperative Behavior
Health Services Research
/ organization & administration
Humans
Interinstitutional Relations
Internet
Leadership
Research Personnel
/ organization & administration
Translational Research, Biomedical
Universities
/ organization & administration
Canadian health systems
Health research
integrated knowledge translation
partnership research
research collaboration
Journal
Health research policy and systems
ISSN: 1478-4505
Titre abrégé: Health Res Policy Syst
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Jul 2019
30 Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
12
03
2019
accepted:
12
07
2019
entrez:
1
8
2019
pubmed:
1
8
2019
medline:
19
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Partnerships between academic researchers and health system leadership are often promoted by health research funding agencies as an important strategy in helping ensure that funded research is relevant and the results used. While potential benefits of such partnerships have been identified, there is limited guidance in the scientific literature for either healthcare organisations or researchers on how to select, build and manage effective research partnerships. Our main research objective was to explore the health system perspective on partnerships with researchers with a focus on issues related to the design and organisation of the health system and services. Two structured web reviews were conducted as one component of this larger study. Two separate structured web reviews were conducted using structured data extraction tools. The first review focused on sites of health research bodies and those providing information on health system management and knowledge translation (n = 38) to identify what guidance to support partnerships might be available on websites commonly accessed by health leaders and researchers. The second reviewed sites from all health 'regions' in Canada (n = 64) to determine what criteria and standards were currently used in guiding decisions to engage in research partnerships; phone follow-up ensured all relevant information was collected. Absence of guidance on partnerships between research institutions and health system leaders was found. In the first review, absence of guidance on research partnerships and knowledge coproduction was striking and in contrast with coverage of other forms of collaboration such as patient/community engagement. In the second review, little evidence of criteria and standards regarding research partnerships was found. Difficulties in finding appropriate contact information for those responsible for research and obtaining a response were commonly experienced. Guidance related to health system partnerships with academic researchers is lacking on websites that should promote and support such collaborations. Health region websites provide little evidence of partnership criteria and often do not make contact information to research leaders within health systems readily available; this may hinder partnership development between health systems and academia.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Partnerships between academic researchers and health system leadership are often promoted by health research funding agencies as an important strategy in helping ensure that funded research is relevant and the results used. While potential benefits of such partnerships have been identified, there is limited guidance in the scientific literature for either healthcare organisations or researchers on how to select, build and manage effective research partnerships. Our main research objective was to explore the health system perspective on partnerships with researchers with a focus on issues related to the design and organisation of the health system and services. Two structured web reviews were conducted as one component of this larger study.
METHODS
METHODS
Two separate structured web reviews were conducted using structured data extraction tools. The first review focused on sites of health research bodies and those providing information on health system management and knowledge translation (n = 38) to identify what guidance to support partnerships might be available on websites commonly accessed by health leaders and researchers. The second reviewed sites from all health 'regions' in Canada (n = 64) to determine what criteria and standards were currently used in guiding decisions to engage in research partnerships; phone follow-up ensured all relevant information was collected.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Absence of guidance on partnerships between research institutions and health system leaders was found. In the first review, absence of guidance on research partnerships and knowledge coproduction was striking and in contrast with coverage of other forms of collaboration such as patient/community engagement. In the second review, little evidence of criteria and standards regarding research partnerships was found. Difficulties in finding appropriate contact information for those responsible for research and obtaining a response were commonly experienced.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Guidance related to health system partnerships with academic researchers is lacking on websites that should promote and support such collaborations. Health region websites provide little evidence of partnership criteria and often do not make contact information to research leaders within health systems readily available; this may hinder partnership development between health systems and academia.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31362791
doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0475-5
pii: 10.1186/s12961-019-0475-5
pmc: PMC6668137
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
73Subventions
Organisme : Canadian Institutes of Health Research
ID : 143237
Pays : Canada
Références
Milbank Q. 2001;79(2):179-205, III-IV
pubmed: 11439464
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003 Oct;8 Suppl 2:20-5
pubmed: 14596744
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003 Oct;8 Suppl 2:58-61
pubmed: 14596749
Health Info Libr J. 2004 Jun;21 Suppl 1:3-19
pubmed: 15186286
BMC Health Serv Res. 2005 Jan 07;5:1
pubmed: 15638931
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Oct;10(4):203-11
pubmed: 16259686
Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:325-50
pubmed: 18173388
J Nurs Manag. 2008 Jan;16(1):72-83
pubmed: 18211338
Milbank Q. 2008 Mar;86(1):125-55
pubmed: 18307479
Public Health Nutr. 2012 Mar;15(3):503-17
pubmed: 22014282
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012 Apr;17 Suppl 2:2-10
pubmed: 22572710
Milbank Q. 2012 Jun;90(2):311-46
pubmed: 22709390
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Aug 28;12:280
pubmed: 22928979
Health Educ Behav. 2013 Apr;40(2):223-30
pubmed: 22984215
Health Policy. 2013 Feb;109(2):187-91
pubmed: 23228520
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013 Oct;18(3 Suppl):13-26
pubmed: 24127357
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Jan 03;14:2
pubmed: 24383766
Implement Sci. 2014 Feb 24;9:28
pubmed: 24565209
Implement Sci. 2014 Nov 28;9:176
pubmed: 25430813
J Environ Public Health. 2015;2015:191856
pubmed: 25815016
BMC Public Health. 2015 Jul 30;15:725
pubmed: 26223523
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Jul 07;16:224
pubmed: 27388224
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Jul 12;16:256
pubmed: 27405465
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016 Jun 13;6(1):27-42
pubmed: 28005540
Implement Sci. 2018 Feb 02;13(1):22
pubmed: 29394932