uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Research funders’ roles and perceived responsibilities in relation to the implementation of clinical research results: a multiple case study of Swedish research funders
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Clinical Psychology in Healthcare.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, Technology, Department of Engineering Sciences, Industrial Engineering & Management.
KU Leuven. (Centre for Health Services and Nursing Research)
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Health Services Research.
2015 (English)In: Implementation Science, ISSN 1748-5908, E-ISSN 1748-5908, Vol. 10, 100Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background

Implementation of clinical research results is challenging, yet the responsibility for implementation is seldom addressed. The process from research to the use of clinical research results in health care can be facilitated by research funders. In this paper, we report the roles of ten Swedish research funders in relation to implementation and their views on responsibilities in implementation.

Findings

Ten cases were studied and compared using semi-structured interviews. In addition, websites and key documents were reviewed. Eight facilitative roles for research funders in relation to the implementation of clinical research results were identified. Three of them were common for several funders: “Advocacy work,” “Monitoring implementation outcomes,” and “Dissemination of knowledge.” Moreover, the research funders identified six different actors responsible for implementation, five of which belonged to the healthcare setting. Collective and organizational responsibilities were the most common forms of responsibilities among the identified actors responsible for implementation.

Conclusions

The roles commonly identified by the Swedish funders, “Advocacy work,” “Monitoring implementation outcomes,” and “Dissemination of knowledge,” seem feasible facilitative roles in relation to the implementation of clinical research results. However, many actors identified as responsible for implementation together with the fact that collective and organizational responsibilities were the most common forms of responsibilities entail a risk of implementation becoming no one’s responsibility. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 10, 100
Keyword [en]
Quality improvemen, Implementation responsibility, Support of research, Research funder roles
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy Engineering and Technology
Research subject
Health Care Research; Engineering Science with specialization in industrial engineering and management
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-260115DOI: 10.1186/s13012-015-0290-5ISI: 000358032100002PubMedID: 26183210OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-260115DiVA: diva2:846394
Projects
U-CARE
Funder
U‐Care: Better Psychosocial Care at Lower Cost? Evidence-based assessment and Psychosocial Care via Internet, a Swedish Example
Available from: 2015-08-17 Created: 2015-08-17 Last updated: 2017-12-04Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Exploitation of University-Based Healthcare Innovations: The Behaviors of Three Key Actors and Influencing Factors
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Exploitation of University-Based Healthcare Innovations: The Behaviors of Three Key Actors and Influencing Factors
2017 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Large resources are invested in healthcare research, but despite this there is a wide gap between research knowledge and healthcare practice. Implementation researchers have addressed this gap, focusing mostly on the role of healthcare practitioners. However, a narrow focus on implementation does not take into consideration the preceding stages and the roles of different actors during the whole innovation process, which starts from research and ends with implementation. The aim of this thesis is to examine the behaviors of three key actors during an innovation process and to explore the influence of selected contextual factors on their behavior.

Study I (n=10 funders) identifies several facilitative roles for funders and suggests that implementation risks becoming no one’s responsibility as the funders identify six different actors responsible for implementation, the majority of whom embody a collective or an organization. Study II finds that the implementation knowledge of Swedish funding managers (n=18) is mostly based on experience-based knowledge. The majority of the funding managers define implementation as a process and express limited knowledge of implementation. The findings of Study III (n=4 innovation cases) show that the roles and involvement of academic inventors and ISAs (innovation-supporting actors) are more connected to intellectual property (IP) nature than to intellectual property rights (IPR) ownership. Study IV (n=4 innovation cases) identifies three different logics that influence the behavior of academic inventors: market, academic and care logics. A pattern emerges where the behavior of academic inventors is guided by a unique logic and there is no interaction between logics, despite the existence of multiple logics. The individual strategies to handle multiple logics coincide with the influence of logics. In addition, IP nature, distinguishing between high-tech and low-tech innovations, is connected to the influence of institutional logics: low-tech connected to the care logic and high-tech connected to the market logic.

This thesis has three main theoretical and practical implications relevant for practitioners, policymakers and researchers. First, implementation responsibility is an important issue to study and discuss, because without clearly defined responsibilities and management of responsibilities, responsibility might become no one’s responsibility. Second, the finding that experience-based implementation knowledge contributes heavily to policymakers’ knowledge encourages further studies and discussions regarding this relatively neglected issue. Third, the importance of IP nature in shaping innovation processes should be considered and further examined, not only as a factor influencing inventors and ISAs’ roles and involvement, but also as influencing the prevalence of different institutional logics. Further, the relevance of a distinction between low-tech and high-tech IP should be reflected on.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2017. 80 p.
Series
Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Medicine, ISSN 1651-6206 ; 1326
Keyword
implementation responsibility, research funder, implementation knowledge, commercialization of science, university ownership, inventor ownership, institutional logics, medical technology
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-317934 (URN)978-91-554-9892-4 (ISBN)
Public defence
2017-06-01, Auditorium Minus, Museum Gustavianum, Akademigatan 3, Uppsala, 13:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2017-05-11 Created: 2017-03-22 Last updated: 2017-05-23

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(417 kB)364 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 417 kBChecksum SHA-512
a515ce4c40a1a5533f3dfea36192c88d392fcd909a605783e74966a87fa0374c2b64c73ec3864d9d67a8ad89aba16f19ae9ac8a018cfdb5904e77f50025570cf
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Brantnell, AndersBaraldi, EnricoWinblad, Ulrika

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Brantnell, AndersBaraldi, EnricoWinblad, Ulrika
By organisation
Clinical Psychology in HealthcareIndustrial Engineering & ManagementHealth Services Research
In the same journal
Implementation Science
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health EconomyEngineering and Technology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 364 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 1192 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf