Hampshaw Susan, Cooke Jo, Mott Laurie
School of Health Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, Doncaster, UK.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Sep 27;18(1):740. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3551-6.
Research findings should be disseminated appropriately to generate maximum impact. The development of research derived 'actionable' tools (RDAT) as research outputs may contribute to impact in health services and health systems research. However there is little agreement on what is meant by actionable tool or what can make them useful. We set out to develop a consensus definition of what is meant by a RDAT and to identify characteristics of a RDAT that would support its use across the research-practice boundary.
A modified Delphi method was used with a panel of 33 experts comprising of researchers, research funders, policy makers and practitioners. Three rounds were administered including an initial workshop, followed by two online surveys comprising of Likert scales supplemented with open-ended questions. Consensus was defined at 75% agreement.
Consensus was reached for the definition and characteristics of RDATs, and on considerations that might maximize their use. The panel also agreed how RDATs could become integral to primary research methods, conduct and reporting. A typology of RDATs did not reach consensus.
A group of experts agreed a definition and characteristics of RDATs that are complementary to peer reviewed publications. The importance of end users shaping such tools was seen as of paramount importance. The findings have implications for research funders to resource such outputs in funding calls. The research community might consider developing and applying skills to coproduce RDATs with end users as part of the research process. Further research is needed on tracking the impact of RDATs, and defining a typology with a range of end-users.
研究结果应得到恰当传播，以产生最大影响。将源自研究的“可操作”工具（RDAT）作为研究成果来开发，可能有助于在卫生服务和卫生系统研究中产生影响。然而，对于可操作工具的含义或使其有用的因素，几乎没有达成共识。我们着手制定RDAT含义的共识定义，并确定有助于其在研究与实践边界使用的RDAT特征。
采用改良的德尔菲法，由33名专家组成小组，包括研究人员、研究资助者、政策制定者和从业者。进行了三轮，包括一次初始研讨会，随后是两次在线调查，其中包含利克特量表并辅以开放式问题。共识定义为75%的一致同意。
就RDAT的定义、特征以及可能使其得到最大程度使用的考虑因素达成了共识。小组还就RDAT如何成为初级研究方法、实施和报告的组成部分达成了一致。RDAT的类型学未达成共识。
一组专家商定了与同行评审出版物互补的RDAT定义和特征。终端用户塑造此类工具的重要性被视为至关重要。研究结果对研究资助者在资助申请中为此类成果提供资源具有启示意义。研究界可能会考虑发展和应用技能，以便在研究过程中与终端用户共同制作RDAT。需要进一步研究跟踪RDAT的影响，并与一系列终端用户一起定义类型学。
