Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31779297›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2019

Experience of Health Leadership in Partnering With University-Based Researchers in Canada - A Call to "Re-imagine" Research.

Sarah Bowen, Ingrid Botting, Ian D Graham, Martha MacLeod, Danielle de Moissac, Karen Harlos, Bernard Leduc, Catherine Ulrich, Janet Knox

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sarah BowenApplied Research and Evaluation Consultant, Centreville, NS, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1341-5307
Ingrid BottingDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Ian D GrahamOttawa Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3669-1216
Martha MacLeodSchool of Nursing, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4174-6381
Danielle de MoissacUniversite de Saint-Boniface, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Karen HarlosUniversity of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1820-1356
Bernard LeducHôpital Montfort, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Catherine UlrichNorthern Health, Prince George, BC, Canada.
Janet KnoxNova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, NS, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmerging evidence that meaningful relationships with knowledge users are a key predictor of research use has led to promotion of partnership approaches to health research. However, little is known about health system experiences of collaborations with university-based researchers, particularly with research partnerships in the area of health system design and health service organization. The purpose of the study was to explore the experience and perspectives of senior health managers in health service organizations, with health organization-university research partnerships.

methodsIn-depth, semi-structured interviews (n = 25) were conducted with senior health personnel across Canada to explore their perspectives on health system research; experiences with health organization-university research partnerships; challenges to partnership research; and suggested actions for improving engagement with knowledge users and promoting research utilization. Participants, recruited from organizations with regional responsibilities, were responsible for system-wide planning and support functions.

resultsResearch is often experienced as unhelpful or irrelevant to decision-making by many within the system. Research, quality improvement (QI) and evaluation are often viewed as separate activities and coordinated by different responsibility areas. Perspectives of senior managers on barriers to partnership differed from those identified in the literature: organizational stress and restructuring, and limitations in readiness of researchers to work in the fast-paced healthcare environment, were identified as major barriers. Although the need for strong executive leadership was emphasized, "multi-system action" is needed for effective partnerships.

conclusionCommon approaches to research and knowledge translation are often not appropriate for addressing issues of health service design and health services organization. Nor is the research community providing expertise to many important activities that the healthcare system is taking to improve health services. A radical rethinking of how we prepare health service researchers; position research within the health system; and fund research activities and infrastructure is needed if the potential benefits of research are to be achieved. Lack of response to health system needs may contribute to research and 'evidence-informed' practice being further marginalized from healthcare operations. Interventions to address barriers must respond to the perspectives and experience of health leadership.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorIntersectoral CollaborationLeadershipAdultCanadaFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansMaleMiddle AgedResearch DesignResearch PersonnelTranslational Research, BiomedicalUniversitiesCanadaHealth System LeadershipHealth SystemsIntegrated Knowledge TranslationResearch Partnerships

Identifiers

PMID31779297
PMCPMC6885864

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.