Value of stakeholder engagement in improving newborn care in Kenya: a qualitative description of perspectives and lessons learned

ObjectiveEmbedding researchers within health systems results in more socially relevant research and more effective uptake of evidence into policy and practice. However, the practice of embedded health service research remains poorly understood. We explored and assessed the development of embedded participatory approaches to health service research by a health research team in Kenya highlighting the different ways multiple stakeholders were engaged in a neonatal research study.MethodsWe conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. Data were analysed thematically using both inductive and deductive approaches.SettingOver recent years, the Health Services Unit within the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)-Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Nairobi Kenya, has been working closely with organisations and technical stakeholders including, but not limited to, medical and nursing schools, frontline health workers, senior paediatricians, policymakers and county officials, in developing and conducting embedded health research. This involves researchers embedding themselves in the contexts in which they carry out their research (mainly in county hospitals, local universities and other training institutions), creating and sustaining social networks. Researchers collaboratively worked with stakeholders to identify clinical, operational and behavioural issues related to routine service delivery, formulating and exploring research questions to bring change in practiceParticipantsWe purposively selected 14 relevant stakeholders spanning policy, training institutions, healthcare workers, regulatory councils and professional associations.ResultsThe value of embeddedness is highlighted through the description of a recently completed project, Health Services that Deliver for Newborns (HSD-N). We describe how the HSD-N research process contributed to and further strengthened a collaborative research platform and illustrating this project’s role in identifying and generating ideas about how to tackle health service delivery problemsConclusionsWe conclude with a discussion about the experiences, challenges and lessons learned regarding engaging stakeholders in the coproduction of research.

“Slow science” for 21st century healthcare: reinventing health service research that serves fast-paced, high-complexity care organisations

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to argue for an improved conceptualisation of health service research, using Stengers' (2018) metaphor of “slow science” as a critical yardstick.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is structured in three parts. It first reviews the field of health services research and the approaches that dominate it. It then considers the healthcare research approaches whose principles and methodologies are more aligned with “slow science” before presenting a description of a “slow science” project in which the authors are currently engaged.FindingsCurrent approaches to health service research struggle to offer adequate resources for resolving frontline complexity, principally because they set more store by knowledge generalisation, disciplinary continuity and integrity and the consolidation of expertise, than by engaging with frontline complexity on its terms, negotiating issues with frontline staff and patients on their terms and framing findings and solutions in ways that key in to the in situ dynamics and complexities that define health service delivery.Originality/valueThere is a need to engage in a paradigm shift that engages health services as co-researchers, prioritising practical change and local involvement over knowledge production. Economics is a research field where the products are of natural appeal to powerful health service managers. A “slow science” approach adopted by the embedded Economist Program with its emphasis on pre-implementation, knowledge mobilisation and parallel site capacity development sets out how research can be flexibly produced to improve health services.

How to engage patient partners in health service research: a scoping review protocol

Background The patients’ and the carers’ roles in health service research has changed from being solely participants in studies to also being active partners and co-designers in the research process. Research carried out with or by patient partners is an increasingly accepted component of health service research in many countries, but how researchers can best approach engaging patient partners in the research process is still not clear. There is a need for guidance to support researchers when engaging patient partners and assess how such engagement impacts on research outputs. The aim of this paper is to present a protocol for a scoping review of published literature on how to engage patient partners effectively in the research process. Investigating this aim implies examining: a) how to engage patient partners in the research process; and b) what impact such engagement has on research outputs. This scoping review protocol is the first to examine how to engage patient partners effectively across different diseases and research areas. Methods A scoping review using a systematic process informed by Arksey and O’Malley’s framework will be carried out across six electronic databases using the terms ‘patient participation’, ‘community participation’, ‘research personnel’, ‘patient and public involvement’ and ‘patient partner’. We will include published reviews concerning engagement of patient partners in the research process in healthcare settings, and exclude studies assessing engagement in treatment and healthcare. Two reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts of articles independently for inclusion, and extract data from articles that meet the inclusion criteria. Where there is disagreement, a third reviewer will be consulted to facilitate consensus. The data elicited will include: author and study characteristics; research aims and findings; description of patient engagement in the research process; and assessment impact. Descriptive data and narrative analysis will synthesize findings. Discussion To understand how to engage patient partners effectively in the research process, the impact of such engagement must be taken into consideration to give a qualified suggestion for future guidance. We hope this review will raise awareness of which common elements constitute effective engagement of patient partners in the research process.

Developing a checklist for reporting research using simulated patient methodology (CRiSP): a consensus study

Objectives Simulated patients are increasingly used to measure outcomes in health services but reporting is suboptimal. This study aims to create a checklist for the reporting of simulated patient (SP) methodology. Methods This was a Delphi study. The authors of health service research studies using SP methodology were invited to participate. Round 1 questionnaire assessed the applicability of the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) reporting checklist for SP methodology and asked for rewording of/additional items. Responses were thematically analysed to generate Round 2 items in which participants rated each item for importance (seven-point Likert scale) and median, mode and IQR were calculated. In Round 3, participants were invited to rescore their Round 2 responses. Consensus was defined as an IQR ≤ 1 (Extremely important) and median ≤ 2 (Very important). All consensus items were considered for inclusion in the checklist. Similarly, worded items were rationalised and items not specific to SP methodology or other existing checklists were excluded. Key findings Twenty-nine authors participated in Round 1 and a further seven for Rounds 2 and 3. Twenty-six responses were analysed for Round 1, 30 for Round 2 and 28 for Round 3. There was consensus on 29 of 54 items in Round 2 and 45 of 63 items in Round 3. The final checklist comprised 28 items. Conclusions A new reporting checklist to guide the reporting of studies, using simulated patients, complementary to CONSORT or STROBE, has been developed and will now be tested for usability.

What do they get out of it? Considering a partnership model in health service research

A research study to evaluate the implementation of a long-term conditions model of care provoked questions regarding the potential impact of the researcher’s role in health service research. Traditional methods of qualitative interviewing require researchers to be a disembodied presence, objective, and free from bias. When health service research is conducted by health professionals, role conflict may occur if the topic is one they have expertise in, and therefore the ability to provide guidance or information. An alternative perspective to the idea of an independent and objective researcher is the notion of a partnership. In this research collaboration, participants utilised the interview process to reflect and explore different perspectives, and the researcher bracketed their own participation in the phenomenon being studied. Reflexivity was utilised by both participants and the interviewer to ensure transparency and thus bridge the gap between subjectivity and objectivity in qualitative health service research interviewing.

Semantic Clustering to Augment Qualitative Content Analysis in Exploring Reasons for Emergency Department Transfer Delays

The aim of the study was to explore emergency department transfer delays and to assess the potential of using a semantic clustering approach to augment the content analysis of transfer delay data. Data were collected over a period of 5 months from two hospitals. A set of (unique) phrases describing reasons for transfer delays (n=333) were clustered using the k-means with 1) cluster centroids initiated in an unsupervised fashion and 2) a semi-supervised version where the cluster centroids were initiated with keywords. The unsupervised algorithm clustered 77 % and the semi-supervised 86 % of the phrases to suitable clusters. We chose the better performing approach to augment our content analysis. Three main categories for transfer delays were found as a result. These included 1) insufficient staffing resources, 2) transportation and bed issues, and 3) patient and care related reasons. The findings inform the audit of organisational processes, accuracy of staffing and workflow to reduce transfer delays. Future research should explore implications of semantic clustering approaches to other narrative data sets in health service research.