Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28806989›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2017

Maximising value from a United Kingdom Biomedical Research Centre: study protocol.

Trisha Greenhalgh, Pavel V Ovseiko, Nick Fahy, Sara Shaw, Polly Kerr, Alexander D Rushforth, Keith M Channon, Vasiliki Kiparoglou, Partnerships for Health, Wealth and Innovation cross-cutting theme of the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

9 authors.

Trisha GreenhalghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, United Kingdom. trish.greenhalgh@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2369-8088
Pavel V OvseikoRadcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, United Kingdom.
Nick FahyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, United Kingdom.
Sara ShawNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, United Kingdom.
Polly KerrNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, United Kingdom.
Alexander D RushforthNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, United Kingdom.
Keith M ChannonRadcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, United Kingdom.
Vasiliki KiparoglouNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Woodstock Rd, Oxford, OX2 6GG, United Kingdom.
Partnerships for Health, Wealth and Innovation cross-cutting theme of the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/07/003/23133Department of Health 10/1009/14Department of Health HS&DR/14/19/19Medical Research Council G0300623Medical Research Council G0500495Medical Research Council G0700477Medical Research Council G0701128Medical Research Council MC_PC_12020Medical Research Council MC_PC_13073
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiomedical Research Centres (BRCs) are partnerships between healthcare organisations and universities in England. Their mission is to generate novel treatments, technologies, diagnostics and other interventions that increase the country's international competitiveness, to rapidly translate these innovations into benefits for patients, and to improve efficiency and reduce waste in healthcare. As NIHR Oxford BRC (Oxford BRC) enters its third 5-year funding period, we seek to (1) apply the evidence base on how best to support the various partnerships in this large, multi-stakeholder research system and (2) research how these partnerships play out in a new, ambitious programme of translational research.

methodsOrganisational case study, informed by the principles of action research. A cross-cutting theme, 'Partnerships for Health, Wealth and Innovation' has been established with multiple sub-themes (drug development, device development, business support and commercialisation, research methodology and statistics, health economics, bioethics, patient and public involvement and engagement, knowledge translation, and education and training) to support individual BRC research themes and generate cross-theme learning. The 'Partnerships' theme will support the BRC's goals by facilitating six types of partnership (with patients and citizens, clinical services, industry, across the NIHR infrastructure, across academic disciplines, and with policymakers and payers) through a range of engagement platforms and activities. We will develop a longitudinal progress narrative centred around exemplar case studies, and apply theoretical models from innovation studies (Triple Helix), sociology of science (Mode 2 knowledge production) and business studies (Value Co-creation). Data sources will be the empirical research studies within individual BRC research themes (who will apply separately for NHS ethics approval), plus documentary analysis and interviews and ethnography with research stakeholders. This study has received ethics clearance through the University of Oxford Central University Research Ethics Committee. DISCUSSION: We anticipate that this work will add significant value to Oxford BRC. We predict accelerated knowledge translation; closer alignment of the innovation process with patient priorities and the principles of responsible, ethical research; reduction in research waste; new knowledge about the governance and activities of multi-stakeholder research partnerships and the contexts in which they operate; and capacity-building that reflects the future needs of a rapidly-evolving health research system.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchTranslational Research, BiomedicalEnglandEthics Committees, ResearchHumansUnited KingdomBiomedical Research CentresHealth policyHealth research policyHealth technology developmentInnovation policyKnowledge productionNational Institute for Health ResearchResearch on researchResearch partnerships

Identifiers

PMID28806989
PMCPMC5556344

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.