Ra manske und partner
Pape H et. BOOK 1. Development of puberty in girls treated. The impact of gender puberty and body mass on reference.SEE VIDEO BY TOPIC: Peniviti - Full Video - Aravindha Sametha - Jr. NTR, Pooja Hegde - Thaman S
SEE VIDEO BY TOPIC: As-a-service partnershipsContent:
Classification and characterization of nonequilibrium Higgs modes in unconventional superconductors
Metrics details. Evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers are a potential method for producing more relevant research with greater potential to impact on policy and practice.
Little is known about how such partnerships are enacted in practice, however, or how to increase their effectiveness.
We aimed to determine why researchers and policy-makers choose to work together, how they work together, which partnership models are most common, and what the key 1 relationship-based and 2 practical components of successful research partnerships are.
Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 18 key informants largely based in New South Wales, Australia, who were 1 researchers experienced in working in partnership with policy in health or health-related areas or 2 policy and programme developers and health system decision-makers experienced in working in partnership with researchers.
Data was analysed thematically by two researchers. Researcher-initiated and policy agency-initiated evidence generation partnerships were common. While policy-initiated partnerships were thought to be the most likely to result in impact, researcher-initiated projects were considered important in advancing the science and were favoured by researchers due to greater perceived opportunities to achieve key academic career metrics. Co-production was considered a worthy goal by all, conferring a range of benefits, but one that was difficult to achieve in practice.
Some participants asserted that the increased time and resources required for effective co-production meant it was best suited to evaluation and implementation projects where the tacit, experiential knowledge of policy-makers provided critical nuance to underpin study design, implementation and analysis.
Partnerships that were mutually considered to have produced the desired outcomes were seen to be underpinned by a range of both relationship-based such as shared aims and goals and trust and practical factors such as sound governance and processes.
Our findings highlight the important role of policy-makers in New South Wales in ensuring the relevance of research. Peer Review reports. Bridging the evidence—practice gap in health services has the potential to make a substantial contribution to improving health outcomes and service efficiencies [ 1 , 2 ] and to reducing research waste [ 1 ].
Proposed solutions to bridging this gap originally focussed heavily on strategies to enhance the dissemination of research findings to research users [ 2 , 3 ] or on building the capacity of policy-makers and clinicians to engage with and use research evidence [ 4 ]. More recently, focus has turned to the potential for evidence generation partnerships between researchers and knowledge users, such as policy-makers, community groups, clinicians and consumers, to improve the availability of relevant, timely evidence to help inform decision-making [ 5 , 6 ].
A number of research approaches that centre around evidence generation partnerships have been outlined in recent years, including integrated knowledge translation [ 5 , 11 ], participatory action research [ 12 , 13 ] and engaged scholarship [ 14 , 15 ]. Most of these approaches emphasise the co-production of knowledge [ 6 ], whereby researchers and those most likely to use or be affected by the evidence produced, work together to produce evidence.
By combining the varied skills and expertise of these groups, it is hypothesised that the resultant research will have greater relevance to knowledge users and will more likely be used in decision-making [ 16 , 17 ]. Much has been published about many of these approaches from a conceptual standpoint [ 18 , 19 ], and there has similarly been a considerable amount of literature examining how evidence generation partnerships function [ 13 , 20 , 21 ].
Most of this research, however, does not explore evidence generation partnerships specifically between researchers and policy-makers [ 22 , 23 ], focusing instead on partnerships with community groups [ 13 ], clinicians [ 24 ] and others.
Further, while rarely the case with most other common partnership combinations, evidence generation partnerships between policy agencies and researchers may be initiated and funded by the policy agency themselves or be funded through external research grants such projects may be more likely to be researcher-initiated. These different modes of funding and initiation may have important implications for how a partnership functions [ 28 ]; however, this has rarely been explored.
In this paper, we explore the views and experiences of researchers and policy-makers with extensive expertise in research partnerships regarding why and how researchers and research users work together in New South Wales, Australia, and the factors which underpin successful research partnerships.
In particular, we address the following research questions:. What are the key 1 relationship-based and 2 practical components of successful research partnerships? Data was collected between October and April Participants were purposively identified by an Advisory Committee guiding this project.
The role of the Advisory Committee was to provide expert advice on issues relating to the scope, implementation and dissemination of a programme of work centred on partnership research of which the current paper is a part.
The Advisory Committee included an approximately equal mix of researchers and senior policy-makers, selected for their expertise in partnership research, and their extensive knowledge of researchers and policy-makers who work in partnered research. Advisory Committee members asked the permission of potential participants before passing on their contact details to the study team.
Participants were eligible to participate in the current study if they were nominated by a member of the Advisory Committee based on the criteria that they 1 were a researcher or policy-maker; 2 worked primarily in health or health-related areas e.
All participants provided written, informed consent to participate. Interviews were conducted by AW, a researcher with extensive expertise in conducting research in partnership with policy-makers. Each interview sought information on why the interviewee engaged in partnership research and the perceived risks and benefits, how the interviewee would characterise the types of partnership models they have engaged in and the advantages and disadvantages of each , characteristics of successful and unsuccessful partnerships and the factors associated with each , and indicators and predictors of impact.
Interviews were conducted in person or by phone depending on the preference of the interviewee and ranged from half to one hour in length. Data was audio recorded before being transcribed by a person with no personal or professional connection to the participants involved in the study. Data was analysed thematically. Two researchers AW and HT independently read all of the transcripts and coded the data to discern themes inductively.
No predetermined framework was used to guide analysis. The researchers met regularly to review the draft codes and themes throughout the process until agreement was reached regarding the final version.
Synthesised data and emerging themes were reviewed by the Advisory Committee who participated in sense making of emerging data. A total of 18 key informants participated in interviews, of whom 7 were primarily researchers and 11 were currently primarily policy-makers.
All participating researchers were employed by universities at the Associate Professor or Professor level and had more than 15 years research experience in public health research. All of the policy-makers who participated were employed at a Manager level or above by government agencies whose work focussed on health or health-related issues such as social care.
All participants, except for one researcher, were based in New South Wales, Australia. The themes which emerged from the interview with the participant from outside New South Wales were consistent with those which emerged more broadly. Three major themes emerged regarding why researchers choose to work with policy, namely 1 increasing the likelihood of research impact; 2 gaining access to sought after resources; and 3 obtaining funding.
The reason most commonly cited by researchers for wanting to partner with policy-makers to conducting research was the belief that the resultant research would more likely have an impact on policy and thus contribute to improving health. Many researchers were also motivated to partner with policy-makers due to the access to otherwise unavailable resources this could facilitate such as routinely collected data held by agencies or the data required to evaluate large-scale government policies or programmes.
Researchers also reported seeking collaborations with policy-makers due to the funds attached to the work, either through completing a tendered project or, preferably, receiving funds to carry out a project the researchers had initiated or co-produced in collaboration with a relevant agency.
Five major themes emerged regarding what policy-makers perceived they gained by partnering with researchers, namely 1 access to additional skills; 2 links to researchers who can be called on for timely, informal advice; 3 access to the networks of their research collaborators; 4 the creation of high quality, relevant evidence; and 5 public, evidence-based support for government decisions.
Policy-makers most commonly reported seeking to collaborate with researchers in order to gain access to skills and capacity over and above that already available within their agency. Having established collaborations with researchers was also said to create a situation in which policy-makers felt able to contact these researchers when they required fast expert advice on a relevant issue.
Policy-makers also noted that their collaborators often assisted them in making links with researchers outside of the collaboration who possessed additional specific skills or knowledge they needed. Policy-makers were also driven to collaborate with researchers in order to create high quality evidence that was seen to have credibility to support their work.
Collaborations with researchers were also seen to be helpful when the researcher elected to support government decisions in the public domain, for example, by speaking about the evidence base underpinning policy, programme or health service delivery decisions.
While research users did not report requesting assistance of this nature, they appreciated it when provided.
Once these partnerships began, there was said to be a considerable level of variation in the extent to which the researchers and agency staff involved collaborated from almost no collaboration through to high levels of collaboration throughout all stages of the research process.
This sustained, high level collaboration was considered by participants to characterise co-production. Policy-makers and researchers tended to nominate research projects centred around evidence reviews and analysis of existing datasets as requiring minimal collaboration, while closer collaboration was considered important when conducting interventions and evaluations. At one end is that transactional type interaction, through to co-production at the other end.
However, these partnership categories policy- or researcher-initiated and extent of collaboration were not seen to be entirely clear cut, with some researchers and policy-makers explaining that, as some policy agencies move towards embedding researchers within their teams and sometimes funding research centres, the distinction between policy-makers and researchers can sometimes be blurry.
A few policy-makers felt that highly collaborative, co-produced research partnerships were always preferable; however, most participants reported that various levels of collaboration could be effective depending on the situation. Most researchers and policy-makers alike agreed that policy-makers are best placed to identify the critical issues around what evidence is needed to guide their decision-making.
Thus, agency-initiated work was thought by both researchers and policy-makers to often be particularly well targeted for real-world impact. Researchers reported willingness to engage in these and other types of agency-initiated projects anyway as they were seen as an effective way to build a relationship with a policy agency and gain a better understanding of the policy context in the hopes of developing more advantageous collaborations.
On the other hand, most researchers outlined a number of potential risks or costs that were sometimes associated with agency-initiated work. Chief among these was a perceived opportunity cost, with time spent working on agency-initiated research sometimes resulting in less traditionally valued research outputs such as peer-reviewed publications than time spent on researcher-initiated work.
Indeed, policy-makers and researchers alike reported that, as policy-makers often needed evidence around a specific issue, within a specific timeframe and at a specific cost, research methods needed to be determined pragmatically, rather than striving for the most scientifically excellent design.
In addition, the evidence produced was sometimes rendered irrelevant by changes in the political environment. This challenge was also sometimes seen to be related to agencies not disclosing key information to researchers, limiting their understanding of the context and what was required.
Policy-makers also reported potential risks related to engaging with researchers in agency-initiated research, including not receiving the information or evidence they required, or it being of poor quality, or delivered well after the agreed deadline. Another commonly reported barrier was researchers overpromising to win a tender but not being able to deliver on these promises.
Frustrations were sometimes said to arise due to researchers ignoring the complexity of the issue being investigated. As recommendations for action were reportedly often one of the key outcomes sought by agencies in these partnerships, this was particularly disappointing.
One shared benefit related to research-initiated partnerships was commonly identified by researchers and policy-makers. Policy-makers also identified a range of risks associated with such partnerships four subthemes.
Researcher-initiated partnerships were seen by policy-makers as an important source of innovation, but not necessarily of major immediate relevance to their work. Despite this, if the policy-makers agreed to partner on a researcher-initiated project, they reported that they did expect to engender benefits from this. Nonetheless, one of the key risks noted for researcher-initiated partnerships was that the evidence produced did not fill an evidence need for the agency, or that it took so long to produce that, by the time it was available, it was no longer relevant.
This risk was seen to be exacerbated by another commonly noted risk of this partnership type, namely that the researchers take over and offer little opportunity for policy-makers to help shape the research agenda.
Relatedly, many policy-makers reported previous dissatisfactions related to researchers not sharing credit for the work the partnership produced, for example, through co-authorship or shared publicity. Researchers cited significant benefits associated with researcher-initiated partnerships, including the opportunity to focus on their specific research interests and employ more ambitious study designs, increasing their chances of obtaining peer-reviewed grants and high impact journal articles.
The chief risks researchers reported in researcher-initiated research partnerships were that the policy-maker partners did not engage attend meetings, provide information and advice or did not deliver on promised resources such as access to particular datasets.
All participants reported that co-production was a worthy goal and likely to be highly effective when done well four subthemes. Achieving co-production was also noted to be difficult, with common challenges two subthemes and a range of facilitators four subthemes identified. The benefits of co-production were seen to derive in part from the greater levels of engagement between all members of the team seen to be implicit in this model, driven by mutual aims and interests. This high level of engagement was in turn seen to allow the complementary skills and knowledge of all partners to be optimised.
Nonetheless, while co-production was the goal for many participants, some noted that, thus far, they had not been able to achieve it, with either the policy or the researcher partners dominating partnership projects in practice. Multiple reasons were given for the reported tendency for one group to dominate research partnerships, ranging from lower expectation amongst one group that the project might benefit themselves or their agency resulting in reduced engagement, to the dominating group offering little real opportunity for their partners to contribute to shaping the research agenda.
The most frequently mentioned facilitators of co-production were things that allowed long-term relationships and trust to develop between researchers and policy-makers, namely stability of staff at policy agencies and policy agency-funded research centres.
Seven subthemes were identified in relation to the characteristics of successful partnerships. Expanding further, common perceptions of successful partnerships included all parties having a shared understanding of why they were partnering and what this would involve, the planned deliverables being delivered to a high standard and relevant, usable evidence being generated.
Many participants noted that a successful partnership produces more than any partner could have alone and that it results in mutual gain. Creating evidence that impacts on policy and practice was considered an indicator of success, but as participants recognised that impact is influenced by a complex array of factors, they considered that partnerships could be considered successful even in the absence of this.
Shared aims and goals were seen as the fundamental building block of successful partnerships, and something that motivated partners to withstand the difficulties and challenges that can emerge over the course of partnerships. Participants were also keenly aware of the differences between researchers and policy-makers in relation to their needs and goals.
For example, researchers are generally expected to demonstrate their productivity through publications and funded grants, whereas policy-makers need to provide advice or develop policies or programmes around complex issues, often with very little preparation time.
Leadership Institute Journey Begins
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article. Drug resistance is one of the greatest challenges of malaria control programmes, with the monitoring of parasite resistance to artemisinins or to Artemisinin Combination Therapy ACT partner drugs critical to elimination efforts. Markers of resistance to a wide panel of antimalarials were assessed in natural parasite populations from southwestern Cameroon. Individuals with asymptomatic parasitaemia or uncomplicated malaria were enrolled through cross-sectional surveys from May to March along the slope of mount Cameroon.
Premeeting Course. Clinical Practice. Basic Science. ACR Session. Networking Event. Meet the Professor. Clinical and Translational Research. ARP Session. Poster Session Sunday. Plenary Session I.
Metrics details. Evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers are a potential method for producing more relevant research with greater potential to impact on policy and practice. Little is known about how such partnerships are enacted in practice, however, or how to increase their effectiveness. We aimed to determine why researchers and policy-makers choose to work together, how they work together, which partnership models are most common, and what the key 1 relationship-based and 2 practical components of successful research partnerships are.
Thank you for visiting nature. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer.
Unlock thousands of full-length species accounts and hundreds of bird family overviews when you subscribe to Birds of the World. Each species account is written by leading ornithologists and provides detailed information on bird distribution, migration, habitat, diet, sounds, behavior, breeding, current population status, and conservation. An extensive multimedia section displays the latest photos, videos and audio selections from the Macaulay Library.
The selection of individuals in the above table reflects the research of the editorial staff at JUVE and is based on interviews with clients, lawyers and academics. It remains a subjective view and implies no disparagement of any person not mentioned here but who is nevertheless active in this field. The lawyers are alphabetically listed. The selection of firms in the above table reflects the research of the editorial staff at JUVE and is based on interviews with clients, lawyers and academics. It remains a subjective view and implies no disparagement of any person or firm not mentioned here but who is nevertheless active in this field.
Но, директор, - возразила Сьюзан, - это не имеет смысла. Если Танкадо не понял, что стал жертвой убийства, зачем ему было отдавать ключ. - Согласен, - сказал Джабба. - Этот парень был диссидентом, но диссидентом, сохранившим совесть.
Одно дело - заставить нас рассказать про ТРАНСТЕКСТ, и совершенно другое - раскрыть все государственные секреты. Фонтейн не мог в это поверить. - Вы полагаете, что Танкадо хотел остановить червя. Вы думаете, он, умирая, до последний секунды переживал за несчастное АНБ.
Может, отключить его самим? - предложила Сьюзан. Стратмор кивнул. Ему не нужно было напоминать, что произойдет, если три миллиона процессоров перегреются и воспламенятся. Коммандеру нужно было подняться к себе в кабинет и отключить ТРАНСТЕКСТ, пока никто за пределами шифровалки не заметил этой угрожающей ситуации и не отправил людей им на помощь.
Сьюзан повернулась, и Хейл, пропуская ее вперед, сделал широкий взмах рукой, точно приветствуя ее возвращение в Третий узел. - После вас, Сью, - сказал. ГЛАВА 41 В кладовке третьего этажа отеля Альфонсо XIII на полу без сознания лежала горничная. Человек в очках в железной оправе положил в карман ее халата связку ключей.
К счастью, Дэвид это обнаружил. Он проявил редкую наблюдательность. - Но ведь вы ищете ключ к шифру, а не ювелирное изделие. - Конечно.
Знать ничего не знаю.
Почему бы мне не помочь тебе? - предложил Хейл. Он подошел ближе. - Я опытный диагност. К тому же умираю от любопытства узнать, какая диагностика могла заставить Сьюзан Флетчер выйти на работу в субботний день.
Танкадо решил потрясти мир рассказом о секретной машине, способной установить тотальный правительственный контроль над пользователями компьютеров по всему миру. У АН Б не было иного выбора, кроме как остановить его любой ценой. Арест и депортация Танкадо, широко освещавшиеся средствами массовой информации, стали печальным и позорным событием.
Вопреки желанию Стратмора специалисты по заделыванию прорех такого рода, опасаясь, что Танкадо попытается убедить людей в существовании ТРАНСТЕКСТА, начали распускать порочащие его слухи. Энсей Танкадо стал изгоем мирового компьютерного сообщества: никто не верил калеке, обвиняемому в шпионаже, особенно когда он пытался доказать свою правоту, рассказывая о какой-то фантастической дешифровальной машине АНБ.
Самое странное заключалось в том, что Танкадо, казалось, понимал, что таковы правила игры. Он не дал волю гневу, а лишь преисполнился решимости.
Стратмор хмыкнул. Мысль Сьюзан показалась ему достойной внимания. - Неплохо, но есть одно. Он не пользовался своими обычными почтовыми ящиками - ни домашним, ни служебными.