Skip to main content

Table 3 Case comparison summary

From: Does the process of developing products for knowledge mobilisation from healthcare research influence their uptake? A comparative case study

Characteristic

Case

A

B

C

D

Academic context

 Product aim

To aid clinicians caring for patients with syndrome A

To enable primary care practitioners to compare local with national prescribing habits regarding drug B

To support the collection, processing and presentation of patient experience data

To encourage the use of evidence

 Project funder

Collaboration of AHSNs, regional applied health research organisation and national charitable campaign

Regional grant funded by the government

National funding agency

National funding charity

 Product host

National professional organisation

The university

NHS sites

Text mining tool hosted by the university

The university

 Product delivered

Yes

Product delivered but with less functionality than planned

Bespoke tools for each NHS site

No cohesive, publicly available product

Yes

Aspects of the product

 Perceived need

Needed

Something is needed—is this it?

Unclear

Unclear

 Clarity of product aim

Well defined

Well defined

Complex

Unclear

 Type of product aim

Instrumental

Instrumental

More conceptual

Definitely conceptual

 Intended user

Primary care practitioners

Primary care practitioners

Patient experience teams

Evaluators and decision-makers

 Clarity of user

Clear

Clear

Clear

Contested

 Range of user group

Narrow

Narrow

Diffuse

Broad

Aspects of development

 Vision for stakeholder engagement

Project team to consist of key stakeholders

Planned to formulate product based on learning event and to obtain user feedback

Preliminary engagement planned clearly

Subsequent engagement lacked strategy

Clear vision embedded throughout the project

Co-design of bespoke tools for each site through qualitative interviews, focus groups and observation of tools in practice, with subsequent formal evaluation

Clear plans for interviews and a focus group to elicit feedback

 Delivery of stakeholder engagement

Project team all contributed to the product development

Little stakeholder engagement outside the core project team

No changes made after learning event

No user feedback

Initial stakeholder event contributed to the original vision for the product

Influential stakeholders recruited to shape and champion product

Regular interactions with stakeholders were not maintained and feedback not systematically assimilated/integrated into the product

Delivered

Reduced number of interactions (fewer interviews, no focus group)

End of study workshop

Iterative changes to the product based on interviews and end-of-study workshop

 Summary of stakeholder engagement (see Table 4 for the expansion of terms)

Embedded

Tokenistic

Co-design

Consultation

 Role of the main researcher

Participant observer

Observer

Participant observer

Observer, consulted formally

Product application

 Perception of use in practice

Well regarded

Regarded as potentially useful but lacking key attributes desired by users

Variable use across NHS sites participating in the project

Regarded as interesting but unlikely to be used in practice

 Web hits (12 months)

3268

Not yet available

No data available on hits for the text mining tool

151 (downloads)

202 (online)

 Trajectory of website hits (12 months)

Stable

N/A

N/A

Reducing

 Summary label regarding use

‘Is being used’

‘Might be used’

‘Some tools used locally’

‘Appears not to be used’

  1. AHSN Academic Health Science Network