Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21771329›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2011

Implementing health research through academic and clinical partnerships: a realistic evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC).

Jo Rycroft-Malone, Joyce E Wilkinson, Christopher R Burton, Gavin Andrews, Steven Ariss, Richard Baker, Sue Dopson, Ian Graham, Gill Harvey, Graham Martin and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
18.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 130 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Characterizing research partnerships in child health research: A scoping review.Journal of child health care : for professionals working with children in the hospital and community · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.

Jo Rycroft-MaloneCentre for Health-Related Research, School of Healthcare Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd, UK. j.rycroft-malone@bangor.ac.uk
Joyce E Wilkinson
Christopher R Burton
Gavin Andrews
Steven Ariss
Richard Baker
Sue Dopson
Ian Graham
Gill Harvey
Graham Martin
Brendan G McCormack
Sophie Staniszewska
Carl Thompson
Bangor University · GBUniversity of Leicester · GBCanadian Institutes of Health Research · CAMcMaster University · CAUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GBUniversity of Ulster · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe English National Health Service has made a major investment in nine partnerships between higher education institutions and local health services called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). They have been funded to increase capacity and capability to produce and implement research through sustained interactions between academics and health services. CLAHRCs provide a natural 'test bed' for exploring questions about research implementation within a partnership model of delivery. This protocol describes an externally funded evaluation that focuses on implementation mechanisms and processes within three CLAHRCs. It seeks to uncover what works, for whom, how, and in what circumstances. DESIGN AND

methodsThis study is a longitudinal three-phase, multi-method realistic evaluation, which deliberately aims to explore the boundaries around knowledge use in context. The evaluation funder wishes to see it conducted for the process of learning, not for judging performance. The study is underpinned by a conceptual framework that combines the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services and Knowledge to Action frameworks to reflect the complexities of implementation. Three participating CLARHCS will provide in-depth comparative case studies of research implementation using multiple data collection methods including interviews, observation, documents, and publicly available data to test and refine hypotheses over four rounds of data collection. We will test the wider applicability of emerging findings with a wider community using an interpretative forum. DISCUSSION: The idea that collaboration between academics and services might lead to more applicable health research that is actually used in practice is theoretically and intuitively appealing; however the evidence for it is limited. Our evaluation is designed to capture the processes and impacts of collaborative approaches for implementing research, and therefore should contribute to the evidence base about an increasingly popular (e.g., Mode two, integrated knowledge transfer, interactive research), but poorly understood approach to knowledge translation. Additionally we hope to develop approaches for evaluating implementation processes and impacts particularly with respect to integrated stakeholder involvement.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorLeadershipCommunity-Institutional RelationsData CollectionDiffusion of InnovationEmpirical ResearchEvidence-Based PracticeHealth PolicyHealth Services ResearchHumansLongitudinal StudiesModels, OrganizationalModels, TheoreticalProgram DevelopmentProgram EvaluationResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID21771329
PMCPMC3168414
OpenAlexW2120395760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.