IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0268675.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Researchers’ perspective of real-world impact from UK public health research: A qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Kay Lakin
  • Katie Meadmore
  • Alejandra Recio Saucedo
  • Genevieve Baker
  • Louise Worswick
  • Sarah Thomas

Abstract

Research funded by the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research Programme is being undertaken in a complex system which brings opportunities and challenges for researchers to maximise the impact of their research. This study seeks to better understand the facilitators, challenges and barriers to research impact and knowledge mobilisation from the perspective of UK public health researchers. A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews, informed by the Payback Framework, with public health researchers who held a research award with the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme up to March 2017 was conducted. Following a thematic analysis, three strongly interlinked themes were extracted from the data and three key factors were highlighted as important for facilitating knowledge mobilisation and impact in UK public health research: (1) Public health researcher’s perception of the purpose of the research (2) Approaches to undertaking Knowledge mobilisation activities (3) The complex nature of public health research in the wider research context. These have been reflected onto the Payback framework. Public health researchers can maximise the likelihood for impact by being aware of the context in which they are undertaking research, using different methods, and employing several strategies to take advantage of opportunities. There is a need to support researchers with knowledge mobilisation activities and for funders to identify their expectations of the impact resulting from research. Our findings have relevance to public health researchers and funders interested in increasing the benefit that research brings to society.

Suggested Citation

  • Kay Lakin & Katie Meadmore & Alejandra Recio Saucedo & Genevieve Baker & Louise Worswick & Sarah Thomas, 2022. "Researchers’ perspective of real-world impact from UK public health research: A qualitative study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-17, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0268675
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268675
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268675
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0268675&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0268675?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haynes, Abby S. & Derrick, Gjemma E. & Chapman, Simon & Redman, Sally & Hall, Wayne D. & Gillespie, James & Sturk, Heidi, 2011. "From "our world" to the "real world": Exploring the views and behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1047-1055, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Smith, K.E. & Stewart, E.A., 2017. "Academic advocacy in public health: Disciplinary ‘duty’ or political ‘propaganda’?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 35-43.
    2. Kathryn Oliver & Paul Cairney, 2019. "The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Kakad, Meetali & Utley, Martin & Rugkåsa, Jorun & Dahl, Fredrik A., 2019. "Erlang could have told you so—A case study of health policy without maths," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(12), pages 1282-1287.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0268675. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.