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

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.

Evaluation of the impact of National Breast Cancer Foundation-funded research.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the National Breast Cancer Foundation's (NBCF's) research investment. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Surveys based on the Payback Framework were sent to chief investigators involved in research funded by the NBCF during 1995-2012; a bibliometric analysis of NBCF-funded publications in 2006-2010 was conducted; and a purposive, stratified sample of case studies was obtained. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Research impact on knowledge production, the research system, informing policy, product development and broader health and economic benefits. RESULTS: Of 242 surveys sent, 153 (63%) were returned. The average impact of journals in which NBCF publications appeared was double that of world publications. Seventy surveys (46%) reported career progression, and 185 higher degrees were obtained or expected, including 121 PhDs. One hundred and one grants (66%) produced tools that built capacity across the research system, and research teams leveraged an additional $1.40 in funding for every dollar invested. Fifteen applied grants and one basic grant impacted on policy. Ten basic and four applied grants led to the development of drugs, prognostic tools or diagnostic technologies. Twenty applied and two basic grants led to changes in practice and behaviour of health care staff, consumers and the public, with further impacts anticipated. Case studies provided illustrations of high impact. CONCLUSIONS: NBCF's strategy of investing in a mixed portfolio of research areas and mechanisms encouraged a broad range of impacts across all Payback categories. The impacts from basic research tended to focus on knowledge production and drug development; while applied research generated greater impacts within the other Payback categories. The funding of shared infrastructure stimulated impact across the research system.

The role of the national general medical journal: surveys of which journals UK clinicians read to inform their clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: For biomedical research findings to contribute toward health gains they must reach clinicians. Academic journals have historically been considered important information sources. Birken and Parkin found seven journals to most consistently contain the best pediatric evidence and, of these seven, four were general medical journals. METHODS: We surveyed clinicians in three UK medical specialties (psychiatry, surgery and pediatrics), asking which journals they read and which they considered important to inform their clinical practice. RESULTS: The readership of general medical journals, in comparison to specialty and sub-specialty journals, is widespread across the three UK medical specialties, although the importance of general medical journals varies widely. The BMJ is the most prominent general medical journal in terms of readership and importance but a dominant specialty or sub-specialty journal was usually more important for most groups. The Lancet is less widely read and less important, although more academics than non-academics consider it important. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, key general medical journals play an important role. Journal availability and cost, particularly in relation to membership for UK clinicians, and the position of academics and non-academics have to be considered in any analysis. Three of the four general medical journals containing the best pediatric evidence were found to be widely read by UK pediatricians and two UK-based general medical journals, the BMJ and The Lancet, were also considered important in our survey. Further investigation of the reasons for the importance of a journal and studies that would allow international comparisons would provide greater input to the discussion.

The journals of importance to UK clinicians: a questionnaire survey of surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Peer-reviewed journals are seen as a major vehicle in the transmission of research findings to clinicians. Perspectives on the importance of individual journals vary and the use of impact factors to assess research is criticised. Other surveys of clinicians suggest a few key journals within a specialty, and sub-specialties, are widely read. Journals with high impact factors are not always widely read or perceived as important. In order to determine whether UK surgeons consider peer-reviewed journals to be important information sources and which journals they read and consider important to inform their clinical practice, we conducted a postal questionnaire survey and then compared the findings with those from a survey of US surgeons. METHODS: A questionnaire survey sent to 2,660 UK surgeons asked which information sources they considered to be important and which peer-reviewed journals they read, and perceived as important, to inform their clinical practice. Comparisons were made with numbers of UK NHS-funded surgery publications, journal impact factors and other similar surveys. RESULTS: Peer-reviewed journals were considered to be the second most important information source for UK surgeons. A mode of four journals read was found with academics reading more than non-academics. Two journals, the BMJ and the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, are prominent across all sub-specialties and others within sub-specialties. The British Journal of Surgery plays a key role within three sub-specialties. UK journals are generally preferred and readership patterns are influenced by membership journals. Some of the journals viewed by surgeons as being most important, for example the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, do not have high impact factors. CONCLUSION: Combining the findings from this study with comparable studies highlights the importance of national journals and of membership journals. Our study also illustrates the complexity of the link between the impact factors of journals and the importance of the journals to clinicians. This analysis potentially provides an additional basis on which to assess the role of different journals, and the published output from research.