Successful research collaboration likely if | N | Percent of cases | N | Percent of cases | Successful research collaboration unlikely if |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Clear guidance is available on the process and timescales for applying for PHPES funding | 5 | 31.3 | 7 | 43.8 | Guidance on the process and timescales for applying to PHPES are unclear |
Support is available from academic researchers within SPHR for developing the research idea and checking whether the idea is eligible and feasible for evaluation | 6 | 37.5 | 8 | 50.0 | No support is available from academic researchers within SPHR for developing the research idea and checking whether the idea is eligible and feasible for evaluation |
The intervention suggested for evaluation has been clearly defined and has been implemented for at least a year, and providers are supportive of the evaluation | 5 | 31.3 | 8 | 50.0 | The intervention suggested for evaluation is still under development, it has not been clearly defined yet, has not been implementation so far, and lacks support from potential providers for the evaluation |
Practice partners and academic researchers meet up to discuss the idea for evaluation before they develop the application | 12 | 75.0 | 13 | 81.3 | Practice partners and academic researchers do not meet up to discuss the idea for evaluation before they develop the application |
Practitioners and academic researchers already have established relationships from previous collaborations | 6 | 37.5 | 2 | 12.5 | Practitioners and academic researchers involved in the application have not worked together before |
Expectations about what each partner will contribute and what they will get out of the project have been clarified, including how potential conflicts will be resolved | 8 | 50.0 | 7 | 43.8 | Expectations about what each partner will contribute and what they will get out of the project are not made clear in the application |
Practitioners have an active role in the research project, for example, co-design the research questions and collect data as peer researchers | 7 | 43.8 | 8 | 50.0 | Practitioners are not involved in the delivery of the research. For example, the research questions are decided by the researchers, and the data are only collected by the research team |
Academic researchers are co-located in the practice organisation for the duration | 2 | 12.5 | 2 | 12.5 | Academic researchers are not co-located in the practice organisation for which the evaluation is being conducted |
Outputs and dissemination activities are identified from the start, with clear involvement from wider stakeholders/knowledge users | 6 | 37.5 | 3 | 18.8 | Outputs and dissemination activities are not identified from the start and do not involve wider stakeholders/knowledge users in these activities |
Clear and timely feedback is provided on proposals to all applicants. including signposting to other funding opportunities | 1 | 6.3 | 1 | 6.3 | Feedback is not provided on proposals to all applicants, and unsuccessful applicants are not signposting to other funding opportunities |
The collaboration leaves a legacy that sustains the intervention | 6 | 37.5 | 4 | 25.0 | The collaboration does not aim to leave a legacy for sustaining the intervention |
Funding can be used partly towards intervention costs | 5 | 31.3 | 4 | 25.0 | Funding is only available for research (not for intervention costs) |
Funding can be used for evidence reviews, secondary data analysis and network development | 3 | 18.8 | 4 | 25.0 | Funding can only be used for evaluation of local interventions |
Start and end dates of project are flexible to account for delays in start of interventions and any contractual issues | 5 | 31.3 | 4 | 25.0 | Start and end dates of projects are fixed and cannot be changed to account for delays in start of interventions and any contractual issues |
Total | 77 | 481.3 | 75 | 468.8 |