Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Public Health | Correspondence

Integrating research and system-wide practice in public health: lessons learnt from Better Start Bradford

Authors: Josie Dickerson, Philippa K. Bird, Maria Bryant, Nimarta Dharni, Sally Bridges, Kathryn Willan, Sara Ahern, Abigail Dunn, Dea Nielsen, Eleonora P. Uphoff, Tracey Bywater, Claudine Bowyer-Crane, Pinki Sahota, Neil Small, Michaela Howell, Gill Thornton, Kate E. Pickett, Rosemary R. C. McEachan, John Wright, on behalf of Better Start Bradford, the Better Start Bradford Innovation Hub

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Many interventions that are delivered within public health services have little evidence of effect. Evaluating interventions that are being delivered as a part of usual practice offers opportunities to improve the evidence base of public health. However, such evaluation is challenging and requires the integration of research into system-wide practice. The Born in Bradford’s Better Start experimental birth cohort offers an opportunity to efficiently evaluate multiple complex community interventions to improve the health, wellbeing and development of children aged 0–3 years. Based on the learning from this programme, this paper offers a pragmatic and practical guide to researchers, public health commissioners and service providers to enable them to integrate research into their everyday practice, thus enabling relevant and robust evaluations within a complex and changing system.
Using the principles of co-production the key challenges of integrating research and practice were identified, and appropriate strategies to overcome these, developed across five key stages: 1) Community and stakeholder engagement; 2) Intervention design; 3) Optimising routinely collected data; 4) Monitoring implementation; and 5) Evaluation. As a result of our learning we have developed comprehensive toolkits (https://​borninbradford.​nhs.​uk/​what-we-do/​pregnancy-early-years/​toolkit/​) including: an operational guide through the service design process; an implementation and monitoring guide; and an evaluation framework. The evaluation framework incorporates implementation evaluations to enable understanding of intervention performance in practice, and quasi experimental approaches to infer causal effects in a timely manner. We also offer strategies to harness routinely collected data to enhance the efficiency and affordability of evaluations that are directly relevant to policy and practice.
These strategies and tools will help researchers, commissioners and service providers to work together to evaluate interventions delivered in real-life settings. More importantly, however, we hope that they will support the development of a connected system that empowers practitioners and commissioners to embed innovation and improvement into their own practice, thus enabling them to learn, evaluate and improve their own services.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hawe P. Lessons from complex interventions to improve health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2015;36:307–23.CrossRef Hawe P. Lessons from complex interventions to improve health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2015;36:307–23.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Axford N, Barlow J. What works: an overview of the best available evidence on giving children a better start. Dartington: The Social Research Unit at Dartington; 2013. Axford N, Barlow J. What works: an overview of the best available evidence on giving children a better start. Dartington: The Social Research Unit at Dartington; 2013.
5.
go back to reference Wanless D. Securing good health for the whole population. Final report. London: The Stationery Office; 2004. Wanless D. Securing good health for the whole population. Final report. London: The Stationery Office; 2004.
6.
go back to reference Craig P, Cooper C, Gunnell D, et al. Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: new MRC guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66:12.CrossRef Craig P, Cooper C, Gunnell D, et al. Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: new MRC guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66:12.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Lantz PM, Viruell-Fuentes E, Israel B, et al. Can communities and academia work together on public health research? Evaluation results from a community based participatory research partnership in Detroit. J Urban Health. 2001;78:495–507.CrossRef Lantz PM, Viruell-Fuentes E, Israel B, et al. Can communities and academia work together on public health research? Evaluation results from a community based participatory research partnership in Detroit. J Urban Health. 2001;78:495–507.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Martin G, Ward V, Hendy J, et al. The challenges of evaluating large-scale, multi-partner programmes: the case of NIHR CLAHRCs. Evid Policy. 2011;7:489–509.CrossRef Martin G, Ward V, Hendy J, et al. The challenges of evaluating large-scale, multi-partner programmes: the case of NIHR CLAHRCs. Evid Policy. 2011;7:489–509.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Hinchcliff R, Greenfield D, Braithwaite J. Is it worth engaging in multi-stakeholder health services research collaborations? Reflections on key benefits, challenges and enabling mechanisms. Int J Quality Health Care. 2014;26:124–8.CrossRef Hinchcliff R, Greenfield D, Braithwaite J. Is it worth engaging in multi-stakeholder health services research collaborations? Reflections on key benefits, challenges and enabling mechanisms. Int J Quality Health Care. 2014;26:124–8.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Kemp L, Chavez R, Harris-Roxas B, Burton N. What’s in the box? Issues in evaluating interventions to develop strong and open communities. Commun Dev J. 2008;43:459–69.CrossRef Kemp L, Chavez R, Harris-Roxas B, Burton N. What’s in the box? Issues in evaluating interventions to develop strong and open communities. Commun Dev J. 2008;43:459–69.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50:587–92.CrossRef Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50:587–92.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Gerhardus, A. on behalf of the INTEGRATE-HTA project team. Integrated health technology assessment for evaluating complex technologies (INTEGRATE-HTA): an introduction to the guidances. 2016. Available from: http://www.integrate-hta.eu/downloads/. Accessed 17 Sept 2018. Gerhardus, A. on behalf of the INTEGRATE-HTA project team. Integrated health technology assessment for evaluating complex technologies (INTEGRATE-HTA): an introduction to the guidances. 2016. Available from: http://​www.​integrate-hta.​eu/​downloads/​. Accessed 17 Sept 2018.
18.
go back to reference Gerhardus A. How to avoid giving the right answers to the wrong questions: the need for integrated assessments of complex health technologies. Int J Tech Ass in Health Care. 2017;33:541–3.CrossRef Gerhardus A. How to avoid giving the right answers to the wrong questions: the need for integrated assessments of complex health technologies. Int J Tech Ass in Health Care. 2017;33:541–3.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Wright J, Small N, Raynor P, et al. Cohort profile: the born in Bradford multi-ethnic family cohort study. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:978–91.CrossRef Wright J, Small N, Raynor P, et al. Cohort profile: the born in Bradford multi-ethnic family cohort study. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:978–91.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference King AC, Winter SJ, Sheats JL, et al. Leveraging citizen science and information technology for population physical activity promotion. Transl J Am Coll Sports Med. 2016;1:30–44.PubMedPubMedCentral King AC, Winter SJ, Sheats JL, et al. Leveraging citizen science and information technology for population physical activity promotion. Transl J Am Coll Sports Med. 2016;1:30–44.PubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Relton C, Torgerson D, O’Cathain A, Nicholl J. Rethinking pragmatic randomised controlled trials: introducing the “cohort multiple randomised controlled trial” design. BMJ. 2010;340:c1066.CrossRef Relton C, Torgerson D, O’Cathain A, Nicholl J. Rethinking pragmatic randomised controlled trials: introducing the “cohort multiple randomised controlled trial” design. BMJ. 2010;340:c1066.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Integrating research and system-wide practice in public health: lessons learnt from Better Start Bradford
Authors
Josie Dickerson
Philippa K. Bird
Maria Bryant
Nimarta Dharni
Sally Bridges
Kathryn Willan
Sara Ahern
Abigail Dunn
Dea Nielsen
Eleonora P. Uphoff
Tracey Bywater
Claudine Bowyer-Crane
Pinki Sahota
Neil Small
Michaela Howell
Gill Thornton
Kate E. Pickett
Rosemary R. C. McEachan
John Wright
on behalf of Better Start Bradford
the Better Start Bradford Innovation Hub
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Public Health
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6554-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Public Health 1/2019 Go to the issue