ArticleBMC public health2017
How do public health professionals view and engage with research? A qualitative interview study and stakeholder workshop engaging public health professionals and researchers.
Article in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Strategies to implement evidence-informed decision making at the organizational level: a rapid systematic review.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Conducting cross-sectoral collaborative research for food system transformation: learnings from a qualitative evaluation study.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Challenges and Opportunities of Public Health Professionals in Nepal: A Reflexive Thematic Analysis.Public health challenges · 2026Article
- Factors supporting research capacity development in an English local authority: a qualitative description and comparison with proposed mechanisms.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- What does being "research active" mean in public health practice? Exploring behavioural and motivational dimensions of research activity in English local government through perceptions from embedded researchers.Journal of public health (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Article
- The involvement of stakeholders in computational model development to support decision-making in public health: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Enablers and barriers for policymaker engagement in health research from the perspective of policymakers: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2025Article
- IdentIRCCS. The description of healthcare professionals employed within IRCCS University Hospital of Bologna.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
- Italian healthcare professionals' role in advancing reforms within the Italian National Healthcare System, as outlined in the National Recovery and Resilience Plan.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- "They don't have the luxury of time": interviews exploring the determinants of public health research activity that contextualise embedded researcher roles in local government.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Bridging the gap between research evidence and its implementation in public health practice: case studies of embedded research model.BMC public health · 2024Article
- NYC RxStat: Stakeholder perspectives on a national model public health and public safety partnership to reduce overdose deaths.Evaluation and program planning · 2023Article
- Supporting and enabling health research in a local authority (SERLA): an exploratory study.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Exploring the potential impact of the proposed UK TV and online food advertising regulations: a concept mapping study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- A pragmatic evaluation of a public health knowledge broker mentoring education program: a convergent mixed methods study.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Cross fertilisation of Public Health and Translational Research.Journal of the Indian Institute of Science · 2022Review
- Examining the influences on the use of behavioural science within UK local authority public health: Qualitative thematic analysis and deductive mapping to the COM-B model and Theoretical Domains Framework.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Sharing believable stories: A qualitative study exploring the relevance of case studies for influencing the creation of healthy environments.Health & place · 2021Article
- Involvement of professionals in research: knowledge integration, development of practice, and challenges: a group concept mapping study.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Modelling tool to support decision-making in the NHS Health Check programme: workshops, systematic review and co-production with users.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith increasing financial pressures on public health in England, the need for evidence of high relevance to policy is now stronger than ever. However, the ways in which public health professionals (PHPs) and researchers relate to one another are not necessarily conducive to effective knowledge translation. This study explores the perspectives of PHPs and researchers when interacting, with a view to identifying barriers to and opportunities for developing practice that is effectively informed by research.
methodsThis research focused on examples from two responsive research schemes, which provide university-based support for research-related enquiries from PHPs: the NIHR SPHR Public Health Practitioner Evaluation Scheme
resultsPHPs recognised the importance of research findings for informing their practice. However, they identified three main barriers when trying to engage with researchers: 1) differences in timescales; 2) limited budgets; and 3) difficulties in identifying appropriate researchers. The two responsive schemes addressed some of these barriers, particularly finding the right researchers to work with and securing funding for local evaluations. The schemes also supported the development of new types of evidence. However, other barriers remained, such as differences in timescales and the resources needed to scale-up research.
conclusionsAn increased mutual awareness of the structures and challenges under which PHPs and researchers work is required. Opportunities for frequent and meaningful engagement between PHPs and researchers can help to overcome additional barriers to co-production of evidence. Collaborative models, such as the use of researchers embedded in practice might facilitate this; however, flexible research funding schemes are needed to support these models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.