Maximising value from a united kingdom biomedical research centre: Study protocol

Health Research Policy and Systems

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Allen, Maxine ^a   Bergmann, Jeroen ^a   Best, Denise ^b   Birks, Jacqueline ^b   Bountra, Chas ^c   Buchan, Alastair ^a   Collins, Gary ^b   Faulkner, Stuart ^b   Ford, Gary ^d,e   Geddes, John ^b   Gray, Alastair ^b   Locock, Louise ^b   Noble, Alison ^a   Pugh, Christopher ^c,e   Sheehan, Mark ^b   Smith, Joel ^b   Stoten, Adam ^a   Vincent, Charles ^b   Wells, Glenn ^e   Whyte, Paul ^a   Greenhalgh, Trisha ^b   Ovseiko, Pavel V ^b   Fahy, Nick ^b   Shaw, Sara ^b   Kerr, Polly ^b   Rushforth, Alexander D ^b   Channon, Keith M ^b,e   Kiparoglou, Vasiliki ^b,e   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d Oxford Academic Health Science Network   (United Kingdom)

^e JOHN RADCLIFFE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biomedical research centres; Health policy; Health research policy; Health technology development; Innovation policy; Knowledge production; National institute for health research; Research on research; Research partnerships

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOETHICS; BUSINESS ETHICS; CASE STUDY; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DEVICES; DRUG RESEARCH; EDUCATION; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; ETHNOGRAPHY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; INDUSTRIALIZATION; INTERVIEW; LEARNING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; RESPONSIBILITY; SOCIAL SUPPORT; SOCIOLOGY; STATISTICS; THEORETICAL MODEL; TRAINING; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 85030155374     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14784505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12961-017-0237-1     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Rycroft-Malone J, Burton C, Wilkinson JE, Harvey G, McCormack B, Baker R, et al. Collective action for knowledge mobilisation: a realist evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care. Health Services and Delivery Research. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015. doi:10.3310/hsdr03440.
2. Snape K, Trembath R, Lord G. Translational medicine and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre concept. QJM. 2008;101(11):901-6.
3. National Institute for Health Research. Biomedical Research Centres. http://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/how-we-are-managed/our-structure/infrastructure/biomedical-research-centres.htm. Accessed 3 March 2017.
4. Walshe K, Davies HT. Health research, development and innovation in England from 1988 to 2013: from research production to knowledge mobilization. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(3_suppl):1-12.
5. Ovseiko PV, Davies SM, Buchan AM. Organizational models of emerging academic health science centers in England. Acad Med. 2010;85(8):1282-9.
6. Ovseiko PV, Heitmueller A, Allen P, Davies SM, Wells G, Ford GA, et al. Improving accountability through alignment: the role of academic health science centres and networks in England. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:24.
7. Ovseiko PV, O'Sullivan C, Powell SC, Davies SM, Buchan AM. Implementation of collaborative governance in cross-sector innovation and education networks: evidence from the National Health Service in England. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:552.
8. McGough R, Rubenstein S. Academia. Shaping the new science networks. Health Serv J. 2013;123(6340):32-3.
9. Department of Health. Best Research for Best Health: A New National Health Research Strategy. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bestresearch- for-best-health-a-new-national-health-research-strategy. Accessed 29 June 2017.
10. Woolf SH. The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA. 2008;299(2):211-3.
11. Shahzad A, McLachlan CS, Gault J, Cohrs RJ, Wang X, Köhler G. Global translational medicine initiatives and programs. Translational Biomedicine. 2011;2(3):2.
12. Mittra J. The New Health Bioeconomy: R&D Policy and Innovation for the Twenty-first Century. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015.
13. Marjanovic S, Soper B, Shehabi A, Celia C, Reding A, Ling T. Changing the translational research landscape: A review of the impacts of Biomedical Research Centres in England. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR787.html. Accessed 29 June 2017.
14. Lichten CA, Marsden G, Pollitt A, Kiparoglou V, Channon KM, Sussex J. Does a biomedical research centre affect patient care in local hospitals? Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15:2.
15. Hampson G, Lichten C, Berdud M, Pollitt A, Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Sussex J, et al. 'Macro' Evaluation of the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. https://www.ohe.org/publications/%E2%80%98macro%E2%80%99-evaluation-nihroxford-biomedical-research-centre-0. Accessed 29 June 2017.
16. Bienkowska-Gibbs T, Exley J, Saunders CL, Marjanovic S, Chataway J, MacLure C, et al. Evaluating the role and contribution of innovation to health and wealth in the UK: a review of innovation, health and wealth: phase 1 final report. Rand Health Q. 2016;6(1):7.
17. Naylor D, Fraser N, Girard F, Jenkins T, Mintz J, Power C. Unleashing innovation: Excellent healthcare for Canada. Report of the Advisory Panel on Healthcare Innovation. http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/publications/health-systemsysteme-sante/report-healthcare-innovation-rapport-soins/alt/reporthealthcare-innovation-rapport-soins-eng.pdf. Accessed 26 February 2017.
18. Walshe K, McKee M, McCarthy M, Groenewegen P, Hansen J, Figueras J, et al. Health systems and policy research in Europe: Horizon 2020. Lancet. 2013;382(9893):668.
19. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156-65.
20. Lehoux P, Daudelin G, Williams-Jones B, Denis J-L, Longo C. How do business model and health technology design influence each other? Insights from a longitudinal case study of three academic spin-offs. Res Policy. 2014;43(6):1025-38.
21. Ferlie E, Crilly T, Jashapara A, Peckham A. Knowledge mobilisation in healthcare: a critical review of health sector and generic management literature. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(8):1297-304.
22. Hanney SR, González-Block MA. Building health research systems: WHO is generating global perspectives, and who's celebrating national successes? Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:90.
23. Hernandez-Villafuerte K, Sussex J, Robin E, Guthrie S, Wooding S. Economies of scale and scope in publicly funded biomedical and health research: evidence from the literature. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15:3.
24. Ferlie E, Fitzgerald L, McGivern G, Dopson S, Bennett C. Making Wicked Problems Governable?: the case of managed networks in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.
25. Department of Health. Innovation, Health and Wealth: Accelerating Adoption and Diffusion in the NHS. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http:/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_131299. Accessed 29 June 2017.
26. Smith J. Technological Innovation in Health Care: Report of the Standing Commission on Health. http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-1/HESA/report-14. Accessed 26 February 2017.
27. Garber S, Gates S, Keeler EB, Valana ME, Mulcahy AW, Lau C, et al. Redirecting Innovation in U.S. Health Care: Options to Decrease Spending and Increase Value. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR308.html.Accessed 27 February 2017.
28. National Institute for Health Research. Going the Extra Mile: Improving the Nation's Health and Wellbeing through Public Involvement in Research. https://www.rds-yh.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Going-the-Extra-Mile-Final.pdf. Accessed 3 Mar 2017.
29. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M. Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity; 2001.
30. Kleinman DL. Democratizations of Science and Technology. In: Kleinman DL, editor. Science, Technology, and Democracy. Albany: SUNY; 2000. p. 139-63.
31. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Tysall C, Hughes J, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. The patient-Patient Centred Outcomes Research. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637-50.
32. Edelman N, Barron D. Evaluation of public involvement in research: time for a major re-think? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2015;21(3):209-11.
33. Gradinger F, Britten N, Wyatt K, Froggatt K, Gibson A, Jacoby A, et al. Values associated with public involvement in health and social care research: a narrative review. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):661-75.
34. Greenhalgh T, Shaw S, Fahy N. The bright elusive butterfly of value in health technology development. Int J Health Policy Management. 2017. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2017.65.
35. Boaz A, Biri D, McKevitt C. Rethinking the relationship between science and society: Has there been a shift in attitudes to Patient and Public Involvement and Public Engagement in Science in the United Kingdom? Health Expect. 2014;19(3):592-601.
36. Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DV, Button KS, Chambers CD, du Sert NP, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Human Behav. 2017;1:0021.
37. Russell J, Greenhalgh T, Kushner S. Case study evaluation: Past, present and future challenges. In: Russell J, Greenhalgh T, Kushner S, editors. Case Study Evaluation: Past, Present and Future Challenges (Advances in Program Evaluation, Volume 15). Bingley: Emerald; 2015.
38. Flyvbjerg B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq. 2006;12(2):219-45.
39. Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev. 1989;14(4):532-50.
40. Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, Borsboom D, Bowman S, Breckler S, et al. Promoting an open research culture. Science. 2015;348(6242):1422-5.
41. Boaz A, Fitzpatrick S, Shaw B. Assessing the impact of research on policy: A literature review. Sci Public Policy. 2009;36(4):255-70.
42. Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership. The Oxfordshire Innovation Engine: realising the growth potential. http://www.sqw.co.uk/files/2613/8690/7243/Oxford_engine.pdf. Accessed 3 March 2017.
43. Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership. The Oxfordshire Innovation Engine Update http://www.oxfordahsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Oxfordshire-Innovation-Engine-Update-2016-FINAL-REPORT-2.pdf. Accessed 3 March 2017.
44. Ovseiko PV, Oancea A, Buchan AM. Assessing research impact in academic clinical medicine: a study using Research Excellence Framework pilot impact indicators. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:478.
45. Ovseiko PV, Davies SM, Buchan AM. Funding of academic research in clinical medicine in the United Kingdom. Acad Med. 2014;89(5):830.
46. Independent Commission on Health Inequalities in Oxfordshire. Addressing Health Inequalities in Oxfordshire. http://www.healthwatchoxfordshire.co.uk/ sites/default/files/health_inequalities_headline_report.pdf. Accessed 3 Mar 2017.
47. Greenhalgh T. How to implement evidence-based healthcare. Oxford: Wiley; 2018.
48. Bauer MS, Damschroder L, Hagedorn H, Smith J, Kilbourne AM. An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychol. 2015;3:32.
49. Holmes BJ, Best A, Davies H, Hunter D, Kelly MP, Marshall M, et al. Mobilising knowledge in complex health systems: a call to action. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426416X14712553750311.
50. Open for Innovation: UK Biopharma R&D Sourcebook. http://www.abpi.org. uk/our-work/library/industry/Pages/Open-for-Innovation-ABPI-Sourcebook- 2016.aspx. Accessed 7 Apr 2017.
51. Waterman H, Tillen D, Dickson R, De Koning K. Action research: a systematic review and guidance for assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(23):1-166.
52. Eckstein H. Case study and theory in political science. In: Greenstein FI, Polsby NW, editors. Handbook of Political Science. 7th ed. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley; 1975. p. 79-138.
53. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Res Policy. 2000;29(2):109-23.
54. Ranga M, Etzkowitz H. Triple helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the Knowledge Society. Ind High Educ. 2013;27(4):237-62.
55. Etzkowitz H. The triple helix: university-industry-government innovation in action. London: Routledge, 2008.
56. Grunwald A. Responsible innovation: bringing together technology assessment, applied ethics, and STS research. Enterprise Work Innovation Stud. 2011;31:10-9.
57. Von Schomberg R. A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Owen R, Heintz M, Bessant J, editors. Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2013. p. 51-74.
58. Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Sci Public Policy. 2012;39(6):751-60.
59. Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy. 2013;42(9):1568-80.
60. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage, 1994.
61. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M. Mode 2 revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva. 2003;41(3):179-94.
62. Greenhalgh T, Jackson C, Shaw S, Janaiman T. Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: literature review and case study. Milbank Q. 2016;94(2):392-429.
63. Merton RK. Science and the social order. Philos Sci. 1938;5(3):321-37.
64. Swan J, Bresnen M, Robertson M, Newell S, Dopson S. When policy meets practice: Colliding logics and the challenges of 'Mode 2'initiatives in the translation of academic knowledge. Organ Stud. 2010;31(9-10):1311-40.
65. Orr K, Bennett M. Public administration scholarship and the politics of coproducing academic-practitioner research. Public Adm Rev. 2012;72(4):487-95.
66. Bresnen M, Burrell G. Journals à la mode? Twenty years of living alongside Mode 2 and the new production of knowledge. Organization. 2013;20(1):25-37.
67. Ramaswamy V, Ozcan K. The co-creation paradigm. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2014.
68. Ramaswamy V, Gouillart FJ. The power of co-creation: Build it with them to boost growth, productivity, and profits. New York: Free Press; 2010.
69. Hughes T. Co-creation: moving towards a framework for creating innovation in the Triple Helix. Prometheus. 2014;32(4):337-50.
70. Carayannis EG, Campbell DF. Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. In: Mode 3 Knowledge Production in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems. New York, NY: Springer; 2012. p. 1-63.
71. Weick KE. The generative properties of richness. Acad Manag J. 2007;50(1):14.
72. Wehrens R, Bekker M, Bal R. Hybrid management configurations in joint research. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2014;39(1):6-41.
73. Hanney S, Kuruvilla S, Soper B, Mays N. Who needs what from a national health research system: lessons from reforms to the English Department of Health's R&D system. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010;8:11.
74. Bennet A, Bennet D, Fafard K, Fonda M, Lomond T, Messier L, et al. Knowledge Mobilization in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Frost, WV: MQI Press; 2007.
75. Hinchcliff R, Greenfield D, Braithwaite J. Is it worth engaging in multistakeholder health services research collaborations? Reflections on key benefits, challenges and enabling mechanisms. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014;26(2):124-8.
76. Fitzgerald L, Harvey G. Translational networks in healthcare? Evidence on the design and initiation of organizational networks for knowledge mobilization. Soc Sci Med. 2015;138:192-200.
77. Brown C. The policy agora: how the epistemological and ideological preferences of policy-makers affect the development of government policy. Human Welfare. 2012;1(1):57-70.
78. Schmachtel S. Local partnerships as 'rationalized myths': a critical examination of the micro-discourse in educational partnership working. Crit Policy Stud. 2015;10(4):448-67.
79. Jagosh J, Bush PL, Salsberg J, Macaulay AC, Greenhalgh T, Wong G, et al. A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:725.
80. Greenhalgh T, Russell J, Ashcroft RE, Parsons W. Why national eHealth programs need dead philosophers: Wittgensteinian reflections on policymakers' reluctance to learn from history. Milbank Q. 2011;89(4):533-63.