Article Text

Protocol
Theory-based evaluation of three research–practice partnerships designed to deliver novel, sustainable collaborations between adult social care research and practice in the UK: a research protocol for a ‘layered’ contributions analysis and realist evaluation
  1. Juliette Malley1,
  2. Annette Bauer1,
  3. Annette Boaz2,
  4. Hannah Kendrick1,
  5. Martin Knapp1
  1. 1Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
  2. 2Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Juliette Malley; j.n.malley{at}lse.ac.uk

Abstract

Introduction Research–practice partnerships (RPPs) are long-term collaborations between research and practice that aim to conduct research that can be used to make practice-based improvements. They intentionally bring together diverse experience in decision making and seek to shift power dynamics so that all partners have a say. The Creating Care Partnerships project aims to explore whether the RPP approach developed within the US educational context can be successfully applied to the English care home context. The project involves a programme of codesign, implementation and evaluation within three case study sites. This protocol set outs the aims, research design and governance of the evaluation.

Methods and analysis The evaluation takes a theory-based approach to explore how, why and in what circumstances RPPs in the care home context contribute to enhancing research and research use in local care homes and informing wider improvement efforts. A mixed-methods design will be used for each case study, including semistructured interviews, observations of RPP events and meetings, an online survey, activity diary and review of local data and documents. Data collection will proceed in waves, with the theory of change (ToC) being continually refined and used to guide further data collection and analysis. Insights will be drawn using Contribution Analysis, Realist Evaluation and systems perspectives to assess the contribution made by the case study sites to achieving outcomes and the influence of contextual factors. Economic consequences will be identified through the ToC, using a narrative economic analysis to assess costs, consequences and value for money.

Ethics and dissemination The study has undergone ethics review by HRA Research Ethics Committee. It does not pose major ethical issues. A final report will be published and articles will be submitted to international journals.

  • health policy
  • organisational development
  • quality in health care
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

Footnotes

  • Twitter @JulietteMalley

  • Collaborators Creating Care Partnerships Project: Ursula Ankeny, Bev Fitzsimons, Joe Langley, Becki Meakin, Stuart Muirhead, Becca Partridge, Naomi Raszyk, Lisa Smith, Melanie Weatherley and Claire Williams.

  • Contributors All authors contributed to conceptualisation of the study, with leadership from ABo for the CCP project, JM for the evaluation and ABa for the economic evaluation. JM wrote the first draft with inputs from HK and ABa. MK and ABo critically reviewed the manuscript and provided comments to improve it. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding This work was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under the Health and Social Care Delivery research programme, grant number NIHR131335.

  • Disclaimer The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; peer reviewed for ethical and funding approval prior to submission.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.