Conditions for sustainability of Academic Collaborative Centres for Public Health in the Netherlands: a mixed methods design

Abstract

BackgroundContemporary research should increasingly be carried out in the context of application. Nowotny called this new form of knowledge production Mode-2. In line with Mode-2 knowledge production, the Dutch government in 2006 initiated the so-called Academic Collaborative Centres (ACC) for Public Health. The aim of these ACCs is to build a regional, sustainable knowledge-sharing network to deliver socially robust knowledge. The present study aims to highlight the enabling and constraining push and pull factors of these ACCs in order to assess whether the ACCs are able to build and strengthen a sustainable integrated organizational network between public health policy, practice, and research.MethodsOur empirical analysis builds on a mixed methods design. Quantitative data was derived from records of a survey sent to all 11 ACCs about personnel investments, number and nature of projects, and earning power. Qualitative data was derived from 21 in-depth interviews with stakeholders involved. The interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed, and manually coded as favourable or unfavourable pull or push factors.ResultsThe extra funding appeared to be the most enabling push factor. The networks secured external grants for about 150 short- and long-term Mode-2 knowledge production projects in the past years. Enabling pull factors improved, especially the number of policy-driven short-term research projects. Exchange agents were able to constructively deal with the constraining push factors, like university’s publication pressure and budget limitations. However, the constraining pull factors like local government’s involvement and their low demand for scientific evidence were difficult to overcome.ConclusionsA clear improvement of the organizational networks was noticed whereby the ACC’s were pushed rather than pulled. Efforts are needed to increase the demand for scientific and socially robust evidence from policymakers and to resolve the regime differences between the research and policy systems, in order to make the bidirectionality of the links sustainable.

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

“…In some jurisdictions, researcher and research user partnerships have become routinised in the structures and processes relied upon to generate and implement research. The Netherlands invested over 30 million euros to establish 11 Academic Collaborative Centres between 2006 and 2014, which involved partnerships between healthcare organisations and universities, leading to 150 short-and long-term policy-driven projects to improve public health [6]. Similarly, in England, 200 million pounds were invested to create 9 Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLARHCs) between 2008 and 2013, which are regional partnerships between healthcare organisations and universities that improved healthcare delivery (i.e.…”

Initiation is recognized as a fundamental early phase of integrated knowledge translation (IKT): qualitative interviews with researchers and research users in IKT partnerships

“…Alternatively, it is now well-recognized that partnerships between researchers and research users who co-generate knowledge, a process often referred to as integrated knowledge translation (IKT), are an effective means of enabling the uptake of research evidence to optimize healthcare planning, delivery, and outcomes [2–4]. IKT can empower research users that were traditionally passive consumers of knowledge to have a say in its creation or direction [5, 6], create capacity to make research evidence context-sensitive to local health care needs [7], and prime knowledge users, who may be involved in various steps of the research process, to apply that knowledge [8]. Research users include clinicians, managers, patients, family members or caregivers, health system leaders or policy-makers, and other stakeholders who may use the research [9].…”

“…Large scale examples include the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) in the United Kingdom (UK) [11] or the Academic Collaborative Centres (ACCs) in the Netherlands [12]. In both cases, considerable resources were invested at a national level in establishing the capacity to support partnerships between researchers and research users, leading to increased IKT activity, and use of evidence to inform policy and practice [7, 11]. Research based on these and other partnerships revealed numerous factors influence IKT and its impact; they include establishing a physical space for communication and collaboration, preferably at close geographical proximity [2, 13], setting roles, goals and responsibilities for team members [2, 14–16], setting leadership for projects [2, 7], and funding for grants and incentives [7, 16].…”

“…In both cases, considerable resources were invested at a national level in establishing the capacity to support partnerships between researchers and research users, leading to increased IKT activity, and use of evidence to inform policy and practice [7, 11]. Research based on these and other partnerships revealed numerous factors influence IKT and its impact; they include establishing a physical space for communication and collaboration, preferably at close geographical proximity [2, 13], setting roles, goals and responsibilities for team members [2, 14–16], setting leadership for projects [2, 7], and funding for grants and incentives [7, 16]. When absent in either researchers or research users, the following factors function as barriers of IKT: positive attitude towards IKT [2, 17], knowledge about IKT [18, 19], funding or other incentives to take part in IKT [17], time to commit [2, 20], sense of belonging to a research team [21], and trust and respect between partners [13, 20].…”

Improving health promotion through central rating of interventions: the need for Responsive Guidance

“…An available intervention is at best a hopeful design, and realising it locally in practice requires work by many actors and heterogeneous learning processes. Awareness that most of the work and learning required for realising an effective intervention has to happen locally is essential [ 24 ]. The fourth component of the lure of effectiveness is that an illusion can emerge that quality can be centrally assured.…”