You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 28, Issue 1
  • Addressing the challenges of knowledge co-production in quality improvement: learning from the implementation of the researcher-in-residence model

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Research and reporting methodology
Addressing the challenges of knowledge co-production in quality improvement: learning from the implementation of the researcher-in-residence model
  1. Cecilia Vindrola-Padros1,
  2. Laura Eyre2,
  3. Helen Baxter3,
  4. Helen Cramer3,
  5. Bethan George4,
  6. Lesley Wye3,
  7. Naomi J Fulop1,
  8. Martin Utley5,
  9. Natasha Phillips6,
  10. Peter Brindle7,
  11. Martin Marshall2
  1. 1 Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
  2. 2 Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK
  3. 3 Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, Bristol, UK
  4. 4 Tower Hamlets GP Care Group, London, UK
  5. 5 Clinical Operational Research Unit, UCL, London, UK
  6. 6 University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  7. 7 Avon Primary Care Research Collaborative, Bristol, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Cecilia Vindrola-Padros, Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK; c.vindrola{at}ucl.ac.uk

Abstract

The concept of knowledge co-production is used in health services research to describe partnerships (which can involve researchers, practitioners, managers, commissioners or service users) with the purpose of creating, sharing and negotiating different knowledge types used to make improvements in health services. Several knowledge co-production models have been proposed to date, some involving intermediary roles. This paper explores one such model, researchers-in-residence (also known as ‘embedded researchers’).

In this model, researchers work inside healthcare organisations, operating as staff members while also maintaining an affiliation with academic institutions. As part of the local team, researchers negotiate the meaning and use of research-based knowledge to co-produce knowledge, which is sensitive to the local context. Even though this model is spreading and appears to have potential for using co-produced knowledge to make changes in practice, a number of challenges with its use are emerging. These include challenges experienced by the researchers in embedding themselves within the practice environment, preserving a clear focus within their host organisations and maintaining academic professional identity.

In this paper, we provide an exploration of these challenges by examining three independent case studies implemented in the UK, each of which attempted to co-produce relevant research projects to improve the quality of care. We explore how these played out in practice and the strategies used by the researchers-in-residence to address them. In describing and analysing these strategies, we hope that participatory approaches to knowledge co-production can be used more effectively in the future.

  • quality improvement
  • health services research
  • evaluation methodology

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007127

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors MM and LE conceived the idea for the paper. LE and CV-P led on drafting the paper. All authors contributed substantially to writing the paper and all reviewed and approved the final draft.

    • Funding This study was funded by National Institute for Health Research Knowledge Mobilisation Research Fellowship, Avon Primary Care Research Collaborative, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Waltham Forest and East London integrated care programme. NJF, MU and CV-P were in part supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) North Thames at Bart’s Health NHS Trust. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

    • Competing interests CV-P worked as an embedded researcher in the UCLH ERT. NJF oversaw the work of the UCLH ERT. MM supervises and mentors a team of researchers-in-residence and lectures on the model nationally and internationally. HC was an embedded researcher at BCCG. HB works as an embedded researcher at BCCG. MU started a modellers-in-residence programme at Great Ormond Street Hospital, contributed to the work of the UCLH ERT and currently works as a researcher-in-residence at Care City London. LE and LW have no competing interests. NP has collaborated with an embedded research team.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement Not applicable.