Baseline assessments of research capacity, capability and culture in UK local authorities: reflections from evaluators embedded in Health Determinants Research Collaborations.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Lauren Bell, Rachel Chapman, Charlotte Ashton, Claire Batey, Jack Brazier, Elizabeth Castle, Arundeep Chaggar, Julian Elston, Faye Esat, Hannah Goldwyn Simpkins, Leonard Ho, Cath Quinn, Jessica Sheringham, Demelza Smeeth, Irene Stylianou, Simon Twite, James Woodall, Beck Taylor
{"title":"Baseline assessments of research capacity, capability and culture in UK local authorities: reflections from evaluators embedded in Health Determinants Research Collaborations.","authors":"Lauren Bell, Rachel Chapman, Charlotte Ashton, Claire Batey, Jack Brazier, Elizabeth Castle, Arundeep Chaggar, Julian Elston, Faye Esat, Hannah Goldwyn Simpkins, Leonard Ho, Cath Quinn, Jessica Sheringham, Demelza Smeeth, Irene Stylianou, Simon Twite, James Woodall, Beck Taylor","doi":"10.1186/s12961-025-01323-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the United Kingdom, local government is well placed to conduct and apply research regarding the wider determinants of health. However, local authorities often lack sufficient research infrastructure to support research capacity, capability and culture. Since 2022, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research has funded 30 Health Determinants Research Collaborations (HDRCs) to develop this infrastructure. HDRCs are hosted by local authorities collaborating with universities and other partners to strengthen a culture of evidence-informed decision-making. HDRCs are conducting local evaluations, including baseline assessments of local authority research capacity, capability and culture.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A national peer-support group was formed to support shared learning amongst teams evaluating HDRCs. Here, as embedded evaluators from 10 HDRCs, we present reflections on the planning, delivery and interpretation of baseline assessments. Reflections were gathered via group discussions and written submissions. All 10 HDRC baseline assessments explored local authority research capacity, capability and culture, and two also studied early HDRC team collaboration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Competing priorities during early HDRC implementation called for pragmatic and timely baseline assessment methods. Most HDRCs developed baseline surveys, though interviews and focus groups were conducted by some. Despite similar aims, methods varied substantially according to local contexts. Evaluators often adapted existing validated survey tools, for example, from health settings, as none were identified for use across local government. Definitions of research also ranged from academic definitions to broader notions of evidence. Useful insights were gathered across diverse samples to aid implementation locally, however, low response rates were received to all-staff surveys and heterogeneous approaches limited comparison across HDRCs. Findings contributed to recommendations for evaluating and developing HDRC activities (e.g. communications and training provisions) appropriate for local authorities with stretched resources. Where measured, collaborations were functioning well, with recommendations to enhance communication.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The early contexts and challenges of HDRCs influenced pragmatic baseline assessments. Methods were often chosen to capture baseline contexts rapidly, and they will be refined and complemented by additional evaluation methods as HDRCs progress. Developing new validated measures and an agreed definition of research for local authorities may strengthen understanding of research capacity, capability and culture across local government.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"23 1","pages":"68"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12105404/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01323-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In the United Kingdom, local government is well placed to conduct and apply research regarding the wider determinants of health. However, local authorities often lack sufficient research infrastructure to support research capacity, capability and culture. Since 2022, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research has funded 30 Health Determinants Research Collaborations (HDRCs) to develop this infrastructure. HDRCs are hosted by local authorities collaborating with universities and other partners to strengthen a culture of evidence-informed decision-making. HDRCs are conducting local evaluations, including baseline assessments of local authority research capacity, capability and culture.

Methods: A national peer-support group was formed to support shared learning amongst teams evaluating HDRCs. Here, as embedded evaluators from 10 HDRCs, we present reflections on the planning, delivery and interpretation of baseline assessments. Reflections were gathered via group discussions and written submissions. All 10 HDRC baseline assessments explored local authority research capacity, capability and culture, and two also studied early HDRC team collaboration.

Results: Competing priorities during early HDRC implementation called for pragmatic and timely baseline assessment methods. Most HDRCs developed baseline surveys, though interviews and focus groups were conducted by some. Despite similar aims, methods varied substantially according to local contexts. Evaluators often adapted existing validated survey tools, for example, from health settings, as none were identified for use across local government. Definitions of research also ranged from academic definitions to broader notions of evidence. Useful insights were gathered across diverse samples to aid implementation locally, however, low response rates were received to all-staff surveys and heterogeneous approaches limited comparison across HDRCs. Findings contributed to recommendations for evaluating and developing HDRC activities (e.g. communications and training provisions) appropriate for local authorities with stretched resources. Where measured, collaborations were functioning well, with recommendations to enhance communication.

Conclusions: The early contexts and challenges of HDRCs influenced pragmatic baseline assessments. Methods were often chosen to capture baseline contexts rapidly, and they will be refined and complemented by additional evaluation methods as HDRCs progress. Developing new validated measures and an agreed definition of research for local authorities may strengthen understanding of research capacity, capability and culture across local government.

联合王国地方当局研究能力、能力和文化的基线评估:健康决定因素研究合作评估人员的反思。
背景:在联合王国,地方政府在开展和应用关于更广泛的健康决定因素的研究方面处于有利地位。然而,地方当局往往缺乏足够的研究基础设施来支持研究能力、能力和文化。自2022年以来,英国国家卫生与保健研究所资助了30个健康决定因素研究合作项目(hdrc),以发展这一基础设施。hdrc由地方当局与大学和其他伙伴合作主办,以加强循证决策的文化。hdrc正在进行地方评估,包括对地方当局的研究能力、能力和文化进行基线评估。方法:成立了一个国家同伴支持小组,以支持评估hdrc的团队之间的共享学习。在此,作为来自10个hdrc的嵌入式评估人员,我们提出了对基线评估的规划、交付和解释的思考。通过小组讨论和书面意见收集了意见。所有10项HDRC基线评估都探讨了地方当局的研究能力、能力和文化,其中两项还研究了HDRC早期团队合作。结果:早期HDRC实施过程中相互竞争的优先事项要求采用务实和及时的基线评估方法。大多数hdrc制定了基线调查,尽管一些国家进行了访谈和焦点小组。尽管目标相似,但方法根据当地情况有很大差异。评估人员经常调整现有的有效调查工具,例如,从卫生机构,因为没有确定用于整个地方政府。研究的定义也从学术定义到更广泛的证据概念。从不同的样本中收集了有用的见解,以帮助在当地实施,然而,对全体工作人员调查的回复率很低,不同的方法限制了在hdrc之间的比较。调查结果有助于为评估和制定适合资源紧张的地方当局的HDRC活动(例如通信和培训规定)提出建议。在衡量方面,合作运作良好,并提出了加强沟通的建议。结论:hdrc的早期背景和挑战影响了实用的基线评估。通常选择的方法是为了快速捕获基线情况,随着hdrc的进展,这些方法将得到完善和补充。为地方当局制定新的有效措施和商定的研究定义可能会加强对地方政府研究能力、能力和文化的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信