CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Health Policy Implementation ScienceInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Minding the gap: the importance of active facilitation in moving boundary objects from in-theory to in-use as a tool for knowledge mobilisation

Open access
Hassan, Shaima M., Melville-Richards, Lucy, Ring, Adele, Cloke, Jane, Smith, Sandra, Saini, Pooja, Goodall, Mark, Porroche-Escudero, Ana +2 more·2023·SSM - Qualitative Research in Health
DOI 10.1016/j.ssmqr.2023.100235
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Health Inequalities Assessment Toolkit (HIAT) was developed to support those involved in health research to integrate a focus on health inequalities. Our study focuses on bringing together the concepts of boundary objects (BO) and brokers-as-bricoleurs to explain the implementation of the HIAT within a research capacity building programme. Exploring the extent to which (i) the HIAT operated as a BO and (ii) the ideal conditions to nurture and enhance its effectiveness during knowledge mobilisation. We employed a qualitative approach to analyse: semi-structured focus groups and telephone interviews; secondary data from an evaluation of the wider research programme within which the capacity building was situated. Data was thematically analysed incorporating the properties of a BO: meaningfulness, convergence, resonance and authenticity. Four main themes identified: (1) Generating convergence through creating a focus (2) Reconciling differences to create a common language (3) Workshop facilitators: boundary brokers-as-bricoleurs, (4) Thoughts into action. The HIAT operated as a BO, enabling individuals across the different project teams to galvanise around the issue of health inequalities, explore collaboratively and incorporate equity within service evaluations. Highlighting the importance of involving brokers with an ability to improvise and mobilise around the HIAT, using their expertise to translate and interpret across boundaries and emphasise shared goals. Reflecting on this, a modified tool with additional resources beyond socio-economic causes has been launched as a forum to consider health inequalities from diverse perspectives for use beyond UK health and social care research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ssmqr.2023.100235

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Health inequalities only endure because of a lack of insight or willingness to address social injustice, social indifference, an ideological stance or a vacuum of leadership.

    “Health inequalities only endure because of a lack of insight or willingness to address social injustice, social indifference, an ideological stance or a vacuum of leadership.115”

    From Health professionals implicit bias of patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) and its effects on clinical decision-making: a scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [115]

    The Background (p. 1) attributes the persistence of health inequalities to an inability or unwillingness to act on entrenched social injustices, citing ideology, lack of leadership and societal indifference. It does not say these are the only reasons inequalities endure, so the citing sentence's “only” overstates the source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Allen, D. (2009). From boundary concept to boundary object: The practice and politics of care pathway development. Social Science & Medicine, 69 , 3 354 -361. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref1)
  2. Allen, D. (2014). Lost in translation? ' Evidence ' and the articulation of institutional logics in integrated care pathways: From positive to negative boundary object? Sociology of Health & Illness, 36 (6), 807 -822. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref2)
  3. Appleby, B., Cowdell, F., & Booth, A. (2021). Knowledge mobilization in bridging patientpractitioner-researcher boundaries: A systematic integrative review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77 (2), 523 -536. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14586 · DOI
  4. Barrett, M., & Oborn, E. (2010). Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams. Human Relations, 63 (8), 1199 -1221. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0018726709355657
  5. Bowker, G., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref5)
  6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Re fl ecting on re fl exive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11 (4), 589 -597. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 2159676X.2019.1628806
  7. Briers, M., & Chua, W. F. (2001). The role of actor-networks and boundary objects in management accounting change: A fi eld study of an implementation of activity-based costing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26 , 237 -269. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref8)
  8. Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13 (4), 442 -455. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref9)
  9. Carter, et al. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41 (5). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25158659.
  10. Cooke, J., Langley, J., Wolstenholme, D., & Hampshaw, S. (2017). Seeing" the difference: The importance of visibility and action as a mark of "authenticity" in Co-production comment on "collaboration and Co-production of knowledge in healthcare: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 6 (6), 345 -348. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref11)
  11. Dowrick, A., Kelly, M., & Feder, G. (2020). Boundary spanners: Negotiating connections across primary care and domestic violence and abuse services. Social Science & Medicine, 245 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112687 · DOI
  12. Duymedjian, R., & Rüling, C. (2010). Towards a foundation of bricolage in organization and management theory. Organization Studies, 31 (2), 133 -151. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref14)
  13. Fox, N. J. (2011). Boundary objects, social meanings and the success of new technologies. Sociology, 45 (1), 70 -85. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref16)
  14. Fujimara, J. H. (1992). Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects and ' translation ' . In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture . Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Chapter 6). http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref17)
  15. Gabbay, J., Le May, A., Pope, C., Brangan, E., Cameron, A., Klein, J. H., et al. (2020). Uncovering the processes of knowledge transformation: The example of local evidence-informed policy-making in United Kingdom healthcare. Health Research Policy and Systems, 18 (1), 1 -15. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref18)
  16. Green, G., & Johns, T. (2019). Exploring the relationship (and power dynamic) between researchers and public partners working together in applied health research teams. Frontiers in Sociology, 4 , 20. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref19)
  17. Henderson, K. (1991). Flexible sketches and in fl exible data bases: Visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16 , 448 -473. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref20)
  18. Kelly-Irving, M., Patrick Ball, W., Bambra, C., et al. (2022). Falling down the rabbit hole? Methodological, conceptual and policy issues in current health inequalities research. Critical Public Health, 33 (1), 37 -47. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09581596.2022.2036701
  19. Keszey, T. (2018). Boundary Spanners' knowledge sharing for innovation success in turbulent times. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22 (5), 1061 -1081. https:// doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-2017-0033 · DOI
  20. Khan, K., Porroche-Escudero, A., Georgiou, G., & Popay, J. (2021). Building heath research capacity: The impact of a United Kingdom collaborative programme. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 19 (4), Article 7, 01. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref23)
  21. Knight, L., & Pye, A. (2005). Network learning: An empirically derived model of learning by groups of organizations. Human Relations, 58 (3), 369 -392. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0018726705053427 · DOI
  22. Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 29 , 2. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref25)
  23. Marmot, M., Allen, J., Boyce, T., Goldblatt, P., & Morrison, J. (2020). Health equity in England: The marmot review 10 years on . London: Institute of Health Equity. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref26)
  24. Masuda, J., Zupancic, T., Crighton, E., Muhajarine, N., & Phipps, E. (2014). Equityfocused knowledge translation: A framework for ' reasonable action ' on health inequities. International Journal of Public Health, 59 (3), 457 -464. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref27)
  25. McMahon, N. E. (2022). What shapes local health system actors' thinking and action on social inequalities in health? A meta-ethnography (pp. 1 -21). Social Theory & Health. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref28)
  26. McMahon, & Maden. (2018). Toward a theory-led meta-framework for considering socioeconomic health inequalities within systematic reviews . https://doi.org/10.1016/j .jclinepi.2018.08.008. · DOI
  27. Melville-Richards, L. A. (2016). Exploring and explaining the role of boundary objects in implementation through the national Institute of health research's collaborations for leadership in applied health research and care (NIHR CLAHRCs) . PhD thesis: https://research.bangor.ac.uk/portal/en/theses/exploring-and-explaining-th e-role-of-boundary-objects-in-implementation-through-the-national-institute-of-hea lth-researchs-collaborations-for-leadership-in-applied-health-research-and-care-nih r-clahrcs(6fc865ae-79ae-4826-8157-4b250017a258. (Accessed 30 April 2022).
  28. Olsen, W. (2004). Triangulation in social research: Qualitative and quantitative methods can really Be mixed. In M. Holborn (Ed.), Development in sociology (pp. 1 -30). Ormskirk: Causeway Press. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref32)
  29. Phelps, A. F., & Reddy, M. (2009). The influence of boundary objects on group collaboration in construction project teams . Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/1531674.1531693 · DOI
  30. Porroche-Escudero, A., & Popay, J. (2021). The health inequalities assessment toolkit (HIAT): Supporting integration of equity into applied health research. Public Health . https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaa047 · DOI
  31. Porroche-Escudero, A., Popay, J., Ward, F., et al. (2021). From fringe to centre-stage: Experiences of mainstreaming health equity in a health research collaboration. Health Research Policy and Systems, 19 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00648-z · DOI
  32. Saidin, K., & Yaacob, A. (2016). Insider researchers: Challenges & opportunities (pp. 849 -854). Malaysia: Proceeding of ICECRS. International Seminar on Generating Knowledge Through Research. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publicat ion/317080260\_INSIDER\_RESEARCHERS\_CHALLENGES\_.
  33. Saini, P., Hassan, S. M., Morasae, E. K., et al. (2021). The value of involving patients and public in health services research and evaluation: A qualitative study. Res Involv Engagem, 7 , 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00289-8 · DOI
  34. Smith, K. E., & Anderson, R. (2017). Understanding lay perspectives on socioeconomic health inequalities in britain: A meta-ethnography. Sociology of Health & Illness, 40 (1), 146 -170. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref38)
  35. Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Re fl ections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35 (5), 601 -617. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref39)
  36. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ' translations ' , and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology . London: Routledge, 1907-39 Chapter 33 in Biagioli, M, 1999 (Ed.) The Science Studies Reader. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref40)
  37. Ward, F., Popay, J., Porroche-Escudero, A., et al. (2020). Mainstreaming public involvement in a complex research collaboration: A theory-informed evaluation. Health Expectations, 23 (4), 910 -918. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13070 · DOI
  38. Winget, M. A. (2007). A methodology and model for studying boundary objects, annotations, and collaborative practices: Musicians and musical scores. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 44 (1), 1 -13. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2667-3215(2300019-7/sref43)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hassan, S. M., Melville-Richards, L., Ring, A., Cloke, J., Smith, S., Saini, P., Goodall, M., Porroche-Escudero, A., Popay, J., & Gabbay, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Bangor University (GB)
  • NIHR Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast (GB)
  • Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
  • Lancaster University (GB)
Corresponding author
Hassan, Shaima M.
ORCID
Venue
SSM - Qualitative Research in Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-06
Volume
3
Pages
100235
ISSN
2667-3215 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ssmqr.2023.100235
OpenAlex
W4320498155
Cited by
3
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1
FWCI
1.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • SSM - Qualitative Research in Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Liverpool John Moores University (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Bangor University Research Portal (Bangor University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • Department of Health and Social Care
  • National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North West Coast
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
boundary objects, knowledge mobilization, health disparities, research capacity building, workshop facilitation, convergence, meaningfulness, resonance, authenticity, service evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review