Institutional Research Information Service
UCL Logo
Please report any queries concerning the funding data grouped in the sections named "Externally Awarded" or "Internally Disbursed" (shown on the profile page) to your Research Finance Administrator. Your can find your Research Finance Administrator at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/finance/research/rs-contacts.php by entering your department
Please report any queries concerning the student data shown on the profile page to:

Email: portico-services@ucl.ac.uk

Help Desk: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ras/portico/helpdesk
Publication Detail
Optimising the impact of health services research on the organisation and delivery of health services: a mixed-methods study
  • Publication Type:
    Journal article
  • Authors:
    Marshall M, Davies H, Ward V, Waring J, Fulop NJ, Mear L, O’Brien B, Parnell R, Kirk K, Reid B, Tooman T
  • Publisher:
    National Institute for Health Research
  • Publication date:
  • Pagination:
    1, 182
  • Journal:
    Health and Social Care Delivery Research
  • Volume:
  • Issue:
  • Status:
  • Language:
  • Notes:
    © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2022. This work was produced by Marshall et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising.
Background: The limitations of ‘knowledge transfer’ are increasingly recognised, with growing interest in ‘knowledge co-production in context’. One way of achieving the latter is by ‘embedding’ researchers in health service settings, yet how to deliver such schemes successfully is poorly understood. // Objectives: The objectives were to examine the nature of ‘embedded knowledge co-production’ and explore how embedded research initiatives can be designed more effectively. // Design: The study used four linked workstreams. Workstream 1 involved two parallel literature reviews to examine how ‘knowledge co-production’ and ‘embedded research’ are conceptualised, operationalised and discussed. In workstream 2, a scoping review of exisiting or recent ‘embedded researcher’ schemes in UK health settings was carried out. Workstream 3 involved developing four in-depth case studies on such schemes to understand their mechanisms, effectiveness and challenges. In workstream 4, insights from the other workstreams were used to provide recommendations, guidance and templates for the different ways embedded co-production may be framed and specified. The overall goal was to help those interested in developing and using such approaches to understand and address the design choices they face. // Setting: Embedded research initiatives in UK health settings. // Data sources: Data were sourced from the following: analysis of the published and grey literature (87 source articles on knowledge co-production, and 47 published reports on extant embedded research initiatives), documentation and interviews with key actors across 45 established embedded research initiatives, in-depth interviews and site observations with 31 participants over 12 months in four intensive case studies, and informal and creative engagement in workshops (n = 2) and with participants in embedded research initiatives who joined various managed discussion forums. // Participants: The participants were stakeholders and participants in embedded research initiatives. // Results: The literature reviews from workstream 1 produced practical frameworks for understanding knowledge co-production and embedded research initiatives, which, with the scoping review (workstream 2), informed the identification and articulation of 10 design concerns under three overarching categories: intent (covering outcomes and power dynamics), structures (scale, involvement, proximity and belonging) and processes (the functional activities, skills and expertise required, nature of the relational roles, and the learning mechanisms employed). Current instances of embedded research were diverse across many of these domains. The four case studies (workstream 3) added insights into scheme dynamics and life cycles, deepening understanding of the overarching categories and showing the contingencies experienced in co-producing knowledge. A key finding is that there was often a greater emphasis on embeddedness per se than on co-production, which can be hard to discern. Finally, the engaging and influencing activities running throughout (workstream 4) allowed these research-rooted insights to be translated into practical tools and resources, evidenced by peer-reviewed publications, for those interested in exploring and developing the approach. // Conclusions: Embedded research has a strong underpinning rationale, and more is becoming known about its design and management challenges. The tools and resources developed in this project provide a coherent evidence-informed framework for designing, operationalising and managing such schemes. It cannot yet be said with clarity that the potential benefits of embedded research are always deliverable, nor what the cost would be.
Publication data is maintained in RPS. Visit https://rps.ucl.ac.uk
 More search options
UCL Researchers
Applied Health Research
Primary Care & Population Health
University College London - Gower Street - London - WC1E 6BT Tel:+44 (0)20 7679 2000

© UCL 1999–2011

Search by