33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Envisioning and shaping translation of knowledge into action: A comparative case-study of stakeholder engagement in the development of a European tobacco control tool

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Stakeholder engagement in health policy research is often said to increase ‘research impact’, but the active role of stakeholders in creating impact remains underexplored. We explored how stakeholders shaped the translation of health policy research into action. Our comparative case-study tracked a European research project that aimed to transfer an existing tobacco control return on investment tool. That project also aimed to increase its impact by engaging with stakeholders in further developing the tool. We conducted semi-structured interviews, using an actor-scenario mapping approach. Actor-scenarios can be seen as relational descriptions of a future world. We mapped the scenarios by asking stakeholders to describe who and what would play a role in the tool’s utilisation. Our results show that stakeholders envisioned disparate futures for the tool. Some scenarios were specific, whereas most were generic projections of abstract potential users and responsibilities. We show how stakeholders mobilised elements of context, such as legislative support and agricultural practice, that would affect the tool’s use. We conclude that stakeholders shape knowledge translation processes by continuously putting forth explicit or implicit scenarios about the future. Mapping actor-scenarios may help in aligning knowledge production with utilisation. Insights into potential roles and responsibilities could be fed back in research projects with the aim of increasing the likelihood that the study results may be used.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Many Meanings of Research Utilization

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?

              Background Coproduction, a collaborative model of research that includes stakeholders in the research process, has been widely advocated as a means of facilitating research use and impact. We summarise the arguments in favour of coproduction, the different approaches to establishing coproductive work and their costs, and offer some advice as to when and how to consider coproduction. Debate Despite the multiplicity of reasons and incentives to coproduce, there is little consensus about what coproduction is, why we do it, what effects we are trying to achieve, or the best coproduction techniques to achieve policy, practice or population health change. Furthermore, coproduction is not free risk or cost. Tensions can arise throughout coproduced research processes between the different interests involved. We identify five types of costs associated with coproduced research affecting the research itself, the research process, professional risks for researchers and stakeholders, personal risks for researchers and stakeholders, and risks to the wider cause of scholarship. Yet, these costs are rarely referred to in the literature, which generally calls for greater inclusion of stakeholders in research processes, focusing exclusively on potential positives. There are few tools to help researchers avoid or alleviate risks to themselves and their stakeholders. Conclusions First, we recommend identifying specific motivations for coproduction and clarifying exactly which outcomes are required for whom for any particular piece of research. Second, we suggest selecting strategies specifically designed to enable these outcomes to be achieved, and properly evaluated. Finally, in the absence of strong evidence about the impact and process of coproduction, we advise a cautious approach to coproduction. This would involve conscious and reflective research practice, evaluation of how coproduced research practices change outcomes, and exploration of the costs and benefits of coproduction. We propose some preliminary advice to help decide when coproduction is likely to be more or less useful.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Health Policy
                Health Policy
                Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
                Elsevier Scientific Publishers
                0168-8510
                1872-6054
                1 October 2019
                October 2019
                : 123
                : 10
                : 917-923
                Affiliations
                [a ]Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
                [b ]Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [c ]Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, A partnership between Kingston, University London and St George’s University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 0RE, United Kingdom
                [d ]Health Economics Research Group, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                Article
                S0168-8510(19)30181-2
                10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.07.012
                6876657
                31383372
                cab1d130-33e1-4ab4-82e6-8191cd9b648b
                © 2019 The Author(s)

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 5 December 2018
                : 18 June 2019
                : 13 July 2019
                Categories
                Article

                Social policy & Welfare
                stakeholder engagement,actor-scenario mapping,research impact,context,knowledge translation

                Comments

                Comment on this article