Nurturing Practitioner-Researcher Partnerships to Improve Adoption and Delivery of Research-Based Social and Public Health Services Worldwide

Abstract

Research-based practices—psychosocial, behavioral, and public health interventions—have been demonstrated to be effective and often cost-saving treatments, but they can take up to two decades to reach practitioners within the health and human services workforce worldwide. Practitioners often rely on anecdotal evidence and their “practice wisdom” rather than on research, and may thus unintentionally provide less effective or ineffective services. Worldwide, community engagement in research is recommended, particularly in low-resource contexts. However, practitioner involvement has not been adequately explored in its own right as an innovative community-engaged practice that requires a tailored approach. The involvement of practitioners in research has been shown to improve their use of research-based interventions, and thus the quality of care and client outcomes. Nevertheless, the literature is lacking specificity about when and how (that is, using which tasks and procedures) to nurture and develop practitioner–researcher partnerships. This paper offers theoretical and empirical evidence on practitioner–researcher partnerships as an innovation with potential to enhance each phase of the research cycle and improve services, using data from the United States, Brazil, and Spain. Recommendations for partnership development and sustainability are offered, and a case is made for involving practitioners in research in order to advance social justice by amplifying the local relevance of research, increasing the likelihood of dissemination to community settings, and securing the sustainability of research-based interventions in practice settings.

Strategies to recruit rural primary care providers to implement a medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) focused integrated care model

“…These findings may suggest a need for tailored recruitment approaches to successfully recruit and engage rural primary care providers across different sites. Indeed, prior research has indicated that implementing MOUD in rural primary care is more likely to be successful if implementers are attentive to the needs of individual providers, are flexible, tailor recruitment and implementation strategies, and provide ongoing support to meet individualized needs ( Nourjah & Kato, 2021 ; Pinto et al, 2019 ).…”

“…A prerequisite for effectively implementing Project RAMP was effectively recruiting and engaging providers to participate. Despite repeated calls highlighting the need for improved provider engagement in research and recruitment strategies to facilitate enhanced implementation of evidence-based practices in the community, publications on recruitment strategies remains limited ( Department of Health and Human Services ; NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory ; Nourjah & Kato, 2021 ; Pinto et al, 2019 ).…”

Advancing Health Services Collaborative and Partnership Research Comment on "Experience of Health Leadership in Partnering with University-Based Researchers in Canada – A Call to ‘Re-imagine’ Research"

“…This includes studies on embedded roles within the organizational system, network structures, and features of recent collaborative and partnership research initiatives world-wide. 26 , 27 A recent comparative study in the United States, Brazil, and Spain highlighted “the nuanced nature of involving practitioners based on the context, cultural norms around practitioner roles, available funding for training and compensation, and accepted practices for researchers” 28 (p. 6). The authors call for cultural humility, a negotiation of interests and pursuits between researchers and practitioners, and mutual support to overcome differences and achieve consensus.…”

Practice-Based Research Networks in Stakeholder-Driven Social Work Research

“…Unaware of the benefits of the PBRNs, both academic and social work practice organizations may be hesitant to adopt a new approach to problem-solving (Pinto et al, 2019). PBRNs have been developed in many forms (for a review, see Davis et al, 2012), including differences in member composition (single vs. multispecialty), affiliation (nonprofits, health systems, academic institutions), size (number of members, locations, geographic regions), and organizational structure (community meetings, steering committees, executive leadership).…”