Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/25439
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRycroft-Malone, Joen_UK
dc.contributor.authorBurton, Christopheren_UK
dc.contributor.authorWilkinson, Joyce Een_UK
dc.contributor.authorHarvey, Gillen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMcCormack, Brendanen_UK
dc.contributor.authorBaker, Richarden_UK
dc.contributor.authorDopson, Sueen_UK
dc.contributor.authorGraham, Ianen_UK
dc.contributor.authorStaniszewska, Sophieen_UK
dc.contributor.authorThompson, Carlen_UK
dc.contributor.authorAriss, Stevenen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMelville-Richards, Lucyen_UK
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, Lynneen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-31T23:11:28Z-
dc.date.available2017-05-31T23:11:28Z-
dc.date.issued2016-02-09en_UK
dc.identifier.other17en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/25439-
dc.description.abstractBackground  Increasingly, it is being suggested that translational gaps might be eradicated or narrowed by bringing research users and producers closer together, a theory that is largely untested. This paper reports a national study to fill a gap in the evidence about the conditions, processes and outcomes related to collaboration and implementation.  Methods  A longitudinal realist evaluation using multiple qualitative methods case studies was conducted with three Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research in Care (England). Data were collected over four rounds of theory development, refinement and testing. Over 200 participants were involved in semi-structured interviews, non-participant observations of events and meetings, and stakeholder engagement. A combined inductive and deductive data analysis process was focused on proposition refinement and testing iteratively over data collection rounds.  Results  The quality of existing relationships between higher education and local health service, and views about whether implementation was a collaborative act, created a path dependency. Where implementation was perceived to be removed from service and there was a lack of organisational connections, this resulted in a focus on knowledge production and transfer, rather than co-production. The collaborations’ architectures were counterproductive because they did not facilitate connectivity and had emphasised professional and epistemic boundaries. More distributed leadership was associated with greater potential for engagement. The creation of boundary spanning roles was the most visible investment in implementation, and credible individuals in these roles resulted in cross-boundary work, in facilitation and in direct impacts. The academic-practice divide played out strongly as a context for motivation to engage, in that ‘what’s in it for me’ resulted in variable levels of engagement along a co-operation-collaboration continuum. Learning within and across collaborations was patchy depending on attention to evaluation.  Conclusions  These collaborations did not emerge from a vacuum, and they needed time to learn and develop. Their life cycle started with their position on collaboration, knowledge and implementation. More impactful attempts at collective action in implementation might be determined by the deliberate alignment of a number of features, including foundational relationships, vision, values, structures and processes and views about the nature of the collaborationandimplementation.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_UK
dc.relationRycroft-Malone J, Burton C, Wilkinson JE, Harvey G, McCormack B, Baker R, Dopson S, Graham I, Staniszewska S, Thompson C, Ariss S, Melville-Richards L & Williams L (2016) Collective action for implementation: a realist evaluation of organisational collaboration in healthcare. Implementation Science, 11, Art. No.: 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0380-zen_UK
dc.rights© Rycroft-Malone et al. 2016 This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_UK
dc.subjectImplementationen_UK
dc.subjectCollaborationen_UK
dc.subjectEvidenceen_UK
dc.subjectCo-productionen_UK
dc.subjectKnowledgeen_UK
dc.subjectRealisten_UK
dc.titleCollective action for implementation: a realist evaluation of organisational collaboration in healthcareen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13012-016-0380-zen_UK
dc.identifier.pmid26860631en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleImplementation Scienceen_UK
dc.citation.issn1748-5908en_UK
dc.citation.volume11en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.citation.date09/02/2016en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBangor Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBangor Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationHealth Sciences Stirlingen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Manchesteren_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationQueen Margaret Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Leicesteren_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Oxforden_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Ottawaen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Warwicken_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Yorken_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Sheffielden_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBangor Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBangor Universityen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000369909400001en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84957888977en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid527604en_UK
dc.date.accepted2016-02-04en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-02-04en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2017-05-31en_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot requireden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorRycroft-Malone, Jo|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorBurton, Christopher|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorWilkinson, Joyce E|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorHarvey, Gill|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMcCormack, Brendan|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorBaker, Richard|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorDopson, Sue|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorGraham, Ian|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorStaniszewska, Sophie|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorThompson, Carl|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorAriss, Steven|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMelville-Richards, Lucy|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorWilliams, Lynne|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2017-05-31en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/|2017-05-31|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameRycroft-Malone_etal_ImplementSci_2016.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Rycroft-Malone_etal_ImplementSci_2016.pdfFulltext - Published Version2.54 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.