Collective action for implementation: a realist evaluation of organisational collaboration in healthcare

Abstract

BackgroundIncreasingly, it is being suggested that translational gaps might be eradicated or narrowed by bringing research users and producers closer together, a theory that is largely untested. This paper reports a national study to fill a gap in the evidence about the conditions, processes and outcomes related to collaboration and implementation.MethodsA longitudinal realist evaluation using multiple qualitative methods case studies was conducted with three Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research in Care (England). Data were collected over four rounds of theory development, refinement and testing. Over 200 participants were involved in semi-structured interviews, non-participant observations of events and meetings, and stakeholder engagement. A combined inductive and deductive data analysis process was focused on proposition refinement and testing iteratively over data collection rounds.ResultsThe quality of existing relationships between higher education and local health service, and views about whether implementation was a collaborative act, created a path dependency. Where implementation was perceived to be removed from service and there was a lack of organisational connections, this resulted in a focus on knowledge production and transfer, rather than co-production. The collaborations’ architectures were counterproductive because they did not facilitate connectivity and had emphasised professional and epistemic boundaries. More distributed leadership was associated with greater potential for engagement. The creation of boundary spanning roles was the most visible investment in implementation, and credible individuals in these roles resulted in cross-boundary work, in facilitation and in direct impacts. The academic-practice divide played out strongly as a context for motivation to engage, in that ‘what’s in it for me’ resulted in variable levels of engagement along a co-operation-collaboration continuum. Learning within and across collaborations was patchy depending on attention to evaluation.ConclusionsThese collaborations did not emerge from a vacuum, and they needed time to learn and develop. Their life cycle started with their position on collaboration, knowledge and implementation. More impactful attempts at collective action in implementation might be determined by the deliberate alignment of a number of features, including foundational relationships, vision, values, structures and processes and views about the nature of the collaboration and implementation.

Conceptualising the initiation of researcher and research user partnerships: a meta-narrative review

“…In our scoping review of the IKT literature, most included studies evaluated partnerships that were a minimum of 2 years from launch, yet they were beset by challenges reflecting partnership development [9]. Other research complemented this observation, showing that certain processes at an early stage of partnership formation were important to the further development of the partnership; for example, establishing convenient virtual and physical communication spaces and channels [9,12,13]; clarifying and establishing vision, mission, goals, terms of reference, rules, regulations, policies, priorities, strategic planning documents and project timelines [9,13,14]; negotiating roles, identifying member skills and delegating work [9,14]; and ensuring clear leadership and engagement of team members [13][14][15]. Specific partnership initiation processes (i.e.…”

Accessibility and implementation in the UK NHS services of an effective depression relapse prevention programme: learning from mindfulness-based cognitive therapy through a mixed-methods study

“…Additionally, where there is attention to learning and evaluation, a greater fit or alignment between the intervention and context has the potential to develop over time. 104,105 In this study, where there was a good fit between the NHS context and the MBCT implementation, effective implementation was more likely. For example, where services' orientation was matched with adaptations to MBCT, implementation was more likely to evolve successfully.…”

Midwives' use of best available evidence in practice: An integrative review

“…Seminal work in IS has led to expanding interest in knowledge translation and the gap between evidence-to-practice in health care (Casey, O' Leary, & Coghlan, 2018). To facilitate this process, a range of theories and frameworks have been developed to guide the dissemination-implementation process and inform clinicians of the actions needed to expedite the process (Casey, O' Leary, & Coghlan, 2018;Rycroft-Malone, 2016). Arguably, one of the founding…”