Cited by 98Health Policy Implementation ScienceInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationEvaluation and Performance Assessment

Collaborative action around implementation in Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care: towards a programme theory

Rycroft-Malone, Jo, Wilkinson, Joyce, Burton, Christopher R, Harvey, Gill, McCormack, Brendan, Graham, Ian, Staniszewska, Sophie·2013·Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In theory, greater interaction between researchers and practitioners should result in increased potential for implementation. However, we know little about whether this is the case, or what mechanisms might operate to make it happen. This paper reports findings from a study that is identifying and tracking implementation mechanisms, processes, influences and impacts in real time, over time in the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs). METHODS: This is a longitudinal, realist evaluation case study. The development of the conceptual framework and initial hypotheses involved literature reviewing and stakeholder consultation. Primary data were collected through interviews, observations and documents within three CLAHRCs, and analysed thematically against the framework and hypotheses. RESULTS: The first round of data collection shows that the mechanisms of collaborative action, relationship building, engagement, motivation, knowledge exchange and learning are important to the processes and outcomes of CLAHRCs' activity, including their capacity for implementation. These mechanisms operated in different contexts such as competing agendas, availability of resources and the CLAHRCs' brand. Contexts and mechanisms result in different impact, including the CLAHRCs' approach to implementation, quality of collaboration, commitment and ownership, and degree of sharing and managing knowledge. CONCLUSION: Emerging features of a middle range theory of implementation within collaboration include alignment in organizational structures and cognitive processes, history of partnerships, responsiveness and resilience in rapidly changing contexts. CLARHCs' potential to mobilize knowledge may be further realized by how they develop insights into their function as collaborative entities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1355819613498859

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rycroft-Malone, J., Wilkinson, J., Burton, C. R., Harvey, G., McCormack, B., Graham, I., & Staniszewska, S.
Affiliations
  • Professor of Implementation Research, School of Healthcare Sciences, Bangor University, UK
  • Bangor University (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Ulster (GB)
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Venue
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy
Published
2013-10
Volume
18
Issue
3_suppl
Pages
13-26
ISSN
  • 1355-8196 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1060
OpenAlex
W2091463282
Cited by
98
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 3
FWCI
16.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Health Services Research & Policy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Margaret University Publications Repository (Queen Margaret University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (09/1809/1072)
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 › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
implementation mechanisms, researcher-practitioner collaboration, program theory, knowledge sharing, relationship building, organizational alignment, knowledge mobilization, implementation capacity, realist evaluation, middle-range theory
MeSH terms
Community-Institutional Relations, Cooperative Behavior, Data Collection, Diffusion of Innovation, United Kingdom, Health Policy, Health Services Research, Humans, Leadership, Learning, Longitudinal Studies, Models, Theoretical, Motivation, Research Design, Program Evaluation, Program Development, Models, Organizational, Empirical Research, Evidence-Based Practice

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