ArticleHealth research policy and systems2026
Factors supporting research capacity development in an English local authority: a qualitative description and comparison with proposed mechanisms.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundResearch capacity development (RCD) involves resourced and sustained multi-faceted skill-building to enable high-quality, useful research alongside social change. Local authorities (LAs) have substantial potential to enhance health and wellbeing through research engagement given their role shaping determinants of health, access to rich data and interest in "what works". This paper presents a qualitative reanalysis of research interviews undertaken in an NIHR funded Local Authority Research Systems (LARS) project in Doncaster Council, an upper-tier LA in England. It considers RCD mechanisms developed in health and care and public service literature to extend theoretical insights into RCD in English local government.
methodsInitial project sampling was purposive, using a snowball approach. Interviewee work areas spanned adult and young people's services. The interview schedule drew on mechanisms identified in published literature. Secondary thematic framework analysis of the transcripts of the 15 study interviews also used a deductive frame of mechanisms from published literature. Secondary analysis included discussion and review among the authors to refine themes and analysis.
resultsInterviewees identified mechanistic and cultural determinants of research capacity in this LA. Key themes were collaboration; making a difference; indications of expectations and importance of research; relationship between research, practice and policy; resource and capacity; and research as everyone's business. Our findings support the relevance of previously published RCD mechanisms to the LA context. Some mechanisms resonated more than others: "exceeding the sum of parts", "coproduction" and "feeling you are making a difference". The latter of these mechanisms resonated strongly.
conclusionsRCD mechanisms can stimulate joint work, promote synergy and unlock potential. Research partnerships should focus on local impact for communities and balance between scientific rigour and actionable research. Success relies on dialogue and co-production across research, health and care, and departments within LAs to address the wider determinants of health. This includes setting joint priorities, brave leadership and power-sharing between stakeholders. LAs can take steps including making research core business, ensuring protected time and experiential learning, and community involvement in research. Lessons from this study may offer transferable insights that inform RCD in comparable local government settings.
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.