Promising Points for Intervention in Re-Imagining Partnered Research in Health Services; Comment on “Experience of Health Leadership in Partnering with University-Based Researchers in Canada – A Call to ‘Re-imagine’ Research”

Document Type: Commentary

Authors

1 Faculty of Information and Media Studies, Western University, London, ON, Canada

2 School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, ON, Canada

3 School of Health Studies, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, ON, Canada

Abstract

In this commentary, we respond to Bowen and colleagues’ empirical study of research partnerships between Canadian health organizations and university-based investigators. We draw on our experiences of university and health-services partnerships to elaborate on some of the misalignments between researchers and health services leaders identified by Bowen et al. We take up Bowen and colleagues’ call to re-imagine research by proposing three promising points of intervention in research partnerships. These are: (1) orient towards research relationships rather than project-based partnerships; (2) recognize shared and diverging expectations and objectives; and (3) foster a more nuanced understanding of mutual gains.

Keywords


  1. Bowen S, Botting I, Graham ID, et al. Experience of health leadership in partnering with university-based researchers in Canada – a call to “re-imagine” research.  Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019;8(12):684-699. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2019.66
  2. Greenhalgh T. Bridging the ‘Two cultures’ of research and service: can complexity theory help? Comment on “Experience of health leadership in partnering with university-based researchers in Canada–a call to ‘re-imagine’ research.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020;9(2):87-88. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2019.89
  3. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):50. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
  4. Straus SE, Tetroe JM, Graham ID. Knowledge translation is the use of knowledge in health care decision making. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(1):6-10. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.016
  5. Kothari A, Wathen CN. A critical second look at integrated knowledge translation. Health Policy. 2013;109(2):187-191. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.11.004
  6. Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative research: reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311(6996):42-45. doi:10.1136/bmj.311.6996.42
  7. Brassolotto J, Raphael D, Baldeo N. Epistemological barriers to addressing the social determinants of health among public health professionals in Ontario, Canada: a qualitative inquiry. Crit Public Health. 2014;24(3):321-336. doi:10.1080/09581596.2013.820256
  8. Wellstead A, Cairney P, Oliver K. Reducing ambiguity to close the science-policy gap. Policy Design and Practice. 2018;1(2):115-125. doi:10.1080/25741292.2018.1458397