Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health Research Policy and Systems
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Study Protocol

Maximising value from a United Kingdom Biomedical Research Centre: study protocol

Authors: Trisha Greenhalgh, Pavel V. Ovseiko, Nick Fahy, Sara Shaw, Polly Kerr, Alexander D. Rushforth, Keith M. Channon, Vasiliki Kiparoglou, On behalf of the Partnerships for Health, Wealth and Innovation cross-cutting theme of the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs) are partnerships between healthcare organisations and universities in England. Their mission is to generate novel treatments, technologies, diagnostics and other interventions that increase the country’s international competitiveness, to rapidly translate these innovations into benefits for patients, and to improve efficiency and reduce waste in healthcare. As NIHR Oxford BRC (Oxford BRC) enters its third 5-year funding period, we seek to (1) apply the evidence base on how best to support the various partnerships in this large, multi-stakeholder research system and (2) research how these partnerships play out in a new, ambitious programme of translational research.

Methods

Organisational case study, informed by the principles of action research. A cross-cutting theme, ‘Partnerships for Health, Wealth and Innovation’ has been established with multiple sub-themes (drug development, device development, business support and commercialisation, research methodology and statistics, health economics, bioethics, patient and public involvement and engagement, knowledge translation, and education and training) to support individual BRC research themes and generate cross-theme learning.
The ‘Partnerships’ theme will support the BRC’s goals by facilitating six types of partnership (with patients and citizens, clinical services, industry, across the NIHR infrastructure, across academic disciplines, and with policymakers and payers) through a range of engagement platforms and activities. We will develop a longitudinal progress narrative centred around exemplar case studies, and apply theoretical models from innovation studies (Triple Helix), sociology of science (Mode 2 knowledge production) and business studies (Value Co-creation). Data sources will be the empirical research studies within individual BRC research themes (who will apply separately for NHS ethics approval), plus documentary analysis and interviews and ethnography with research stakeholders. This study has received ethics clearance through the University of Oxford Central University Research Ethics Committee.

Discussion

We anticipate that this work will add significant value to Oxford BRC. We predict accelerated knowledge translation; closer alignment of the innovation process with patient priorities and the principles of responsible, ethical research; reduction in research waste; new knowledge about the governance and activities of multi-stakeholder research partnerships and the contexts in which they operate; and capacity-building that reflects the future needs of a rapidly-evolving health research system.
Literature
1.
Rycroft-Malone J, Burton C, Wilkinson JE, Harvey G, McCormack B, Baker R, et al. Collective action for knowledge mobilisation: a realist evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care. Health Services and Delivery Research. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015. doi:10.​3310/​hsdr03440.
2.
Snape K, Trembath R, Lord G. Translational medicine and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre concept. QJM. 2008;101(11):901–6.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Walshe K, Davies HT. Health research, development and innovation in England from 1988 to 2013: from research production to knowledge mobilization. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(3_suppl):1–12.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Ovseiko PV, Davies SM, Buchan AM. Organizational models of emerging academic health science centers in England. Acad Med. 2010;85(8):1282–9.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Ovseiko PV, Heitmueller A, Allen P, Davies SM, Wells G, Ford GA, et al. Improving accountability through alignment: the role of academic health science centres and networks in England. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Ovseiko PV, O'Sullivan C, Powell SC, Davies SM, Buchan AM. Implementation of collaborative governance in cross-sector innovation and education networks: evidence from the National Health Service in England. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:552.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
McGough R, Rubenstein S. Academia. Shaping the new science networks. Health Serv J. 2013;123(6340):32–3.PubMed
9.
10.
11.
Shahzad A, McLachlan CS, Gault J, Cohrs RJ, Wang X, Köhler G. Global translational medicine initiatives and programs. Translational Biomedicine. 2011;2(3):2.
12.
Mittra J. The New Health Bioeconomy: R&D Policy and Innovation for the Twenty-first Century. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015.
13.
14.
Lichten CA, Marsden G, Pollitt A, Kiparoglou V, Channon KM, Sussex J. Does a biomedical research centre affect patient care in local hospitals? Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
16.
Bienkowska-Gibbs T, Exley J, Saunders CL, Marjanovic S, Chataway J, MacLure C, et al. Evaluating the role and contribution of innovation to health and wealth in the UK: a review of innovation, health and wealth: phase 1 final report. Rand Health Q. 2016;6(1):7.PubMedPubMedCentral
17.
18.
Walshe K, McKee M, McCarthy M, Groenewegen P, Hansen J, Figueras J, et al. Health systems and policy research in Europe: Horizon 2020. Lancet. 2013;382(9893):668.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156–65.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Lehoux P, Daudelin G, Williams-Jones B, Denis J-L, Longo C. How do business model and health technology design influence each other? Insights from a longitudinal case study of three academic spin-offs. Res Policy. 2014;43(6):1025–38.CrossRef
21.
Ferlie E, Crilly T, Jashapara A, Peckham A. Knowledge mobilisation in healthcare: a critical review of health sector and generic management literature. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(8):1297–304.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Hanney SR, González-Block MA. Building health research systems: WHO is generating global perspectives, and who’s celebrating national successes? Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Hernandez-Villafuerte K, Sussex J, Robin E, Guthrie S, Wooding S. Economies of scale and scope in publicly funded biomedical and health research: evidence from the literature. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15:3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Ferlie E, Fitzgerald L, McGivern G, Dopson S, Bennett C. Making Wicked Problems Governable?: the case of managed networks in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.CrossRef
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M. Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity; 2001.
30.
Kleinman DL. Democratizations of Science and Technology. In: Kleinman DL, editor. Science, Technology, and Democracy. Albany: SUNY; 2000. p. 139–63.
31.
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Tysall C, Hughes J, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. The patient—Patient Centred Outcomes Research. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637–50.CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
Gradinger F, Britten N, Wyatt K, Froggatt K, Gibson A, Jacoby A, et al. Values associated with public involvement in health and social care research: a narrative review. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):661–75.CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
Boaz A, Biri D, McKevitt C. Rethinking the relationship between science and society: Has there been a shift in attitudes to Patient and Public Involvement and Public Engagement in Science in the United Kingdom? Health Expect. 2014;19(3):592–601.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DV, Button KS, Chambers CD, du Sert NP, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Human Behav. 2017;1:0021.CrossRef
37.
Russell J, Greenhalgh T, Kushner S. Case study evaluation: Past, present and future challenges. In: Russell J, Greenhalgh T, Kushner S, editors. Case Study Evaluation: Past, Present and Future Challenges (Advances in Program Evaluation, Volume 15). Bingley: Emerald; 2015.CrossRef
38.
Flyvbjerg B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq. 2006;12(2):219–45.CrossRef
39.
Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev. 1989;14(4):532–50.
40.
41.
Boaz A, Fitzpatrick S, Shaw B. Assessing the impact of research on policy: A literature review. Sci Public Policy. 2009;36(4):255–70.CrossRef
42.
43.
44.
Ovseiko PV, Oancea A, Buchan AM. Assessing research impact in academic clinical medicine: a study using Research Excellence Framework pilot impact indicators. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:478.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Ovseiko PV, Davies SM, Buchan AM. Funding of academic research in clinical medicine in the United Kingdom. Acad Med. 2014;89(5):830.CrossRefPubMed
46.
47.
Greenhalgh T. How to implement evidence-based healthcare. Oxford: Wiley; 2018.
48.
49.
Holmes BJ, Best A, Davies H, Hunter D, Kelly MP, Marshall M, et al. Mobilising knowledge in complex health systems: a call to action. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract. 2016. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1332/​174426416X147125​53750311.
50.
51.
Waterman H, Tillen D, Dickson R, De Koning K. Action research: a systematic review and guidance for assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(23):1–166.CrossRef
52.
Eckstein H. Case study and theory in political science. In: Greenstein FI, Polsby NW, editors. Handbook of Political Science. 7th ed. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley; 1975. p. 79–138.
53.
Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Res Policy. 2000;29(2):109–23.CrossRef
54.
Ranga M, Etzkowitz H. Triple helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the Knowledge Society. Ind High Educ. 2013;27(4):237–62.CrossRef
55.
Etzkowitz H. The triple helix: university-industry-government innovation in action. London: Routledge; 2008.CrossRef
56.
Grunwald A. Responsible innovation: bringing together technology assessment, applied ethics, and STS research. Enterprise Work Innovation Stud. 2011;31:10–9.
57.
Von Schomberg R. A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Owen R, Heintz M, Bessant J, editors. Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2013. p. 51–74.CrossRef
58.
Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Sci Public Policy. 2012;39(6):751–60.CrossRef
59.
Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy. 2013;42(9):1568–80.CrossRef
60.
Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage; 1994.
61.
Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M. Mode 2 revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva. 2003;41(3):179–94.CrossRef
62.
Greenhalgh T, Jackson C, Shaw S, Janaiman T. Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: literature review and case study. Milbank Q. 2016;94(2):392–429.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
63.
64.
Swan J, Bresnen M, Robertson M, Newell S, Dopson S. When policy meets practice: Colliding logics and the challenges of ‘Mode 2’initiatives in the translation of academic knowledge. Organ Stud. 2010;31(9-10):1311–40.CrossRef
65.
Orr K, Bennett M. Public administration scholarship and the politics of coproducing academic–practitioner research. Public Adm Rev. 2012;72(4):487–95.CrossRef
66.
Bresnen M, Burrell G. Journals à la mode? Twenty years of living alongside Mode 2 and the new production of knowledge. Organization. 2013;20(1):25–37.CrossRef
67.
Ramaswamy V, Ozcan K. The co-creation paradigm. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2014.
68.
Ramaswamy V, Gouillart FJ. The power of co-creation: Build it with them to boost growth, productivity, and profits. New York: Free Press; 2010.
69.
Hughes T. Co-creation: moving towards a framework for creating innovation in the Triple Helix. Prometheus. 2014;32(4):337–50.CrossRef
70.
Carayannis EG, Campbell DF. Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. In: Mode 3 Knowledge Production in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems. New York, NY: Springer; 2012. p. 1–63.CrossRef
71.
Weick KE. The generative properties of richness. Acad Manag J. 2007;50(1):14.CrossRef
72.
Wehrens R, Bekker M, Bal R. Hybrid management configurations in joint research. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2014;39(1):6–41.CrossRef
73.
Hanney S, Kuruvilla S, Soper B, Mays N. Who needs what from a national health research system: lessons from reforms to the English Department of Health's R&D system. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010;8:11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
74.
Bennet A, Bennet D, Fafard K, Fonda M, Lomond T, Messier L, et al. Knowledge Mobilization in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Frost, WV: MQI Press; 2007.
75.
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 Qual Health Care. 2014;26(2):124–8.CrossRefPubMed
76.
Fitzgerald L, Harvey G. Translational networks in healthcare? Evidence on the design and initiation of organizational networks for knowledge mobilization. Soc Sci Med. 2015;138:192–200.CrossRefPubMed
77.
Brown C. The policy agora: how the epistemological and ideological preferences of policy-makers affect the development of government policy. Human Welfare. 2012;1(1):57–70.
78.
Schmachtel S. Local partnerships as ‘rationalized myths’: a critical examination of the micro-discourse in educational partnership working. Crit Policy Stud. 2015;10(4):448–67.CrossRef
79.
Jagosh J, Bush PL, Salsberg J, Macaulay AC, Greenhalgh T, Wong G, et al. A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:725.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
80.
Greenhalgh T, Russell J, Ashcroft RE, Parsons W. Why national eHealth programs need dead philosophers: Wittgensteinian reflections on policymakers' reluctance to learn from history. Milbank Q. 2011;89(4):533–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Maximising value from a United Kingdom Biomedical Research Centre: study protocol
Authors
Trisha Greenhalgh
Pavel V. Ovseiko
Nick Fahy
Sara Shaw
Polly Kerr
Alexander D. Rushforth
Keith M. Channon
Vasiliki Kiparoglou
On behalf of the Partnerships for Health, Wealth and Innovation cross-cutting theme of the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0237-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2017 Go to the issue

Review

How do we define the policy impact of public health research? A systematic review

Review

Economies of scale and scope in publicly funded biomedical and health research: evidence from the literature

Research

Responding to non-communicable diseases in Zambia: a policy analysis

Research

Identifying research priorities for public health research to address health inequalities: use of Delphi-like survey methods

Research

Building capacity for medical education research in family medicine: the Program for Innovation in Medical Education (PIME)

Research

The concept of ‘vulnerability’ in research ethics: an in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines