IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v340y2024ics0277953623007645.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What are the mechanisms driving the early stages of embedded researcher interventions? A qualitative process evaluation in English local government

Author

Listed:
  • Edwards, Rachael C.
  • Kneale, Dylan
  • Stansfield, Claire
  • Lester, Sarah

Abstract

Improved collaboration and communication between public health practitioners and academia could enhance the flow of research evidence into policy and practice. Embedded researchers present one type of intervention with the potential to bridge the research-implementation gap through their dual affiliations with decision makers and academia. Although embedded researcher posts are garnering increasing attention in public health, there remains a need to understand the mechanisms through which they may promote the translation of evidence into practice. To address this gap, we conducted a processes evaluation incorporating data from seventeen semi-structured interviews with embedded researchers in local government public health teams across England. We aimed to expand theoretical understandings of embedded researchers in public health through providing a detailed conceptualisation of the mechanisms shaping the early stages of their roles. Interviews with embedded researchers were conducted from late 2021 to spring 2022. Our results suggest that the initial months of embedded researcher roles are defined by a lengthy embedding phase centred on building trust and gathering contextual knowledge. This phase forms the foundation on which these interventions are built. We identified seven categories of outputs delivered by embedded researchers which primarily revolved around building research capacity and addressed many of the primary barriers limiting research activity in public health. Improvements in research awareness, interest, and involvement reflected early changes in local research cultures. However, our results align with previous work suggesting that changing an organisational research culture is a long-term process. Expectations for embedded researchers should thus be proportionate to the seniority and scale of the post and we add our voice to calls for sustained investment in these valuable interventions. Further examination of how embedded researcher roles evolve over time in public health is necessary to broaden understandings of the concept of embeddedness in these settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Edwards, Rachael C. & Kneale, Dylan & Stansfield, Claire & Lester, Sarah, 2024. "What are the mechanisms driving the early stages of embedded researcher interventions? A qualitative process evaluation in English local government," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:340:y:2024:i:c:s0277953623007645
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116407
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953623007645
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116407?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sharon Mickan & Dominiek Coates, 2022. "Embedded researchers' purpose and practice: Current perspectives from Australia," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 133-142, January.
    2. Marco Liverani & Benjamin Hawkins & Justin O Parkhurst, 2013. "Political and Institutional Influences on the Use of Evidence in Public Health Policy. A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-9, October.
    3. Lois Orton & Ffion Lloyd-Williams & David Taylor-Robinson & Martin O'Flaherty & Simon Capewell, 2011. "The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes: Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-10, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cyr, Pascale Renée & Jain, Vageesh & Chalkidou, Kalipso & Ottersen, Trygve & Gopinathan, Unni, 2021. "Evaluations of public health interventions produced by health technology assessment agencies: A mapping review and analysis by type and evidence content," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(8), pages 1054-1064.
    2. P Th Houngbo & H L S Coleman & M Zweekhorst & Tj De Cock Buning & D Medenou & J F G Bunders, 2017. "A Model for Good Governance of Healthcare Technology Management in the Public Sector: Learning from Evidence-Informed Policy Development and Implementation in Benin," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, January.
    3. Schwarzman, Joanna & Bauman, Adrian & Gabbe, Belinda J. & Rissel, Chris & Shilton, Trevor & Smith, Ben J., 2022. "How practitioner, organisational and system-level factors act to influence health promotion evaluation capacity: Validation of a conceptual framework," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    4. Paula Hooper & Sarah Foster & Billie Giles-Corti, 2019. "A Case Study of a Natural Experiment Bridging the ‘Research into Policy’ and ‘Evidence-Based Policy’ Gap for Active-Living Science," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-14, July.
    5. Béné, Christophe, 2022. "Why the Great Food Transformation may not happen – A deep-dive into our food systems’ political economy, controversies and politics of evidence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    6. Nancy Li & Markus Luczak-Roesch & Flavia Donadelli, 2023. "A computational approach to study the gap and barriers between science and policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 15-29.
    7. Ryan Petteway & Mahasin Mujahid & Amani Allen & Rachel Morello-Frosch, 2019. "Towards a People’s Social Epidemiology: Envisioning a More Inclusive and Equitable Future for Social Epi Research and Practice in the 21st Century," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-21, October.
    8. Matthew Calver, 2016. "Measuring the Appropriate Outcomes for Better Decision-Making: A Framework to Guide the Analysis of Health Policy," CSLS Research Reports 2016-03, Centre for the Study of Living Standards.
    9. Courtney A. Cuthbertson & Don E. Albrecht & Scott Loveridge, 2017. "Rural versus urban perspectives on behavioral health issues and priorities," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(4), pages 515-526, August.
    10. Weldon, Isaac & Parkhurst, Justin, 2022. "Governing evidence use in the nutrition policy process: evidence and lessons from the 2020 Canada food guide," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112430, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Kyung-Eun (Anna) Choi & Lara Lindert & Lara Schlomann & Holger Pfaff, 2022. "“I’ll leave that to the case managers.” Healthcare Service Providers‘ Perceptions of Organizational Readiness for Change in a Randomized Controlled Trial—A Qualitative Analysis Exploring Implementatio," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-17, May.
    12. Heather Munthe‐Kaas & Heid Nøkleby & Sarah Rosenbaum, 2022. "User experiences of structured stakeholder engagement to consider transferability: The TRANSFER approach," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), December.
    13. Pierre-Olivier Bédard, 2015. "The Mobilization of Scientific Evidence by Public Policy Analysts," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, September.
    14. Kathryn Oliver & Warren Pearce, 2017. "Three lessons from evidence-based medicine and policy: increase transparency, balance inputs and understand power," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-7, December.
    15. Pauline Zardo & Adrian G Barnett & Nicolas Suzor & Tim Cahill, 2018. "Does engagement predict research use? An analysis of The Conversation Annual Survey 2016," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, February.
    16. Zardo, Pauline & Collie, Alex & Livingstone, Charles, 2014. "External factors affecting decision-making and use of evidence in an Australian public health policy environment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 120-127.
    17. El-Jardali, Fadi & Bou-Karroum, Lama & Ataya, Nour & El-Ghali, Hana Addam & Hammoud, Rawan, 2014. "A retrospective health policy analysis of the development and implementation of the voluntary health insurance system in Lebanon: Learning from failure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 45-54.
    18. Olariu Ana Alexandra & Breazu Andreea & Popa Ștefan Cătălin & Popa Cătălina Florentina & Căruceru Nicoleta, 2024. "Decision-Making in Healthcare. A Bibliometric Exploration," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 18(1), pages 3242-3254.
    19. Natasa Loncarevic & Pernille Tanggaard Andersen & Anja Leppin & Maja Bertram, 2021. "Policymakers’ Research Capacities, Engagement, and Use of Research in Public Health Policymaking," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-17, October.
    20. Dagenais, Christian & Dupont, Didier & Brière, Frédéric N. & Mena, Diego & Yale-Soulière, Gabrielle & Mc Sween-Cadieux, Esther, 2020. "Codifying explicit and tacit practitioner knowledge in community social pediatrics organizations: Evaluation of the first step of a knowledge transfer strategy," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:340:y:2024:i:c:s0277953623007645. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.