The benefits for health care staff of involvement in applied health research: a scoping review.

Background: Initiatives are increasingly encouraging health and social care staff involvement in research, with evidence for patient and organisational level benefits. There is less evidence of the benefits for staff and whether this varies by type of involvement. This scoping review aimed to identify the different ways staff are involved in applied health research, the benefits experienced, and whether this varies by type of involvement.

Improving local authority financial support services for users with complex health needs: a mixed-method economic evaluation of Social Navigators in South Tyneside, UK.

Despite social prescribing being promoted by the UK government for the last decade, the evidence supporting social prescribing remains weak and has mainly been confined to clinical contexts. Our study aimed to evaluate the impact of a Social Navigator (SN) service in South Tyneside on the health and well-being of users who experience financial hardship with complex health needs and limited access to mental health services.Using a mixed-methods design combining secondary analysis of service data (n=330), qualitative interviews with service users (n=15) conducted by peer researchers, and a social return On investment analysis that matched service data with health economic indicators from the UK Social Value Bank.

Learning from failures in knowledge exchange and turning them into successes.

While the evidence base on successful practices in knowledge exchange is rapidly growing, much less attention has been given in the academic literature to documenting and reflecting on failures in trying to exchange different types of evidence between academics, practice partners and policymakers. However, learning from failures is just as important, if not more crucial, than celebrating successes. Therefore, in this introduction to the special issue on learning from failures in knowledge exchange, we discuss crosscutting themes across the seven papers.

Developing an online knowledge sharing platform and community of practice for health professionals: Experiences from C-WorKS developed in North East England and Yorkshire during COVID-19.

Background: Although knowledge sharing online has been recognised as an important strategy for health professionals to apply research findings to their practice, limited research exists on how to develop and implement these platforms to help facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing.

Objectives: This study evaluated an online knowledge sharing platform and community of practice developed in the North East of England and Yorkshire during COVID-19 to support UK health and care professionals to reduce the impact of the wider consequences of COVID-19.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (n = 8) and users of C-WorKS (n = 13), followed by an online survey (n = 19) among a wider group of users to analyse knowledge use.

Leading co-production in five UK collaborative research partnerships (2008-2018): responses to four tensions from senior leaders using auto-ethnography.

Background: Despite growing enthusiasm for co-production in healthcare services and research, research on co-production practices is lacking. Multiple frameworks, guidelines and principles are available but little empirical research is conducted on 'how to do' co-production of research to improve healthcare services. This paper brings together insights from UK-based collaborative research partnerships on leading co-production.

Co-production practice and future research priorities in United Kingdom-funded applied health research: a scoping review.

Background: Interest in and use of co-production in healthcare services and research is growing. Previous reviews have summarized co-production approaches in use, collated outcomes and effects of co-production, and focused on replicability and reporting, but none have critically reflected on how co-production in applied health research might be evolving and the implications of this for future research. We conducted this scoping review to systematically map recent literature on co-production in applied health research in the United Kingdom to inform co-production practice and guide future methodological research.

Co-production in local government: process, codification and capacity building of new knowledge in collective reflection spaces. Workshops findings from a UK mixed methods study.

Background: Co-production of research evidence is valued by local government to improve effective decision-making about public services in times of austerity. However, underlying structural issues of power (so-called 'dark shadows of co-production') challenge this ambition with limited evidence on how to embed research use sustainably. In this paper we reflect on mechanisms for increasing co-production in local government.

What makes a 'successful' collaborative research project between public health practitioners and academics? A mixed-methods review of funding applications submitted to a local intervention evaluation scheme.

Background: The national Public Health Practice Evaluation Scheme (PHPES) is a response-mode funded evaluation programme operated by the National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR). The scheme enables public health professionals to work in partnership with SPHR researchers to conduct rigorous evaluations of their interventions. Our evaluation reviewed the learning from the first five years of PHPES (2013-2017) and how this was used to implement a revised scheme within the School.

Challenges, opportunities and solutions for local physical activity stakeholders: an implementation case study from a cross-sectoral physical activity network in Northeast England.

Background: Increasingly, national policy initiatives and programmes have been developed to increase physical activity (PA). However, challenges in implementing and translating these policies into effective local-level programmes have persisted, and change in population PA levels has been small. This may be due to insufficient attention given to the implementation context, and the limited interactions between local policy-makers, practitioners and researchers.

Performing collaborative research: a dramaturgical reflection on an institutional knowledge brokering service in the North East of England.

Background: To increase the uptake of research evidence in practice, responsive research services have been developed within universities that broker access to academic expertise for practitioners and decision-makers. However, there has been little examination of the process of knowledge brokering within these services. This paper reflects on this process within the AskFuse service, which was launched in June 2013 by Fuse, the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, in North East England.

Localising and tailoring research evidence helps public health decision making.

Background: Published research evidence is typically not readily applicable to practice but needs to be actively mobilised.

Objectives: This paper explores the mechanisms used by information professionals with a specific knowledge mobilisation role to make evidence useful for local decision making and planning of public health interventions.

Methods: Data are drawn from a NIHR project that studied how, when, where and by whom published research evidence is used in commissioning and planning across two sites (one in England and one in Scotland).

How do public health professionals view and engage with research? A qualitative interview study and stakeholder workshop engaging public health professionals and researchers.

Background: With increasing financial pressures on public health in England, the need for evidence of high relevance to policy is now stronger than ever. However, the ways in which public health professionals (PHPs) and researchers relate to one another are not necessarily conducive to effective knowledge translation. This study explores the perspectives of PHPs and researchers when interacting, with a view to identifying barriers to and opportunities for developing practice that is effectively informed by research.