» Articles » PMID: 38978042

How to Strengthen Societal Impact of Research and Innovation? Lessons Learned from an Explanatory Research-on-research Study on Participatory Knowledge Infrastructures Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2024 Jul 8
PMID 38978042
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Scientific research and innovation can generate societal impact via different pathways. Productive interactions, such as collaboration between researchers and relevant stakeholders, play an important role and have increasingly gained interest of health funders around the globe. What works, how and why in research partnerships to generate societal impact in terms of knowledge utilisation is still not well-known. To explore these issues, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) initiated an exploratory research-on-research study with a focus on participatory knowledge infrastructures (PKIs) that they fund in the field of public health and healthcare. PKIs are sustainable infrastructures in which knowledge production, dissemination and utilisation takes place via committed collaboration between researchers and stakeholders from policy, practice and/or education. Examples are learning networks, academic collaborative centres, care networks and living labs. The aim of the study was twofold: to gain insights in what constitutes effective collaboration in PKIs; and to learn and improve the research governance, particularly of ZonMw as part of their dissemination and implementation activities.

Methods: During 2020-2022, we conducted a literature review on long-term research partnerships, analysed available documentation of twenty ZonMw-funded PKIs, surveyed participants of the 2021 European Implementation Event, interviewed steering committee members, organized a Group Decision Room with lecturers, and validated the findings with key experts.

Results: We identified eight mechanisms ('how and why') that are conditional for effective collaboration in PKIs: transdisciplinary collaboration; defining a shared ambition; doing justice to everyone's interests; investing in personal relationships; a professional organisation or structure; a meaningful collaborative process; mutual trust, sufficient time for and continuity of collaboration. Several factors ('what') may hinder (e.g., lack of ownership or structural funding) or facilitate (e.g., stakeholder commitment, embeddedness in an organisation or policy) effective collaboration in research partnerships.

Conclusion: To use the study results in policy, practice, education, and/or (further) research, cultural and behavioural change of all stakeholders is needed. To facilitate this, we provide recommendations for funding organisations, particularly ZonMw and its partners within the relevant knowledge ecosystem. It is meant as a roadmap towards the realisation and demonstration of societal impact of (health) research and innovation in the upcoming years.

Citing Articles

Making intersectoral stakeholder engagement in medicine quality research work: lessons from the STARmeds study in Indonesia.

Hasnida A, Bal R, Manninda R, Saputra S, Nugrahani Y, Faradiba F Health Res Policy Syst. 2025; 23(1):21.

PMID: 39972500 PMC: 11840975. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-025-01286-z.


Opening up creative resources: towards age-friendly communities through rhizomatic thinking and doing.

Schuurman M, Groot B, Abma T Educ Action Res. 2025; 33(1):70-95.

PMID: 39877130 PMC: 11771459. DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2024.2370277.


Transforming dementia research into practice: a multiple case study of academic research utilization strategies in Dutch Alzheimer Centres.

Zhu E, Buljac-Samardzic M, Ahaus K, Huijsman R Health Res Policy Syst. 2025; 23(1):3.

PMID: 39762851 PMC: 11702214. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-024-01266-9.

References
1.
Milat A, Bauman A, Redman S . A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015; 13:18. PMC: 4377031. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-015-0003-1. View

2.
Abudu R, Oliver K, Boaz A . What funders are doing to assess the impact of their investments in health and biomedical research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022; 20(1):88. PMC: 9361261. DOI: 10.1186/s12961-022-00888-1. View

3.
Greenhalgh T, Raftery J, Hanney S, Glover M . Research impact: a narrative review. BMC Med. 2016; 14:78. PMC: 4876557. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0620-8. View

4.
van der Linden B, Dunham K, Siegel J, Lazowick E, Bowdery M, Lamont T . Health funders' dissemination and implementation practices: results from a survey of the Ensuring Value in Research (EViR) Funders' Forum. Implement Sci Commun. 2022; 3(1):36. PMC: 8966333. DOI: 10.1186/s43058-022-00273-7. View

5.
Oortwijn W, Hanney S, Ligtvoet A, Hoorens S, Wooding S, Grant J . Assessing the impact of health technology assessment in The Netherlands. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008; 24(3):259-69. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462308080355. View