Evidence flows in organisational commissioning and joint planning to address public health issues: a study in co-creation
Dr. Peter van der Graaf (Fuse)
10.30, Wednesday 10 July. Millennium Lounge, level 5
Objectives
This is a NIHR: HS&DR-funded study. The aims are: to identify the ways in which research evidence and other types of information and data are used in planning and commissioning to address an alcohol-related public health issue; and to work in co-creation with research participants. Key objectives are to understand the use of research evidence, how and when it is accessed and brought in to play, by whom, and with what perceived effects.
Methods
We present data from a mixed methods cross-comparative case study design looking at evidence use across two case study sites. The two sites are selected to reflect evidence use in different policy contexts and through different organisational arrangements (purchaser-provider split in England, and through joint planning in Scotland). Using interviews (c.45), observations (c.12), and documentary analysis, we examine what kinds of evidence are mobilised between the people, groups and organisations involved.
Findings
The paper presents our early findings collected against a backdrop of financial constraint and significant reforms (in England). We highlight that: multiple types of ‘evidence’ are sought and valued; interpersonal relationships, power and politics drive evidence use; and interactive forums and organisational processes are vital for knowledge exchange and evidence sharing.
Conclusions
Drawing on the data, the paper will identify opportunities for facilitating the flow of research evidence in different planning and commissioning systems and offer tentative implications for stakeholders.
This is a NIHR: HS&DR-funded study. The aims are: to identify the ways in which research evidence and other types of information and data are used in planning and commissioning to address an alcohol-related public health issue; and to work in co-creation with research participants. Key objectives are to understand the use of research evidence, how and when it is accessed and brought in to play, by whom, and with what perceived effects.
Methods
We present data from a mixed methods cross-comparative case study design looking at evidence use across two case study sites. The two sites are selected to reflect evidence use in different policy contexts and through different organisational arrangements (purchaser-provider split in England, and through joint planning in Scotland). Using interviews (c.45), observations (c.12), and documentary analysis, we examine what kinds of evidence are mobilised between the people, groups and organisations involved.
Findings
The paper presents our early findings collected against a backdrop of financial constraint and significant reforms (in England). We highlight that: multiple types of ‘evidence’ are sought and valued; interpersonal relationships, power and politics drive evidence use; and interactive forums and organisational processes are vital for knowledge exchange and evidence sharing.
Conclusions
Drawing on the data, the paper will identify opportunities for facilitating the flow of research evidence in different planning and commissioning systems and offer tentative implications for stakeholders.