SynthesisImplementation science : IS2018
Learning from the emergence of NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs): a systematic review of evaluations.
Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- If health organisations and staff engage in research, does healthcare improve? Strengthening the evidence base through systematic reviews.Health research policy and systems · 2024Pooled it
- How do organisations implement research impact assessment (RIA) principles and good practice? A narrative review and exploratory study of four international research funding and administrative organisations.Health research policy and systems · 2020Pooled it
- An analysis of the contributions of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care to the impact of research in the UK Research Excellence Framework 2014 and 2021.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- 'There has to be some chemistry there': an interpretive description exploring the experiences, motivations and dynamics of partnered child health research.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Baseline assessments of research capacity, capability and culture in UK local authorities: reflections from evaluators embedded in Health Determinants Research Collaborations.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Israel should build capacity in implementation science.Israel journal of health policy research · 2025Article
- Understanding the experiences of older adult participants and individuals involved in the delivery of a physical activity programme based on participatory approaches: A qualitative analysis.British journal of health psychology · 2025Article
- Reflective Experiences of the Commissioning Final Readiness Committee's Members for the Women's Health Hospital in Riyadh.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2025Article
- Learning health systems to implement chronic disease prevention programs: A novel framework and perspectives from an Australian health service.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- Exploring Elinor Ostrom's principles for collaborative group working within a user-led project: lessons from a collaboration between researchers and a user-led organisation.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- "We all see things through a different lens based on our life experiences": co-production of a web-based implementation toolkit with stakeholders across the health and social care system.Frontiers in health services · 2024Article
- Research translation mentoring for emerging clinician researchers in rural and regional health settings: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Organisational benefits of undertaking research in healthcare: an approach to uncover impact.BMC research notes · 2023Review
- Characterizing Canadian funded partnered health research projects between 2011 and 2019: a retrospective analysis.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Describing the evidence-base for research engagement by health care providers and health care organisations: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Why Is It So Hard to Evaluate Knowledge Exchange? Comment on "Sustaining Knowledge Translation Practices: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis".International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
- Contributors are representative, as long as they agree: How confirmation logic overrides effort to achieve synthesis in applied health research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- When Health Systems Consider Research to Be Beyond the Scope of Healthcare Delivery, Research Translation Is Crippled Comment on "Academic Health Science Centres as Vehicles for Knowledge Mobilisation in Australia? A Qualitative Study".International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Academic Health Science Centres as Vehicles for Knowledge Mobilisation in Australia? A Qualitative Study.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Advocacy, activism, and lobbying: How variations in interpretation affects ability for academia to engage with public policy.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCollaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) were funded by NIHR in England in 2008 and 2014 as partnerships between universities and surrounding health service organisations, focused on improving the quality of healthcare through the conduct and application of applied health research. The aim of this review is to synthesise learning from evaluations of the CLAHRCs.
methodsFifteen databases including CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched to identify any evaluations of CLAHRCs. Current and archived CLAHRC websites and the reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify any additional evaluations. Searches were restricted to English language only. Any publications from evaluations of the CLAHRCs were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled at least one of three pre-specified inclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.
resultsTwenty-six evaluations (reported in 37 papers) were deemed eligible for inclusion. Evaluations focused on describing and exploring the formative partnerships, vision, values, structures and processes of CLAHRCs; the nature and role of boundaries; the deployment of knowledge brokers and hybrid roles to support knowledge mobilisation; patient and public involvement; and capacity building. The relative lack of data about the early impact of CLAHRCs on health care provision or outcomes is notable.
conclusionsMuch of the evaluative focus on CLAHRCs has been on how they have been organised and on the development of theory around their emergent properties. Evidence is lacking on the impact of CLAHRCs particularly in relation to the knowledge mobilisation processes and practices adopted. Further evaluation of CLAHRCs and other similar research and practice partnerships is warranted and should focus on which knowledge mobilisation approaches work where, how and why.
trial registrationPROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42016042945 ).
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.