Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Lab4Living, Art & Design Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020 Dec 1;9(12):531-535. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2020.02.
The ambition of the Canadian Institutes for Health Research Health System Impact (HSI) Fellowship initiative to modernise the health system is impressive. Embedded researchers who work between academia and non-academic settings offer an opportunity to reframe the problem of evidence uptake as a product of a gap between those who produce knowledge and those who use it. As such, there has been an increasing interest in the potential of people in embedded research roles to work with stakeholders in the co-production of knowledge to address service challenges. In this commentary, we draw on research and experiential evidence of an embedded researcher initiative, which has similar intentions to the HSI Fellowships programme: the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Knowledge Mobilisation Research Fellowship (KMRF) scheme. We outline the similarities and differences between the two schemes, and then consider the work, characteristics and skills, and organisational arrangements evident in operationalising these types of roles.
加拿大健康研究院健康系统影响(HSI)研究员计划的目标是使医疗体系现代化,这一目标令人印象深刻。在学术和非学术环境之间工作的嵌入式研究员为重新定义证据采用问题提供了机会,即将证据采用问题重新定义为知识生产者和使用者之间的差距问题。因此,人们越来越关注嵌入式研究人员在共同生产知识以解决服务挑战方面与利益相关者合作的潜力。在这篇评论中,我们借鉴了一项嵌入式研究员计划(与 HSI 研究员计划的意图相似:国家健康研究院(NIHR)知识转化研究研究员计划(KMRF)的研究和经验证据。我们概述了这两个计划之间的相似点和不同点,然后考虑了在实施这些类型的角色时明显的工作、特点和技能以及组织安排。