Maximising the impact of research: the NCCR North-South approach: Fourth NCCR North-South Report on Effectiveness

Interest is growing in the impact that science can have on reducing poverty in the global South. If we understand impact as the “demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and the economy”, the concept encompasses a variety of contributions of research-related knowledge and skills that benefit people and the environment. One reason for the growing interest in impact in this context is research councils’ increasing focus on documenting the social and environmental benefits of science, as indicated by the above quotation from the British research councils. Another reason is that research funding agencies from the private and public sectors are now more interested in social innovations for solving problems on the ground. Research can indeed influence policymakers’ views, policy development, funding patterns, and implementation or practice. This is promising for those who would like to improve – and prove – the influence research can have on policy and practice. It is also of importance for better understanding the intended and unintended effects of research. This report presents the NCCR North-South approach to increasing the impact of development-oriented research. It explains how we can maximise our impact and how we can assess whether our efforts have worked, based on six case studies from around the world. The report is of interest to all researchers who wish to respond to policy and practice from their point of view and who are keen on publicising their evidence. It is also relevant to those who teach how to maximise research impact.

Parochialism or self-consciousness? Internationality in medical history journals 1997-2006

Research councils, universities and funding agencies are increasingly asking for tools to measure the quality of research in the humanities. One of their preferred methods is a ranking of journals according to their supposed level of internationality. Our quantitative survey of seventeen major journals of medical history reveals the futility of such an approach. Most journals have a strong national character with a dominance of native language, authors and topics. The most common case is a paper written by a local author in his own language on a national subject regarding the nineteenth or twentieth century. American and British journals are taken notice of internationally but they only rarely mention articles from other history of medicine journals. Continental European journals show a more international review of literature, but are in their turn not noticed globally. Increasing specialisation and fragmentation has changed the role of general medical history journals. They run the risk of losing their function as international platforms of discourse on general and theoretical issues and major trends in historiography, to international collections of papers. Journal editors should therefore force their authors to write a more international report, and authors should be encouraged to submit papers of international interest and from a more general, transnational and methodological point of view.

First results from a Swiss level I trauma centre participating in the UK Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN): Prospective cohort study

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: Patient characteristics and risk factors for death of Swiss trauma patients in the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN). METHODS: Descriptive analysis of trauma patients (≥16 years) admitted to a level I trauma centre in Switzerland (September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010) and entered into TARN. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Of 458 patients 71% were male. The median age was 50.5 years (inter-quartile range [IQR] 32.2-67.7), median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 14 (IQR 9-20) and median Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) was 15 (IQR 14-15). The ISS was >15 for 47%, and 14% had an ISS >25. A total of 17 patients (3.7%) died within 30 days of trauma. All deaths were in patients with ISS >15. Most injuries were due to falls <2 m (35%) or road traffic accidents (29%). Injuries to the head (39%) were followed by injuries to the lower limbs (33%), spine (28%) and chest (27%). The time of admission peaked between 12:00 and 22:00, with a second peak between 00:00 and 02:00. A total of 64% of patients were admitted directly to our trauma centre. The median time to CT was 30 min (IQR 18-54 min). Using multivariable regression analysis, the predictors of mortality were older age, higher ISS and lower GCS. CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of Swiss trauma patients derived from TARN were described for the first time, providing a detailed overview of the institutional trauma population. Based on these results, patient management and hospital resources (e.g. triage of patients, time to CT, staffing during night shifts) could be evaluated as a further step.

Exploring the effectiveness of development research with a monitoring and learning approach

There is a growing demand for better understanding of the link between research, policy and practice in development. This article provides findings from a study that aimed to gain insights into how researchers engage with their non-academic partners. It draws on experiences from the National Centre of Competence in Research North-South programme, a development research network of Swiss, African, Asian and Latin American institutions. Conceptually, this study is concerned with research effectiveness as a means to identify knowledge useful for society. Research can be improved and adapted when monitoring the effects of interactions between researchers and non-academic partners. Therefore, a monitoring and learning approach was chosen. This study reveals researchers' strategies in engaging with non-academic partners and points to framing conditions considered decisive for soccessful interactions. It concludes that reserachrs need to systematically analyse the socio-political context in which they intervene. By providing insights from the ground and reflecting on them in the light of the latest theoretical concepts, this article contributes to the emerging literature founded on practice-based experience.

Variation in partner notification outcomes for chlamydia in UK genitourinary medicine clinics: multilevel study

Objectives To compare different ways of measuring partner notification (PN) outcomes with published audit standards, examine variability between clinics and examine factors contributing to variation in PN outcomes in genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics in the UK. Methods Reanalysis of the 2007 BASHH national chlamydia audit. The primary outcome was the number of partners per index case tested for chlamydia, as verified by a healthcare worker or, if missing, reported by the patient. Control charts were used to examine variation between clinics considering missing values as zero or excluding missing values. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to investigate factors contributing to variation in outcomes. Results Data from 4616 individuals in 169 genitourinary medicine clinics were analysed. There was no information about the primary outcome in 41% of records. The mean number of partners tested for chlamydia ranged from 0 to 1.5 per index case per clinic. The median across all clinics was 0.47 when missing values were assumed to be zero and 0.92 per index case when missing values were excluded. Men who have sex with men were less likely than heterosexual men and patients with symptoms (4-week look-back period) were less likely than asymptomatic patients (6-month look-back) to report having one or more partners tested for chlamydia. There was no association between the primary outcome and the type of the health professional giving the PN advice. Conclusions The completeness of PN outcomes recorded in clinical notes needs to improve. Further research is needed to identify auditable measures that are associated with successful PN that prevents repeated chlamydia in index cases.

On producing and sharing knowledge across boundaries: experiences from the interfaces of an international development research network

The number of large research networks and programmes engaging in knowledge production for development has grown over the past years. One of these programmes devoted to generating knowledge about and for development is National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North–South, a cross-disciplinary, international development research network funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the Swiss National Science Foundation. Producing relevant knowledge for development is a core goal of the programme and an important motivation for many of the participating researchers. Over the years, the researchers have made use of various spaces for exchange and instruments for co-production of knowledge by academic and non-academic development actors. In this article we explore the characteristics of co-producing and sharing knowledge in interfaces between development research, policy and NCCR North–South practice. We draw on empirical material of the NCCR North–South programme and its specific programme element of the Partnership Actions. Our goal is to make use of the concept of the interface to reflect critically about the pursued strategies and instruments applied in producing and sharing knowledge for development across boundaries.