How to strengthen societal impact of research and innovation? Lessons learned from an explanatory research-on-research study on participatory knowledge infrastructures funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.
Co-creation
Collaboration
Health research funder
Impact
Participatory knowledge infrastructures
Productive interactions
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:
08 Jul 2024
08 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
09
05
2023
accepted:
28
06
2024
medline:
9
7
2024
pubmed:
9
7
2024
entrez:
8
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Scientific research and innovation can generate societal impact via different pathways. Productive interactions, such as collaboration between researchers and relevant stakeholders, play an important role and have increasingly gained interest of health funders around the globe. What works, how and why in research partnerships to generate societal impact in terms of knowledge utilisation is still not well-known. To explore these issues, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) initiated an exploratory research-on-research study with a focus on participatory knowledge infrastructures (PKIs) that they fund in the field of public health and healthcare. PKIs are sustainable infrastructures in which knowledge production, dissemination and utilisation takes place via committed collaboration between researchers and stakeholders from policy, practice and/or education. Examples are learning networks, academic collaborative centres, care networks and living labs. The aim of the study was twofold: to gain insights in what constitutes effective collaboration in PKIs; and to learn and improve the research governance, particularly of ZonMw as part of their dissemination and implementation activities. During 2020-2022, we conducted a literature review on long-term research partnerships, analysed available documentation of twenty ZonMw-funded PKIs, surveyed participants of the 2021 European Implementation Event, interviewed steering committee members, organized a Group Decision Room with lecturers, and validated the findings with key experts. We identified eight mechanisms ('how and why') that are conditional for effective collaboration in PKIs: transdisciplinary collaboration; defining a shared ambition; doing justice to everyone's interests; investing in personal relationships; a professional organisation or structure; a meaningful collaborative process; mutual trust, sufficient time for and continuity of collaboration. Several factors ('what') may hinder (e.g., lack of ownership or structural funding) or facilitate (e.g., stakeholder commitment, embeddedness in an organisation or policy) effective collaboration in research partnerships. To use the study results in policy, practice, education, and/or (further) research, cultural and behavioural change of all stakeholders is needed. To facilitate this, we provide recommendations for funding organisations, particularly ZonMw and its partners within the relevant knowledge ecosystem. It is meant as a roadmap towards the realisation and demonstration of societal impact of (health) research and innovation in the upcoming years.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Scientific research and innovation can generate societal impact via different pathways. Productive interactions, such as collaboration between researchers and relevant stakeholders, play an important role and have increasingly gained interest of health funders around the globe. What works, how and why in research partnerships to generate societal impact in terms of knowledge utilisation is still not well-known. To explore these issues, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) initiated an exploratory research-on-research study with a focus on participatory knowledge infrastructures (PKIs) that they fund in the field of public health and healthcare. PKIs are sustainable infrastructures in which knowledge production, dissemination and utilisation takes place via committed collaboration between researchers and stakeholders from policy, practice and/or education. Examples are learning networks, academic collaborative centres, care networks and living labs. The aim of the study was twofold: to gain insights in what constitutes effective collaboration in PKIs; and to learn and improve the research governance, particularly of ZonMw as part of their dissemination and implementation activities.
METHODS
METHODS
During 2020-2022, we conducted a literature review on long-term research partnerships, analysed available documentation of twenty ZonMw-funded PKIs, surveyed participants of the 2021 European Implementation Event, interviewed steering committee members, organized a Group Decision Room with lecturers, and validated the findings with key experts.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We identified eight mechanisms ('how and why') that are conditional for effective collaboration in PKIs: transdisciplinary collaboration; defining a shared ambition; doing justice to everyone's interests; investing in personal relationships; a professional organisation or structure; a meaningful collaborative process; mutual trust, sufficient time for and continuity of collaboration. Several factors ('what') may hinder (e.g., lack of ownership or structural funding) or facilitate (e.g., stakeholder commitment, embeddedness in an organisation or policy) effective collaboration in research partnerships.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
To use the study results in policy, practice, education, and/or (further) research, cultural and behavioural change of all stakeholders is needed. To facilitate this, we provide recommendations for funding organisations, particularly ZonMw and its partners within the relevant knowledge ecosystem. It is meant as a roadmap towards the realisation and demonstration of societal impact of (health) research and innovation in the upcoming years.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38978042
doi: 10.1186/s12961-024-01175-x
pii: 10.1186/s12961-024-01175-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
81Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Bussemaker M. Foreword. In: Molenaar H, Rinnooy Kan A, de Graaf B, editors. The Dutch National Research Agenda in perspective. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; 2017.
Institute of Medicine. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America Crossing the Quality Chasm: a New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 2001.
de Jong S, Balaban C, Nedeva M. From ‘productive interactions’ to ‘enabling conditions’: the role of organizations in generating societal impact of academic research. Sci Public Policy. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac015 .
doi: 10.1093/scipol/scac015
Abudu R, Oliver K, Boaz A. What funders are doing to assess the impact of their investments in health and biomedical research. Health Res Policy Sys. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-022-00888-1 .
doi: 10.1186/s12961-022-00888-1
Razmgir M, Panahi S, Ghalichi L, Mousavi SAJ, Sedghi S. Exploring research impact models: a systematic scoping review. Res Eval. 2021;30:443–57.
Budtz Pedersen D, Følsgaard Grønvad J, Hvidtfeldt R. Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities—a literature review. Res Eval. 2020;29(1):4–21.
doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvz033
Greenhalgh T, Raftery J, Hanney S, et al. Research impact: a narrative review. BMC Med. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0620-8 .
doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0620-8
pubmed: 27978837
pmcid: 5159995
Milat AJ, Bauman AE, Redman S. A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods. Health Res Policy Sys. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0003-1 .
doi: 10.1186/s12961-015-0003-1
Kingkaew P, Budtarad N, Khuntha S, Barlow E, Morton A, Isaranuwatchai W, Teerawattananon Y, Painter C. A model-based study to estimate the health and economic impact of health technology assessment in Thailand. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462322000277 .
doi: 10.1017/S0266462322000277
pubmed: 35506420
Hanney S, Greenhalgh T, Blatch-Jones A, Glover M, Raftery J. The impact on healthcare, policy and practice from 36 multi-project research programmes: findings from two reviews. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0191-y .
doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0191-y
pubmed: 28965493
pmcid: 5623979
Oortwijn WJ, Hanney SR, Ligtvoet A, Hoorens S, Wooding S, Grant J, Buxton MJ, Bouter LM. Assessing the impact of health technology assessment in The Netherlands. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462308080355 .
doi: 10.1017/S0266462308080355
pubmed: 18601793
Spaapen J, van Drooge L. Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Res Eval. 2011. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X12941371876742 .
doi: 10.3152/095820211X12941371876742
Muhonen R, Benneworth P, Olmos-Peñuela J. From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact. Res Eval. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz003 .
doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvz003
ZonMw. Website. Impact Aantonen. https://www.zonmw.nl/nl/over-zonmw/impact-versterken/impact-aantonen/ . Accessed 6 Apr 2023.
van der Linden B, Dunham KM, Siegel J, et al. Health funders’ dissemination and implementation practices: results from a survey of the Ensuring Value in Research (EViR) Funders’ Forum. Implement Sci Commun. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00273-7 .
doi: 10.1186/s43058-022-00273-7
pubmed: 35351211
pmcid: 8966333
Hoekstra F, Mrklas KJ, Khan M, et al. A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: a first step in synthesising the research partnership literature. Health Res Policy Sys. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0544-9 .
doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0544-9
Zych MM, Berta WB, Gagliardi AR. Conceptualising the initiation of researcher and research user partnerships: a meta-narrative review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0536-9 .
doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0536-9
pubmed: 32070367
pmcid: 7029453
Kaats E, Opheij W. Leren samenwerken tussen organisaties: samen bouwen aan allianties, netwerken, ketens en partnerships. Deventer: Wolters Kluwer; 2012.
Nosek B. Changing a research culture. In: Strategy for culture change. Blog, 11 juni 2019. https://www.cos.io/blog/strategy-for-culture-change . Accessed 6 Apr 2023.
Oortwijn W, Reijmerink. Op weg naar effectieve kennissamenwerking: infrastructuren, culturen en werkwijzen. Den Haag: ZonMw; 2023. https://www.zonmw.nl/sites/zonmw/files/2023-04/Eindverslag-Op-weg-naar-effectieve-kennissamenwerking.pdf . Accessed 26 Apr 2023.
Schruijer SGL. Vansina, L. Werken over organisatiegrenzen: Theorie en praktijk. Maatschappij & Organisatie. 2007: 203–218.
Hessels L. Alleen ga je snel, samen kom je verder. Oratie bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van bijzonder hoogleraar Maatschappelijke waarde van wetenschap. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden; 2022.
Kerrissey M, Mayo A, Edmondson A. Joint problem-solving orientation in fluid cross-boundary teams. Acad Manag Discov. 2021;7(3):381–405.
doi: 10.5465/amd.2019.0105
Edmondson A, Harvey J. Cross-boundary teaming for innovation: Integrating research on teams and knowledge in organizations. Hum Resour Manag Rev. 2018;28(4):347–60.
Mathieu J, Heffner T, Goodwin G, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers J. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85(2):273.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273
pubmed: 10783543
Janssens M. Nut en noodzaak van netwerken voor de verbinding tussen onderzoek en praktijk. Den Haag: ZonMw; 2016.
Burggraaff W, Klaver M. Handelingsonderzoek: puzzelen met publieksbereik. Cultuur Educatie. 2018;17(50):94–105.
Stammen M, van der Schaaf M, Nijland I. Evaluatie netwerkfase living labs sport en bewegen 2020. Den Haag: ZonMw; 2020.
ZonMw Website. Project Beautiful Distress Waanzin ontmoet kunst. Projectomschrijving. https://www.zonmw.nl/nl/onderzoek-resultaten/geestelijke-gezondheid-ggz/programmas/project-detail/actieprogramma-lokale-initiatieven-mensen-met-verward-gedrag/beautiful-distresswaanzin-ontmoet-kunst/ . Accessed 6 Apr 2023.
Smits D-W, Klem M, Ketelaar M. Involvement Matrix. Involvement of patients in projects and research. Practical Guide. Utrecht: Center of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine Utrecht, the Netherlands; 2019.
Bstieler L, Hemmert M, Barczak G. The changing bases of mutual trust formation in inter-organizational relationships: a dyadic study of university-industry research collaborations. J Bus Res. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.01.006 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.01.006
ZonMw Website. Project Consortium Palliatieve Zorg Zuidoost: samenwerken vanuit een continuüm van vertrouwen. https://www.zonmw.nl/nl/over-zonmw/onderwijs/programmas/project-detail/palliantie-meer-dan-zorg/consortium-palliatieve-zorg-zuidoost-samen-werken-vanuit-een-continuuem-van-vertrouwen/verslagen/ . Accessed 6 Apr 2023.
Middelveldt, I. De winst van netwerkzorg verzilveren. Interview met Ineke Middelveldt. Themamanager Waardegedreven Financiering. 11 oktober, 2022. https://oncologienetwerken.nl/nieuws/artikel/de-winst-van-netwerkzorg-verzilveren . Accessed 6 Apr 2023.
ZonMw website. Programma beschrijving Effectief werken in de jeugdsector. https://www.zonmw.nl/nl/onderzoek-resultaten/jeugd/effectief-werken/4a-lerende-organisaties/ . Accessed 6 Apr 2023.
ZonMw Website. Open Science—FAIR Data. https://www.zonmw.nl/en/research-and-results/open-science-fair-data/ . Accessed 6 Apr 2023.
ZonMw Website. Academische Werkplaats Ouderenzorg Zuid-Limburg. Projectomschrijving. https://www.zonmw.nl/nl/onderzoek-resultaten/ouderen/programmas/project-detail/kennisinfrastructuur-academische-werkplaatsen-ouderenzorg-kawo/academische-werkplaats-ouderenzorg-zuid-limburg/ . Accessed 6 Apr 2023.
Recognition & Rewards. Initiative of Dutch knowledge institutions and science funding bodies. https://recognitionrewards.nl/ . Accessed 26 Apr 2023.