Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

How do public health professionals view and engage with research? A qualitative interview study and stakeholder workshop engaging public health professionals and researchers

Authors: Peter van der Graaf, Lynne F. Forrest, Jean Adams, Janet Shucksmith, Martin White

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

With 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.

Methods

This 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 Scheme1 and the responsive research service AskFuse2. We examined enquiries that were submitted to both between 2013 and 2015, and purposively selected eight enquiries for further investigation by interviewing the PHPs and researchers involved in these requests. We also identified individuals who were eligible to make requests to the schemes but chose not to do so. In-depth interviews were conducted with six people in relation to the PHPES scheme, and 12 in relation to AskFuse. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic framework analysis. Verification and extension of the findings were sought in a stakeholder workshop.

Results

PHPs 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.

Conclusions

An 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.
Literature
3.
go back to reference Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the twenty-first century. Washington: National Academies Press; 2001. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the twenty-first century. Washington: National Academies Press; 2001.
5.
go back to reference Van Driel M, De Maeseneer J. Evidence-based medicine versus evidence-based policy. Eur J Gen Pract. 2003;9(4):122–23. editorial article Van Driel M, De Maeseneer J. Evidence-based medicine versus evidence-based policy. Eur J Gen Pract. 2003;9(4):122–23. editorial article
7.
go back to reference Ferlie E, Fitzgerald L, Wood M, Hawkins C. The nonspread of innovations: the mediating role of professionals. Acad Manag J. 2005;48:117–34.CrossRef Ferlie E, Fitzgerald L, Wood M, Hawkins C. The nonspread of innovations: the mediating role of professionals. Acad Manag J. 2005;48:117–34.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Srivastava A, Thomson SB. Framework analysis: a qualitative methodology for applied policy research. Joaag. 2009;4(2):72–9. Srivastava A, Thomson SB. Framework analysis: a qualitative methodology for applied policy research. Joaag. 2009;4(2):72–9.
12.
go back to reference Allison T, Sainbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health C. 2007;19(6):349–57.CrossRef Allison T, Sainbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health C. 2007;19(6):349–57.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Adams J, Hillier-Brown FC, Moore HJ, Lake AA, Araujo-Soares V, White M, Summerbell C. Searching and synthesising ‘grey literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public health: critical reflections on three case studies. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):164.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Adams J, Hillier-Brown FC, Moore HJ, Lake AA, Araujo-Soares V, White M, Summerbell C. Searching and synthesising ‘grey literature’ and ‘grey information’ in public health: critical reflections on three case studies. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):164.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Hoffmann C, Glasziou P, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687.CrossRefPubMed Hoffmann C, Glasziou P, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Reeves A, Basu S, McKee M, Marmot M, Stuckler D. Austere or not? UK coalition government budgets and health inequalities. J Roy Soc Med. 2013;106(11):432–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Reeves A, Basu S, McKee M, Marmot M, Stuckler D. Austere or not? UK coalition government budgets and health inequalities. J Roy Soc Med. 2013;106(11):432–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Martin BR. The research excellence framework and the’impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Res Eval. 2011;20(3):247-54. Martin BR. The research excellence framework and the’impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Res Eval. 2011;20(3):247-54.
18.
go back to reference Holmes B, Scarrow G, Schellenberg M. Translating evidence into practice: the role of health research funders. Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 24;7(1):1.CrossRef Holmes B, Scarrow G, Schellenberg M. Translating evidence into practice: the role of health research funders. Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 24;7(1):1.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Cook D. Consultation, for a change? Engaging users and communities in the policy process. Soc Pol & Adm. 2002 Oct 1;36(5):516–31.CrossRef Cook D. Consultation, for a change? Engaging users and communities in the policy process. Soc Pol & Adm. 2002 Oct 1;36(5):516–31.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Craig P, Cooper C, Gunnell D, et al. Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: new Medical Research Council guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66:1182-186. Craig P, Cooper C, Gunnell D, et al. Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: new Medical Research Council guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66:1182-186.
21.
go back to reference Shoveller J, Viehbeck S, Di Ruggiero E, Greyson D, Thomson K, Knight R. A critical examination of representations of context within research on population health interventions. Crit Pub H. 2015;23:1–4. Shoveller J, Viehbeck S, Di Ruggiero E, Greyson D, Thomson K, Knight R. A critical examination of representations of context within research on population health interventions. Crit Pub H. 2015;23:1–4.
23.
go back to reference Ward V, Smith S, House A, Hamer S. Exploring knowledge exchange: a useful framework for practice and policy. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(3):297–304.CrossRefPubMed Ward V, Smith S, House A, Hamer S. Exploring knowledge exchange: a useful framework for practice and policy. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(3):297–304.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
How do public health professionals view and engage with research? A qualitative interview study and stakeholder workshop engaging public health professionals and researchers
Authors
Peter van der Graaf
Lynne F. Forrest
Jean Adams
Janet Shucksmith
Martin White
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4896-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Public Health 1/2017 Go to the issue