Table 1 Criteria for the assessment of knowledge exchange plans and illustrative text from proposals

Problem definition

There is a statement about the problem addressed by this proposal and its significance to the health service or health.

Around 150,000 people each year attend hospitals in England due to self-harm, many of them more than once. Over 5,000 people die by suicide each year in the UK, a quarter of them having attended the general hospital in the previous year because of non-fatal self-harm, so self-harm is the major identifiable risk factor for suicide. People receive a variable standard of care at hospital: many are not assessed for their psychological needs, and little psychological therapy is offered. Despite its frequent occurrence, we have no clear research evidence about how to reduce repetition of self-harm. People who have self-harmed show less active ways of solving problems, and brief problem-solving therapies are considered the most promising psychological treatments.

There is a statement about how the problem has been identified.

Routinely collected data show a sustained but poorly understood increase in primary care prescribing of opioids. We conducted an online survey of pharmacy advisers and found that 88% were concerned about current patterns of opioid prescribing for chronic, non-cancer pain whilst 95% considered opioids were inappropriately prescribed.

The proposal identifies specific users of the research.

The main beneficiaries will be all those interested in reducing smoking initiation in adolescents. This includes teachers and those interested in promoting health in adolescent samples. Others will include academic and other beneficiaries such as social scientists and health researchers interested in understanding behaviour change in adolescent samples.

There is a clear description of user benefit(s).

Outcomes from this research will be instrumental in determining the implementation of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery throughout the UK National Health Service (NHS) and the rest of the world. It will provide information to clinicians in terms of which patients might benefit from a laparoscopic approach, to healthcare providers in determining cost-effectiveness, and to patients to inform personal choice. It will inform government agencies responsible for issuing guidance and strategy and provide the evidence for future clinical initiatives.

Involvement of research users

There is evidence that users have been actively engaged in the development of this proposal.

Following our synthesis of current literature, we consulted with our local network of family doctors. Of the potential options to improve the safety of prescribing practice, they expressed a preference for computerised prompts but stipulated that the alert messages should only be triggered in specific circumstances.

There is a plan as to how users will be involved in the conduct or management of the research.

We will work with and seek feedback from a stakeholder panel following each step of intervention development. The panel will comprise health service managers and clinicians and advise upon the feasibility, acceptability and sustainability of candidate intervention components within available resources and systems.

There is a plan as to how users will be involved in the dissemination and implementation of research findings.

Our implementation field manual will be developed through structured exchanges with relevant groups and advisors, including the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), members of clinical commissioning groups and clinical governance leads. The manual will be developed iteratively from the start of the research programme. We will share our plans and emerging findings and seek feedback to refine our interpretation and methods.

Patient and public engagement

There is evidence of patient or public engagement in the development of this proposal.

The project was discussed with consumer colleagues during the development phase. The concept of the research was supported. We recognise that the proposed study presents important ethical issues, particularly whether or not to inform participants of their test results. The clear advice from our consumer group, summarised in their report to us entitled ‘To tell or not to tell’, was the dominant view that all participants should be treated as responsible individuals and that each person should be free to decide what information they wish to receive.

There is a plan as to how patients or the public will be involved in the conduct or management of the research.

Service users will play a vital role in helping guide this project to a successful conclusion. X (co-applicant) has been involved in discussions throughout the development of this proposal and will continue to play an active role in the project, as a full member of the project and steering committees. In addition, we intend to recruit a small, service user advisory group to provide active input at specific points throughout the project. Y will facilitate the group and provide mentorship and support to its members. Members will be asked to provide input in relation to recruitment and retention, study materials (participant information sheet, consent form), design of the topic guide for the qualitative study, and provide feedback on the analysis of the qualitative data.

There is a plan as to how patients or the public will be involved in the dissemination and implementation of research findings.

Our Older People’s Forum is well established and has been provided with training and support as required through their development. Quarterly progress reports to the Forum will be a catalyst for discussion of concerns/queries or comments about the research and to inform dissemination strategies.

Dissemination and implementation

The proposal describes the rationale(s) behind the selection of dissemination and implementation strategies.

We recognize the barriers faced when trying to embed new service developments into routine care. We will therefore develop a model service specification that also sets out expected outcomes and delineates the necessary resources and training required to bring about a change in service delivery.

The proposal describes how the dissemination and implementation strategies build upon existing resources and ways of working in a sustainable manner.

If proven cost-effective, our computerized prompts can be readily incorporated within or adapted to existing clinical information systems.

There is a statement about how the research process and findings will be used.

The study outputs will: inform the development of guidelines by identifying unmet needs in chronic, non-cancer pain and potential opportunities during patient trajectories to intervene (e.g., medication reviews); target prescribing advisors, who will therefore be able to provide better-informed education and support to practices in challenging or changing opioid prescribing; and inform commissioning of pain services, especially if our findings suggest greater scope for specialist services in developing shared care plans for patients that emphasise active clinical review and non-pharmacological interventions.

Networks for sharing findings with users are clearly identified.

Theoretical and practical outcomes of the study will be presented to patients, carers, and members of Parkinson’s UK at a workshop and open day. Public awareness of this work will be raised at events such as Café Scientifique and Brain Awareness Week and through the University’s press office.

There is a plan for ensuring that any disseminated materials and products are tailored to the needs of users.

The Cancer Patients and Public in Research group has agreed to help structure content and dissemination strategy of the research results. They will provide input in the lay summary to ensure that the results will be presented in the appropriate way to patients and the lay public; they will provide advice on additional ‘non-academic’ dissemination of the project results (be that newsletters in patient cancer journals or local or national cancer network websites).

Planning, management and evaluation of knowledge exchange

The timing and order of knowledge exchange activities is stated.

We will have an open day near the end of the project for the Parkinson’s Disease Society members to see our findings. We have regularly organised such events for our older adult participants (with over 100 attendees). We will also hold a workshop during the final year with 10 Society members to obtain feedback on the proposed methods to discuss whether they would be beneficial in their everyday lives. Finally, we will send two newsletters a year to our participants to inform about progress. We already send newsletters to our older adult participants, and they find this a rewarding part of the process.

The resources required for knowledge exchange (including people, services and consumables) have been identified (whether or not the proposal seeks funding for them).

We are seeking funding to cover the costs of our dissemination activities, including for the design and printing of a briefing for service commissioners and the development of an interactive website for patients and clinicians. We also seek funding to pay for the costs of an open-access journal publication.

Applicants’ previous experience of undertaking knowledge exchange activities is described.

Our academic unit has a strong track record of delivering continuing professional development courses for clinicians. We will add a new module, informed by this programme of research, to our existing suite of courses, which we anticipate running twice a year.

The proposal states ways in which the uptake of research findings can be monitored.

The patient outcomes measured as part of this trial have been designed to be derived from existing routinely recorded clinical data. Therefore, they can be applied to monitoring the implementation of the trial treatment in routine practice following trial completion.