PHIRST Seminar 03/11/2022 Capacity building in collaboration with Local Authorities and partners

NIHR PHIRST seminar recorded on 3 November 2022, chaired by Professor Rona Campbell, lead for PHIRST Insight. Discussing the embedded researcher model, working with the clinical research network and recruiting and training partners.

Chapters
0:00:00 – 07:29
Welcome and Introduction. Professor Rona Campbell, lead for PHIRST Insight and James Morris, Public Health Consultant and NIHR lead for the PHIRST initiative.

07:29 – 20:19
Setting the stage within local authorities. Jo Williams Consultant in Public Health, Bristol City Council and Senior Lecturer, University of Bristol.

20:55 – 37:03
Dr Peter Van Der Graaf from PHIRST Fusion introduces the Embedded Researchers model and Jenny Gillespie, Senior Health Promotion Officer, NHS Tayside gives her reflections on being the embedded researcher on the Healthy Weight Tayside evaluation.

37:33 – 49:56
Tricia Jessiman from PHIRST Insight discusses ‘Working with the Clinical Research Network’ on the Oxford Active Travel evaluation. Christopher Hille from the NIHR Clinical Research Network Thames Valley and South Midlands and Priyanka Vasantavada from Oxfordshire County Council describe their involvement in the project.

51:07 – 1:01:48
Dr Katie Newby from PHIRST Connect talks about increasing capacity through training partners using the example of the Welsh National Exercise Referral Scheme evaluation.

1:02:02 – 1:11:52
Dr Thomas Mills from PHIRST South Bank explores how co-inquiry can be a way to involve a wide network of public health practitioners in local authorities.

1:11:52 – 1:25:50
Professor Rona Campbell chairs a question and answer session with various contributors and provides closing remarks.

So good morning and a very warm welcome to everyone on the seminar which is being   (SPEAKER: Rona Campbell) hosted by the NIHR PHIRST teams and it’s the  seminar in capacity building in collaboration   with local authority and partners and I’m  Rona Campbell and I’m director of one of the  

Six PHIRST teams I’m director of PHIRST Insight. And capacity building is a very important   activity and in my long, now long academic career  as a health research it’s one I’ve devoted a   considerable amount of time to and so I’m very  much looking forward to to this seminar and

Tend to conceptualise capacity building  as being a bit like managing a communal garden. It needs constant work and it’s good to have a plan to work too and you need a variety of plants   which will have different roles and some will take longer to mature than others but  

When you’ve put in effort you get very rich rewards. But everyone may have a slightly   different view of what a good garden looks like and what’s best and when people are very   busy or resources are constrained things can get a bit neglected. But the good news is that’s very  

Definitely not what’s happening in terms of the NIHR and capacity building because there’s   a considerable and sustained focus on capacity building and particularly where public health research and local authorities are concerned as we are going to see this morning. So if I could  

Have the next slide please Cobus. So this is our our timetable and for those of you new to the work   of the PHIRST teams James Morris is going to undertake a brief introduction to the work of   our PHIRST teams and this is going to be followed by a presentation by Dr Jo Williams who’s  

A consultant of Public Health in Bristol City Council and a Senior Lecturer in public health   here at the University of Bristol so she’s  very well placed to provide her thoughts on   the opportunities and constraints on research, capacity development and local authorities and  

How this relates to PHIRST evaluations. And then we’re going to have four presentations about   different approaches to capacity building that are being used in our PHIRST evaluations   and threaded throughout the seminar is time for questions and some discussion and we also have a  

A comfort break built into that. I could have the next slide please. So just a few housekeeping notes before we get underway first of all there are more than a 100 people attending this seminar so it’s not possible to have verbal questions so people can pop questions in the chat  

Function at any point we will address those questions in the discussion session. Could I ask   everyone that unless you’re speaking to keep your microphones on mute so that we don’t get   background noise and speakers if you could please keep your cameras on when you’re speaking and  

In the discussion sessions. All other attendees can keep their cameras on or off as they   prefer. And during the comfort break I suggest that we all mute our microphones and put our   cameras off just during that time rather than going in and out of the meeting and leaving the room.

And as you will have hopefully already noticed we are recording the session so that we   can make it available afterwards on the PHIRST team’s website. So, that being said it’s my absolute   pleasure to introduce Dr James Morris who’s a Consultant in Public Health Medicine and who works  

With the NIHR directly on the work of the PHIRST team so James over to you for your introduction. Thank you Rona and good morning everyone and just to echo Rona’s warm welcome to today’s   (SPEAKER: James Morris) seminar. By way of introduction I’ve just got three slides just to set the scene.

I’m sure the content is going to be pretty  familiar to almost everyone on the call so   I’ll keep these remarks fairly brief but Cobus if you could move to the next slide thank you. So just a reminder really just about  what the PHIRST scheme is all about

So PHIRST stands for Public Health Intervention Responsive Studies Teams. And at the moment   we’ve got six fantastic academic PHIRST teams who are fully funded and ready and waiting to   evaluate local government initiatives.  So the model of the scheme is that local   government teams can propose initiatives to the PHIRST scheme for those initiatives to  

Be evaluated. And then those evaluations are co-created in partnership between the PHIRST team   and the local government team. And the primary aim of the PHIRST scheme is to build up the   evidence base for local government to inform future decision- making around health related  

Issues. But as a happy consequence of that the PHIRST team, that the PHIRST scheme has   been fostering you know mutual learning and building research capacity within local   government which brings us really to the content of today’s seminar. Next slide please Cobus.

Thanks Cobus. So as I say we’ve currently got six PHIRST teams spread across the UK.  They’re listed on the slide there. The map on the right is showing the locations of   the interventions that we’re currently, that we’ve currently got on the books and that are  

Being evaluated. So we’ve currently got over 30 interventions at different stages of evaluation.  And next slide please Cobus. And just finally by way of just putting this in context really I   thought it was worth mentioning another initiative of the NIHR which is in some ways hot off the  

Press at the moment. So the Health Determinants Research Collaborations or HDRCs. So 10 and   and moving up to 13 of these collaborations have recently been announced and are getting   going. And the aim of HDRCs is to develop the infrastructure needed in local government  

To enable research to take place. So obviously there’s a link here with with building   research capacity in local government which is why I’m sort of mentioning this now. As I say   these collaborations are just getting going and the aim is to boost local government capacity  

And capability to conduct high quality public health research to tackle health inequalities. So I think there’s an interesting dynamic going forward I think between the PHIRST scheme   and the HDRCs. So that’s all I was going to say. So if I can hand over to our next speaker.

Great thanks very much. (SPEAKER: Jo Williams) Just to introduce myself my name is Jo Williams. I work at   Bristol City Council as a Public Health Consultant and as the Academic Lead in the Public Health Team there. And I’ve had the great privilege of  being involved in PHIRST Insight over the last  

Year or so as it’s developed. As in part of my role as a Senior Lecturer at University of Bristol. So I’m just going to talk a little bit  about some of the constraints and challenges we   have in local authorities. But also perhaps some of the lessons that we’ve already been  

Able to learn from PHIRST as ways forward and that we’ll be exploring further in this seminar.  So Cobus could you move on to the next slide.  Many of you will sort of join with me in   appreciating what a huge opportunity PHIRST is for local authorities. We of course have a  

Shared goal between academic and service public health to improve health and well-being outcomes   and reduce health inequalities. And a really important element of that of course is building   the evidence base about which interventions are both most effective and most cost effective.   

And I think the need to demonstrate value for money is increasingly important in the current context   so the economic evaluation elements. In local authorities we have unique partnerships   and context for each local authority  and I think one of the values of PHIRST is  

How unique it can be for each specific area. Interventions constantly needing to be adapted   to local needs and context. Huge numbers of new ideas generated by partners, by communities   and by public health teams so it’s really welcome that this opportunity is in place.  

And of course already mentioned constraints of funding so the opportunity of evaluation being   fully funded. I guess the other opportunity here is the connection to voluntary community   sector organisations and to communities and I guess as we think about capacity building   we’re thinking partly about public health  teams and local authorities but the partners  

As well have a real interest in capacity building particularly in voluntary sector organisations. And certainly we’ve got experience of research led from communities and led from community organisations. Can we go on to the next slide.

I just wanted to bring in early on, about, I guess that we’re not working from a blank sheet in public health teams That both there there’s an official framework for training and development and there’s an appreciation of the  need for research skills in local authorities.

So I’ve put here just a a part of the public health skills and knowledge framework that’s on the   government website. There’s an element of that framework that is about research skills for all   Public Health practitioners which as  you can see is about both how you develop the  

Evidence base and how you use it in your public health practice. Covering understanding sort   of evidence reviews, critical appraisal about research design how you use evidence in   practice, identifying gaps in the evidence base and so on. So just so you’re aware that framework  

Is in place and teams are working to these building up these knowledge and skills in their practice. So just move on to the next one. I’ve pulled out I guess some of the constraints and   challenges these will be very familiar to any of you working in local authorities and I’m sure  

PHIRST teams working with local authorities have observed these challenges. First of all the   workload. Increasing I would say pressures on people’s times in local authority. Not least   from pandemic context but also from budget constraints. So I guess that has a huge impact on PHIRST in terms of time to put in applications to support projects

And I guess we don’t know which projects never reach PHIRST. I mean I know in my own authority I have a long list of projects  that could go forward but the time to put those forward is quite constrained on the team. I guess the second one is around language we often create some distance between academic  

And service public health with our acronyms I’ve used some here from local authority side   we’ve already used some from the academic side. So acronyms and terminology can build up real   barriers and lead to lack of engagement in research. Without a translator and I’ve put that  

In because in this seminar we’re going to talk quite a lot about embedded researchers and I think   there’s a huge opportunity having someone who can translate the language back and forward working   with teams. Time scales is a constant challenge we in local authorities we have have  

Both regulatory constraints but also future uncertainty over budgets and the need to spend   in year which obviously is a mismatch with the PHIRST evaluation time scales. Constant change   you I’m sure any of you working with local authorities from PHIRST teams will see constant   change in roles, policy, priorities, leadership, budgets and that will impact on capacity

Building as well. So how we sort of ride the ups and downs I guess of that change with the local  authority teams. And lastly whilst there’s lots of knowledge and skills already in local authority   teams perhaps it’s more about confidence to use those skills in a research context and it may  

Lead to people not wanting to to be involved if they’ve not got that level of confidence   so I think some of what we can talk about today is about how we build that confidence.

So just a few comments now on things that I think we have learned so far in PHIRST. If we move on to the next slide. I think we’ve learned a lot about the  opportunity of bringing in external capacity.

I mean obviously that is at the heart of PHIRST having a fully funded evaluation team but also   we’ll be talking about the role of embedded researchers later in the seminar. I think there are opportunities about the capacity of other aspects of NIHR. We’ve already   mentioned the Health Determinants Research Collaboration capacity. Locally in the  

Bristol area we’ve also aligned some of the Clinical Research Network local authority roles   to PHIRST so that an embedded researcher funded through that route has been supporting   applications to PHIRST and working with the team to develop their ideas and encourage people to  

Be involved in the research process. And I guess we could take that further be interesting to   know how many of PHIRST projects are costing in local authority time in terms of their   roles in the project. A second area is  around local relationships I think this  

Perhaps more addresses the confidence issue. I think there are perhaps more opportunity   to develop the relationships between the local PHIRST teams and their nearby local authorities.   I think where that happens it’s a  really productive relationship where ideas   can be shared early ideas for applications can be discussed so the more we can develop  

Relationships between the Academic Teams and the Service Teams I think that would be really   worthwhile in building that confidence and embedding capacity. So just on to the next one. I guess there is something about building in resilience into the PHIRST process. I’ve  

Described a lot of the change and we put a huge amount of effort into perhaps supporting   or working with one person in local authority and they move on but I think there’s a lot of   opportunity to build in more resilience. Perhaps have more people named and perhaps bring  

More junior team members in the local authority to play a greater role in the PHIRST projects.   And often they’re people who have got more time but also at a point in their career where they’re really keen   to develop new skills and to embed these sort of really foundational research skills as well.

And then I was just going to mention about more formally training and we’ll be talking about   this a bit more in the seminar. The potential to embed more I guess formal training in the PHIRST work with local authorities. For example maybe around the framework for developing and evaluating  

Complex interventions so there’s a shared language about how we’re thinking about intervention   development and evaluation. Potential perhaps to extend the training offer integrating a bit   more with other NIHR infrastructure. For example The ARC training courses and how we  

Can use those alongside the PHIRST work to help people build their skills. I guess there are perhaps   opportunities as part of the PHIRST projects and many may already do this to leave a legacy of   evaluation frameworks for projects going forward after that particular project finishes what could  

The local authority continue to do in their own evaluation and perhaps working to build that   sort of those skills and put them in place during a project. And finally on this I just wanted   to just bring in the the sort of thought about Public Health Training and registration.  

In any local authority team there will be many people who are on training programs of different sorts   or working towards registration either as Public Health Practitioners, Public Health Specialists in many teams there are people who are funded to go on Master’s programs may be doing dissertations  

I think the opportunities for PHIRST and the capacity building and PHIRST for people to use   that towards their training and registration is a sort of win-win and will people are can put time   perhaps then more into developing those skills if they’re using it as well for their training  

And registration. So just the last slide. Just a couple of final reflections I   think PHIRST is I sort of think of it almost  as a bridge between academic and service public health with the shared goals we have but  also that people in local authority teams will  

Perhaps sit along a whole spectrum of that bridge in terms of where they’re going to be working in   a research context and what their career ambitions are. So we have some were wanting to cross the   bridge and move into academic public health. We have others who perhaps just need to understand a  

Very small contribution that they’re going to make to a research perhaps bringing in just   one element that they need to build the skills over and everything in between so I guess it’s   I find that quite a helpful way of thinking  about it that not everybody is going to want  

To become a researcher but everybody needs some role and training and skills to be able to   deliver on that role in the research context. So I hope that those sort of ideas will be able to   develop a bit further in the further bits of the seminar as I say we’re going to be talking  

About embedded researchers, formal training opportunities. I hope that just sets the scene   a little bit as we look in those things in more detail. Thank you so much Jo for that excellent presentation (SPEAKER: Rona Campbell) So we’re going to go on now into the next section of the  

Seminar and have presentations on two different models of capacity building   and so our first presentation is by  PHIRST Fusion and Jenny Gillespie and Peter Van Der Graaf. So over to you both Thank you Rona and thank you Jo for that excellent scene   (SPEAKER: Peter Van Der Graaf)

Setting. Good morning everyone my name is Peter Van Der Graaf I’m a member of the PHIRST Fusion team and as Jo and Rona said we’re talking about one particular model we developed within PHIRST Fusion   using embedded research as a part of the projects we’re supporting and and conducting with

Local authorities. Next slide please Cobus. So as said we saw we use embedded researchers as one   way of capacity building and we define that as co-locating researchers within sort   of non-academic organisations in this case predominantly local authorities to better  

Link research and practice and Rona mentioned sort of the the community garden as a way of looking   at capacity building and similar models exist for embedded researchers this is a model developed   by Vicky Ward where she also developed of a visualisation around the garden with different  

Functions that embedded researchers can take in that process. So for instance they can act as   a catalyst in using applied research working with local partners they act as knowledge brokers   to facilitate collaboration and co-production within those networks. They also build capacity by   undertaking and disseminating research and they act as navigators in those stakeholder networks  

Developing and maintaining different working relationships inside the local authority and other   partner organisations. And they’re also an active team member so they’re involved in all stages of   the research process and I think we can add a new role in terms of translator from from Jo’s

Presentation earlier. Next slide please Cobus. So at the moment we’re supporting seven different   projects and you can see them on this map and in all of them there’s embedded researchers in those   projects some working in a particular service in one local authority, some working across different  

Local authorities and being jointly hosted by University and in one project in Tayside   where the embedded researcher is employed if is working within NHS context because Public Health   in Scotland is not part of local government. And you will hear more from my colleague Jenny get  

To speak later about her experience in that project. Before we go to Jenny I’ll do a little   bit of scene setting about the project in Tayside. So next slide please Cobus. So what we’re doing in Tayside particularly in Dundee is an evaluation of healthy weight Tayside.  

Which is a whole systems approach to child healthy weight and what the local authority was particularly interested is in  evaluating that approach how do key stakeholders perceive their role within that wider system.   Can they see what they can do in relation to actions at different levels within that system.

And the way we’ve gone about the evaluation is starting with some stakeholder interviews that understand   their experience and role within that system but then train some of those stakeholders as peer researchers to talk to their colleagues about their experience and gain deeper insight in  

Their role and experiences within the whole systems approach to be developed in a survey   that we can use to test it out on a larger scale and a wider networks and that’s that’s part of   the legacy so they can repeat the survey to keep track of how they’re they’re doing and performing  

Going forward but ultimately to inform a number of action learning sets with key stakeholders to   look at how to take recommendations forward from the research findings but also how to apply some   of the findings to other local authorities in Tayside who are keen and interested in working  

In this way. Next slide please Cobus. So here’s some some references if you’re interested more in the   embedded research model and the way we work and we rely heavily on the work of Mandy Cheetham within Fuse   and Vicky Ward and colleagues. Feel free to have a look and if you’re interested in  

Embedded garden and embedded research website is a good starting point. But at this point I  will hand over to my colleague Jenny Gillespie to give you more insight into her role as an embeded  researcher in NHS Tayside. Jenny I think the floor is yours. Thank you so much Peter. Thanks very much   (SPEAKER: Jenny Gillespie)

For the invitation to come along this morning and present a little bit around about sort of my role   as an embedded researcher. Which is very much supporting the academic team in the evaluation   of our approach in Dundee and as Peter alluded to the public health landscape north of the border  

Is fundamentally different compared to England in that here, public health sits within the NHS   and not local government. So I work for NHS Tayside which is one of 14 Health Boards   in um East Central Scotland one of the 14 Health Boards across Scotland which is located in East  

Central Scotland and I’m based within the Public Health Directorate. So can you move to the next slide please. So our project is evaluating the local  implementation of the Public Health England’s   whole systems approach to obesity guide and Cobus if you could just move through the first few um  

Animations thank you. So what we do is we follow a six-phase process some of you may be familiar with   this um guide because it obviously originated in England and has been rolled out in lots of local   authorities in England but initiated in Scotland in 2019 at the end of 2019 just before Covid and  

What we’re really interested in doing in our  evaluation is to understand more about whether   the implementation of our approach in Dundee will support our key stakeholders to recognise what   they can do in relation to the actions that operate at different levels within the system.

So Cobus if you could just move through the next sort of six animations just one after the other   and I’ll just talk through. So what I what you’re seeing um presented on the screen now is really   just some of the key milestones um in terms of our evaluation process so far which started in May  

2020 when I was involved um in sort of submitting an expression of interest to the NIHR um for   the public health uh funding opportunity and that’s really um the starting point in   the catalyst for what we will I’ll go on to reflect and talk about and now as well. So moving  

On um through I suppose our journey we’ve um been able to sort of meet with the um and be allocated   with the Public Health Interventions Response Study Team North team um and gone through a   process of sort of a evaluability assessment workshops developing the research protocol and in January  

This year um that’s when the formal embedded researcher role that I took on was sort of um   created and initiated there as well. So since then I have had a little bit more um space and   opportunity because whilst I was involved in um sort of the expression of interest in supporting  

Some of the earlier stages the embedded researcher role has very much given me that dedicated   space and time to focus on uh solely on the evaluation as part of my um as part of my role. So um we are currently in the process of going through our four work packages to address the  

Research questions that Peter highlighted as well. And one of the most interesting aspects of this um   is around about the peer research aspect of our um evaluation approach and we have now got nine   peer researchers from a range of organisations um within our um local networks who are involved in  

Sort of taking forward elements of our evaluation as well. So what they’re going to do is interview   um individuals within their social networks about their roles and perceptions of implementation   of our wider whole systems approach methodology, So Cobus if you could move on to  

The next slide, Thanks very well. So what I’m going to do now is just really reflect on how um sort   of research capacity has been enhanced through my own personal experience as an embedded researcher   but also through this peer research model that we’re starting to sort of develop at the  

Moment as well. So if I start with my embedded researcher role and as you can see I’m going   to just simply give some examples of what I feel has gone well. What perhaps hasn’t gone so well   what I would change and what might be the key learning and improvements um and just bringing to  

Life some of the the local examples. So in the first six months or so of the evaluation so we   start with what I feels gone really well um so before I was um had the opportunity to take on   the embedded researcher role so I was involved in supporting the evaluation process and the

Evaluability assessment um process as well. um I didn’t really have the dedicated space within my   role to prioritise aspects of evaluation over the many other operational activities I was   sort of delivering in order for us to follow the whole systems approach six stage methodology.

So the embedded researcher opportunity enabled me to dedicate point 5 whole time equivalent of my time   solely to the evaluation and we began to have regular weekly meetings with the research team   and then we were able to drive forward activities really needed for each of the work packages.

So absolutely fundamental to where we’re at at the moment is the opportunity for me to have   that dedicated space and capacity to take that forward and build those relationships with our   wider networks and stakeholders. However part of the challenge in my experience in my role has been  

That I have been both the embedded researcher on the evaluation and at the same time also   continuing to implement the six-phase methodology of our approach and point three of my time is  spent on that. So that’s been quite tricky um  but was necessary um so that there was actually  

An approach to evaluate because I was one of the people that were really really taking that forward.    So one of the challenges for me personally has just been that um the that dual role that I’ve   had and ensuring that you know there’s there elements of my time are spent focusing on both  

Of these things and juggling those different things and juggling the different um I suppose   um conversations that you have to have um linked to that as well. So something that I would change   um overall in terms of that that whole sort of research and evaluation journey would be I think  

Flexibility in the time frame of the project  to better suit the sort of realities that are   facing the NHS and our local authority partners on the ground in terms of you know our capacity   and our resource and because the building and the maintaining of relationships um with my  

Colleagues and with my partners to see the value of a robust evaluation is hard work and it takes   a considerable amount of time and effort and we need to do that before we will have them on side  

And onboard to contribute to the evaluation. So I think for me very much um sort of a bit   more flexibility and we were um fortunate and we were able to um and were granted an extension to  

Our project really just to reflect that um need um locally um to have a little bit more time to   to do this well. So a key um learning and improvement for me personally and I think   it goes back to the point that was made earlier about about language and about the translation  

And the role that an embedded researcher has there is so so important. So there’s something   there about the ability to be able to find a common language and that balance between um   sort of different academic terms which are often jargon um and what is meaningful to  

Local workers on the ground. And some of that is exacerbated because within our approach which is   a whole systems approach we have a range of multi-partners involved in this and often the language   that is familiar to academics is different  from the language that’s familiar to local  

Authority staff to NHS staff might be different as well um and to sometimes to our third sector   um organisations as well so we don’t always have a shared understanding about that and for me that’s   fundamental to try and invest the time and to try and get that right.

So now I’ll just spend a few minutes um reflecting on how I feel that the training that we have undertaken uh for   a group of um our peer researchers has further enhanced research capacity and I’d invite Peter  

To add in anything to to this as well based on his own um sort of experiences. But effectively in the last couple of months part of work package two of our evaluation. We have um supported nine   individuals from a range of our local partner organisations so that might be other colleagues  

Of mine within other NHS departments um uh local authority staff within Dundee City Council and they   make some of them come from education some come from communities team and also um Tayside contracts   who are the providers of our school meals um up in Tayside. So we have enabled them to engage in  

Online workshops to become peer researchers and the majority of our nine um researchers wouldn’t   have otherwise had an obvious opportunity to be research active. Um they all interestingly do see   this as part of their role um they’re not expected to do this over and above you know do extra hours  

To do this they do see this as part of their role. And one really nice story um from one of   our peer researchers who was somebody who’d had have a little bit of research background in that he   just completed his Masters um in public health um attended our workshops for our peer researcher  

Um training and part of this is for them to be upskilled and to be able to take um to facilitate   interviews within their wider networks um and he is very keen to sort of take on an enhanced role   beyond the facilitation of interviews in terms of the analysis of some of the data and looking at  

Sort of development of um the survey that’s going to be taken forward in work package three as well. So it’s really I think for me shining a light on the opportunities that come um beyond beyond just  

That um embedded researcher role. What didn’t go so well in terms of the peer researcher aspect of our   work I think is time um if you think something’s going to take a month what you really what you’re  

Really talking about is two to three months and I think again that just reflects the realities of   the multi- agency and multi-partners that are involved in our approach and practical   aspects such as being able to arrange mutually um suitable times to attend you know to um hold  

Workshops um for all our the competing priorities that many of our um colleagues have at   the moment. There were a couple of other practical challenges that sometimes you know a little bit overlooked   some of the simpler things about I.T. challenges around about incompatibility often uh NHS Tayside NHS

And local authority staff have restrictions with I.T. access and so sometimes the packages that are   used um aren’t always um possible so you need to rethink that as well. I would also like to say that  

I’m so sorry it’s Rona here I’m gonna have to ask you to wrap up if that’s all right. (SPEAKER: Rona Campbell) OK . Apologies yeah I’ll just finish   (SPEAKER: Jenny Gillespie) there just the last sentence here just wanted to say that um I think overall I feel as though  

For me I’ve had a bit more confidence and being able to explore um sort of local opportunities to   build research capacity um because of my embedded researcher role um as well and I think I’ve been   able to share locally my experience of going through the process of the NIHR um expression  

Of Interest application and encouraging other people to to have the confidence to take that   for forward as well so yeah so that’s me finished thanks very much for the check on time. Thanks so much Jenny and Peter. (SPEAKER: Rona Campbell) So we’re going to move on now to our um second um

Model of capacity building here and that’s working with a Clinical Research Network. And um this is work of PHIRST Insight. Involving Tricia Jessiman, Christopher Hille and uh  Priyanka Vasantavada and Rosie Rowe from Oxfordshire County Council. So over to all of you.

Thank you. Cobus if I could just have the next slide please um   (SPEAKER: Tricia Jessiman) So yeah I’m Tricia Jessiman and I’m a researcher with PHIRST Insight working on a study with Oxfordshire   County Council and the study was about how we might encourage people who live in market towns  

Uh to use active travel methods and by active travel we were talking about walking and cycling. Um there’s been a lot of work on that in cities but much less in market towns so we wanted   to understand if it was the same or or different um. The study methodology included including uh  

Recruiting residents to take part in focus groups and then take part in an accompanied journey either   on foot or cycling with me and uh we would do an interview along the way. Recruitment was really   tricky for this project um so we don’t have a target population other than people who live in  

These market towns so we’re not we don’t have a service user group um or people who are involved   in an intervention in fact it’s even worse than that. We were actually recruiting people to   take part in a study about walking and cycling who weren’t interested in walking and cycling so it  

Was a challenge. um So the study began in early  2022 and it was adopted onto the CRN portfolio   the ‘Clinical Research Network’ portfolio in May and actually they’ve been really really helpful   in recruitment from the get-go. um They did things like they delivered leaflets to over 2,000 houses  

In each of our towns um about the study. They arranged for targeted Facebook adverts um for   people who lived within the geographical areas we were interested in. They arranged for local   media stories in both the papers and local  radio stations and they linked us with the  

Transport lead at Oxford University Hospital who shared details of the study for anyone who   was commuting from Market towns into Oxford. So it’s been really helpful and I’m now going to   ask for the next slide and let Chris Hille from Thames Valley and South Midlands CRN explain more   about his work.

Uh Thanks very much Trisha so um. (SPEAKER: Christopher Hille) Thanks for the chance to speak to you all today um  I’m a research delivery manager within the Thames Valley and South Midland CRN so I’m responsible for   promoting and identifying resour uh resources to support research across a number of health areas  

And public health is one of these. um So just a brief history really of the story of the CRN    remit, extended remit, to support research beyond the NHS settings which is what we’re traditionally   associated with. So Chris Whitty, he was one of  the driving forces behind the changes in 2018  

During his tenure as Chief Exec of the NIHR um. At the point that expanded remit was announced um I   and many other colleagues were kind of trying to engage in exercises to identify where to

Invest our really stretched resources um. It was a bit of a guessing game there’s a massive uh remit beyond the NHS and no one really had a clear strategy for narrowing down where that uh that  

Investment should be made um. It was helped um in 2021 and 22 when with some recognition that we   need some additional investment uh to make things work so each local research network was provided   with additional resource with the intention of greater support for social care, public health  

And community based research which included local authorities. So just so you know that um each   local network did things slightly differently but all were expected to establish a Direct Delivery   Team with flexibility to cover research beyond NHS settings. So those teams are expected to be agile  

Um but they’re never sat idle um our own Direct Delivery Team for example in the absence of any   studies that might fit these criteria that they’re they’ve been kind of expected to cover they’ll be sat   doing other things they’ll be doing other work within the NHS possibly um until another study  

Comes along which fits this remit that they’re actually being funded for. um And the understanding   that we have with those teams in our region is that they should be made available within four   weeks of a request for support. So quite often when I’m speaking to teams across uh the breadth  

Of uh the the non- NHS uh regions that I work with I’m trying to encourage some planning further   down the line so we can make sure that resource available when it’s needed. At the same time as   the introduction of that transformation funding each network was provided with funding support  

Local authority embedded public health research practitioner and consultant posts and the and   the remits for those varied quite a lot across the country but a key remit amongst all of them   was to raise awareness and provide bi-directional linkage between local authorities and the research  

Networks. The support that was provided for the travel, active travel project in Witney and Bicester   was made much easier uh to identify first of all and to support um due to the having that   established links in place and Priyanka did quite a lot of the heavy lifting on the form filling and  

Dealing with the CRN bureaucracy that I know put a lot of people off during the adoption process   um and she did a great job. In addition to these posts every local research network also has an   Academic or a Consultant that leads for public health as well as having a research delivery  

Manager like me so we’ve got a particular focus on promoting and supporting public health research   generally and every local Research Network should also have someone like me with responsibility   for linking with local authorities uh in addition to those posts that are already embedded within  

Local authorities that we just mentioned. So if you’re having difficulty linking in with Research   Networks these are the people that you need to try and link with you need to try and identify   them and if you can’t identify them then please um you know contact me I’ll help you to identify  

Them for sure. Because they’re the people with a  vested interest in promoting your work and making   sure it’s delivered because we’ve got you know just a bigger interest in this as you have for sure uh. To note for future interest um we know this is the first of the PHIRST research projects  

That the CRN um adopted and it was only during the initial conversations with national teams   that we received confirmation that PHIRST funded projects were actually eligible for CRN adoption.    Before that there was definitely some doubt. um So if you’re interested in growing work with Research  

Networks uh in other areas maybe some comms around that aspect in particular might be useful to make   make sure that you reduce the barriers that may be in place um in other areas. Uh the next slide please.   Um so the CRN is often cited as the delivery arm of the National Institute for Health Research  

We don’t fund research, we don’t design research, we’re all about giving hands to help with study   delivery. And for appropriately um adopted CRN studies these are the kind of support offers    that local networks offered um can provide um. So those highlighted in red are the ones that  

Were drawn upon for the active travel projects. We do of course have people, already mentioned, that can help with the practical aspects of study delivery. The support offer we normally   provide is about large about identification and recruitment of people but there’s usually quite  

A lot of willingness to be flexible around this especially if it’s a priority area like   public health um. So it’s definitely worth having a conversation about the type of support that you need. If we don’t have the appropriate people in place in the right place at the right time it’s  

Sometimes possible to provide funding to buy out the time of an organisation’s workforce   as a substitute for the service support element that we’re expected to provide. It’s usually not a massive amount of money but it usually helps as well um. We’re often acting on behalf of study teams   

To link through to sites beyond our own local footprint as well to increase participation across the country. And if that’s the kind of help that you need we can also provide some support for that. There’s usually some local initiatives around uh training or fellowships that we provide funding  

For um so that can also overlap with some of the help for study support so we’re often promoting   things like green shoots support so where there’s no research going on we want to try and pump prime  

Some and that can be useful to tap into if you link in with your local network you maybe able to get   access to some of that um. We also have other local research infrastructure that teams can tap into um  

We have a network of care homes that have agreed to receive information about research projects um   and we have many GPs that receive sessional funding from us to support research um GP   database searches are used by many researchers to identify participants if the appropriate approvals  

Had been in place for the active travel project I think that that option would have been a really   useful one for future reference. We do have really active GP…  Sorry I’m also going to have to chivvy you on a little bit. (SPEAKER: Rona Campbell)

Okay just to highlight the other things so we got comms to com support   (SPEAKER: Christopher Hille) which was useful training resources and obviously the navigation of the CRN systems which I think   is probably a barrier that many people find a bit off putting uh is probably one of the key  

Things. So I was going to lead on to Priyanka but if there’s no time I don’t know what you want to do. Priyanka by all means go ahead. (SPEAKER: Rona Campbell) Okay well then I’ll keep it really short. Hello everyone. (SPEAKER: Priyanka Vasantavada) Thank you (SPEAKER: Rona Campbell)

I’m Priyanka Vasantavada I’m the Public Health Research Practitioner based at Oxfordshire County Council (SPEAKER: Priyanka Vasantavada)   but I do work with Chris on the activities in the wider area as well so. I then I try to get the   other local authorities in the CRN geographical area get involved in research as well so my  

Post primarily is to foster a sense of research culture in local authorities and try to get local   authorities more research active and incidentally I started my job last year and this first project   pretty much became the starting point for my work and it also became the starting point of making  

The Oxfordshire County Council Public Health Team more aware of what support is available in terms of   NIHR and what schemes are available and how they could get evaluation done because the most uh yes –   Thames Valley and South Midlands region. I am the Research Practitioner for that entire region.

You would find that there are uh that I have around 20 odd counterparts spread across the various CRN   regions and most of them I wouldn’t say that everyone is based in the local authority some   are based in universities and some are based in NHS trust but you could definitely find them  

And they are all just as crazy as I am about research so they would be more than happy to   help you with your endeavours whatever they might be. That’s it uh my work in this PHIRST project was  

That uh as I started my job this PHIRST scheme came along and we had a need in the Healthy Place   Shaping Team and they had they wanted to evaluate the active travel project that was ongoing so we   found that the PHIRST team was PHIRST scheme was pretty uh suitable for it because the  

Application form is pretty short so that makes it easier for local authorities to engage with   it because one of the barriers of engaging with research is that no one has a dedicated time to   do research and that’s how this came across and with the success that we have had with the with  

This active travel project so far we have had a lot of interest in our local authority   to apply for subsequent calls. and I must say that every subsequent call after the success   of this project someone or the other applied from our local authority. Successes I can’t comment on  

That but at least people have started thinking about it which I would say is a big boost for   the research culture aspect of my job. And along with that my role in this project specifically   has been to help the local authority team put the application form in for the PHIRST scheme and also  

Bring in the CRN support just when Tricia’s team got the ethical approval for the project and yeah, do the work for getting it on the portfolio and the CRN team was incredibly supportive and I would   encourage everyone to liaise with their local CRN and try to get their projects onto the portfolio.   

And thank you I would like to pass it on to Rosie who would probably discuss more about how it was   helpful for Oxfordshire in general. Sorry but I think we are going to have to sort it here   (SPEAKER: Rona Campbell)

Because we’re now five minutes over the timetable.  I’m so sorry Rosie to cut you to cut you off but   um I think people can hear there very clearly the the advantages of um PHIRST and CRN involvement  

There in the slides. So we were now we are now um should have had questions um um but we’re   now meant to be going to a break and I think we will I think we’re going to have to save the  

Questions till the end that we might have taken now in order to have the break that we that   we promised. I think it’s important um to have that break for some. Some people need   that break particularly so um if we can just take a five minute break now.

Well welcome back everybody we’re now going to go into the second  section   (SPEAKER: Rona Campbell) of the seminar where we’re going to look at a further two models of capacity building  um of and specifically looking at recruiting  

And training of partners and our first example is going to be uh presented by uh Dr Kate Newby um who works with PHIRST Connect. So over to you Katie. Thank you morning everybody so my  (SPEAKER: Katie Newby) example relates to the training of two individuals within an organisation that we were evaluating as  

Part of one of our PHIRST projects and um what we really wanted to do was to leave a legacy of   qualitative data collection and analysis skills within that organisation. And to provide some   hands-on experience of um qualitative data collection and analysis and also for these  

Individuals to feel invested in and to feel valued as part of our team and so the training went   alongside the project and they had an opportunity to directly contribute to it. So first of all a   little bit of um background about the particular be piece of research so you can understand where  

These individuals fit within the organisation and also um how the capacity building element   of it also fitted in. So Cobus if you could move along to the first slide please. Thank you. So our evaluation was of an exercise referral scheme and just so everyone understands a bit about what um  

Excise referral schemes are so this typically involves a patient being referred to a program   of exercise sessions. Usually delivered within a local authority leisure center. They get referred   often by um a GP but can also be another type of health professional and are expected to regularly  

Attend um a number of sessions over a series of weeks. And in our case the evaluation was   of the Welsh, Welsh National Exercise Referral Scheme um also called NERS for short and it’s   delivered across the whole of Wales across all 22 local authorities and the remit for being  

Referred is that individuals need to be over 16 um, sedentary and or deconditioned through inactivity   and are at risk of or currently experiencing a long-term condition. The program’s been delivered   since 2007 so been going for quite a while now and referral for the NERS is indeed by GP but can  

Also be a health professional in secondary care as well such as a Dietitian or Physio and in this   case the program is 16 weeks long. It’s delivered in practice by um specialist exercise instructors   so these deliver the exercise classes and they’re referred to as um Exercise Referral Professionals  

Or ERPs. And these ERPs are managed by a team of NERS coordinators and because it’s delivered   at a national level there’s a requirement for um some operational and strategic oversight and this   is performed by Public Health Wales which is a national level organisation charged  

With um improving and protecting the health of all Welsh citizens. So next slide please Cobus. So the aim of our particular study um. Well actually I’ll come on to that just in a second   so during the Covid pandemic it was um necessary for NERS to move to virtual delivery in order  

To carry on supporting its service users so our particular study aimed to examine the impact of   that change in the type of delivery on NERS. So that the so the Public Health Wales could   make some decisions about whether to continue to deliver that type of delivery in the future.   

And we had two work streams one was quantitative in nature and the other one was qualitative. So the   quantitative one examined um routinely collected data to understand the effect of different types   of delivery on program uptake, adherence, outcomes. And costs and then there’s a qualitative study  

That explored stakeholder views and experiences  of um the different types of delivery. We had   interviews and also focus groups with the ERPs And for the focus groups we have three in total  

With 19 participants. Next slide please. So um the training was um devised and delivered by   my colleague um Nigel Lloyd as you can see it was pretty comprehensive um I haven’t got time   to to go through all the individual elements but if you want to ask me any questions about that  

afterwards then and please do um. But next slide please. So um in advance of the presentation   today I asked Public Health Wales if they could um give me some a quote for the presentation today on  

What they saw as the value of it so I’ll just read out the second part of it. They say Public Health   Wales value this aspect of the PHIRST project and the opportunity to further enhance the skills and  

Development of our NERS staff across Wales. We aim to utilise the skills and experience   gained to support stakeholder engagement and user feedback to inform the ongoing development and   delivery of the NERS program in the future. And then also if you go to the next slide Cobus.

One of the two Exercise Referral Professionals that we trained in qualitative data   collection analysis um they provided an well a written quote but also some audio so the quote um has   the same um feel to it as the audio. So if you can just play the audio please Cobus and we can  

Hear what this person has to say. Hello my name is Shelley Jackson and I’m the coordinator for Powys of the   (SPEAKER: Shelley Jackson, recording) Wales National Exercise Referral Scheme and I want to share with you my experience of working with   the PHIRST research team in the capacity building of the National Exercise Referral program.

Now this all began in light of the Covid lockdowns and the impact it had on the Exercise Referral Scheme and   how we had to to adapt so quickly to be able to move forward and support our participants in the future.

I was very fortunate to be invited and take part in the workshops for the capacity building um   and this um to me um I felt it was incredibly well structured. We had the opportunity to look in depth   and have the understanding of the quantitative uh research and facilitate facilitating focus groups.   

We also had practical sessions of those focus groups and understanding how to analyse and be   able to plan sessions and uh apply this into NERS and from that be able to um continue um looking   into the coding and how we’d be able to come up with the results from those focus groups.   

For me it gave me the confidence to be able to apply that at a very local level to move on and look into other   projects that we may actually um be involved with. It also gave me the confidence to include  

Our participants and how that could be structured. Uh also involving my team and how that could look   and um be able to um have the confidence to take that forward really. Um the team are incredibly   um supportive, understanding and very reassuring even though you may have doubts in yourself in the  

Beginning I found I learned an awful lot from them and I do believe it was an incredible uh   lucky, a lucky uh opportunity for myself and it’s something that I will hold quite close and be able  

To take forward in my management role. And I’d like to say thank you and I hope that you can benefit   from the opportunity too.   Okay thank you. If you go on  to the last slide then Cobus well the last two  (SPEAKER: Katie Newby)

Slides actually. Um I’m going to whizz through this to finish on time so I might not get to say   all these different things but Nigel and I talked ahead of this on um we made some reflections so  

I’ve got some my best practice, challenges and lessons learned. So in terms of best practice   um we reflected it was a good idea to invite expressions of interest rather than actually   asking um leaders to identify particular people. So the people who come to you are already interested  

And committed. To be very clear about the time commitment but also to be flexible um again to   ensure that people are kind of engaged and willing to stay with you right to the end and so that  

You can benefit from them and vice versa. Um to allow plenty of time to lay the foundations of   understanding about what research is um. We found that that really important and Jenny was  

Talking about that shared language. We spent quite a lot of time coming together to develop that shared   language, understanding terminology, understanding the difference between quantitative and qualitative   research for example. Um best practice as well about making sure that you don’t teach um those  

People in the local authorities to use tools that  aren’t available to them in practice particularly   pieces of software that you use um within academic  life. Challenges it was very time consuming both   to prepare the materials and to deliver it and I  wonder if there’s an opportunity maybe to share  

Those resources across the PHIRST teams maybe to  open up our training sessions to other teams or   to share the recordings of them afterwards. Next slide please Cobus. And in terms of lessons learned  

Again as Jo pointed out there’s a real need to  build confidence. We found that the two people we   worked with, as keen as they were, they needed  quite a lot of um help in order to build that  

Confidence through practice and feedback but it  was well worth that investment. Um and the primary   purpose was to build capacity in their team but  actually we benefited from it greatly. It helped to break down the power dynamics at  data collection, it provide that link between  

The um people in our who are participating and ourselves it aided transcription because there   were some bits that our professional transcriber  of our focus groups couldn’t work out and they   could also. Added some rigor to analysis through  um through their additional voice within that and  

Their understanding and reflections um um But a last point is I feel that their voice within   our work could have been more fully realised  had they been able to commit more time to it  

At the end so they coded some focus groups but they  could have coded more if they’d had time and also   we would love to have got them involved in the  interpretation sort of level but there wasn’t  

Time to do that and I wish we’d built that in at  the start. That’s it from me thank you very much.  Great thank you very much indeed Katie for this  speaking to time and great presentation um um so   (SPEAKER: Rona Campbell)

Our our second example in this strand is going  to be presented by by Thomas Mills. So Thomas over to you. Hi ya, um thank you uh for inviting me  um so my presentation will explore co- inquiry (SPEAKER: Thomas Mills)

Uh as a way to involve a wide network of  local authority public health staff in research   uh the co-inquiry um explores the question how to  reach underserved communities uh thanks Cobus. To set the scene the co-inquiry is just one work package  of a broader evaluation uh this evaluation is led  

By Professor Lynne Dawkins of London South  Bank University and the local partner is a   stop smoking service that spans Bedford Borough, Central Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes. Er, I’ll refer to   the local partner from here on as ‘BMK’. And the core research question of the main evaluation  

Is exploring the effectiveness and acceptability  of a telephone smoking cessation service compared   with face-to-face consultations and there  was a link in the chat earlier to that um.    The shift to telephone delivery as the core mode  of delivery during Covid 19 presented something of  

A quasi-experiment that the main evaluation is  exploring but it was apparent during the kind of   early discussions with local partners that while  they’re mostly interested in exploring that shift   they had a lot of interesting outreach work going  that was just kind of ramping up after the covid  

Lockdowns. And these were developing in real time  and they weren’t actually captured by that core   evaluation question. This was the team’s efforts to go out into communities to raise awareness   of the service uh and to facilitate referrals  into the service among people from underserved  

Communities who smoke but aren’t uh necessarily  engaging and perhaps uh aren’t even aware of   the service offer. Thanks Cobus. So there’s a lot of interesting outreach going on uh a general kind of   lack of research in this area and that question of  how to re-engage hard to reach um or underserved  

Communities is of course one that is really quite  pressing uh across all public health uh services.   So all this equates uh to a research opportunity  and through the early workshopping sessions we   therefore developed a kind of secondary  research question which was how can a smoking  

Cessation service enhance engagement with underserved  communities and the primary method through which   we would explore this is co co-inquiry. Uh so BMK staff, not just the small number of senior staff   involved in the development of the evaluation  plan, but the wider team we currently have 14 staff  

Members feeding into this uh doing things like  attending co-inquiry sessions and also completing   uh reflective diaries so I’m also a participant uh  and I’m observing some of the outreach events and   pushing uh out alongside them to interview members  of the target groups. Uh so I’ve actually created a  

Model of this to show how we are working together. Um so the inputs include the staff experience and   reflections they bring those to the co-inquiry  sessions uh we planned six of them and these run  

Alongside staff’s outreach work so that’s at the top. So this is very much kind of fitting alongside   staff uh staff’s work and tries to fit into their busy work schedules. So what they’re doing,   they would have been delivering the outreach  anyway but we’re reflecting on them in those  

Co-inquiry sessions and they’re capturing some  observations in regarding how they are working   in their reflective diaries. Now they send those to to me, I’m another input, I’m the PHIRST researcher   and I’m facilitating those co-inquiry sessions and doing preliminary preliminary analysis of  

The reflective diaries also analysing the data that I’m collecting. So at the bottom there I’m   undertaking observations of the uh outreach  events and interviewing members of underserved   communities. And in the co-inquiry sessions we reflect on how things are going um so that’s a  

Core kind of activity. Um our reflections include um just discussing what what events are working   best um we’ve tried out different different  areas and targets Primary Care working with   housing associations targeting supermarkets and  we talk through how can we attract uh people to  

The events, how do we expand the reach uh through  through leafleting or radio campaigns and also uh   what do you say uh to people who it’s a different  dynamic to what they’re used to it’s a different  

Dynamic to a consultation uh where someone has  already decided well actually I would like to quit.    So how do you have that conversation with someone  who hasn’t actually made that decision yet and   it’s interesting we’re kind of developing a notion  of kind of person centered outreach there’s a lot  

Of person- centered consultation uh models but  not actually outreach. Um it’s a kind of different   dynamic uh to to the consultation. Uh we’re also reflect, refining data collection approaches so   that the staff have that temp template to capture  their reflections and this we’ve reflected on  

And refined over the course of the process to  really capture what we think we need to know uh   and we’re making sense of that data as we go  through so again I do initial analysis and I   take interesting sections of people’s diaries  or interesting quotes from the interviews uh  

And bring them to the group how do we make sense  of this what did this tell us about the outreach   work and how might we refine them to improve what  we’re aiming to achieve and all of that is feeding  

Into a logic model of the outreach work. So the outputs this is very much kind of feeding back in   into the work that they’re doing and I’ll discuss  some areas where I think it’s actually um kind of  

Had an impact there in the next slide. Uh we have that model uh of successful outreach in what is   an under researched area and we hope to generate  learning for uh stop smoking services elsewhere in  

The wider public health community. Um so I should say that this is very much live um we’re about   four months into the six months plans and this was  going to be we had actually kind of fast-tracked  

To get this through the ethics and get this up  and running and it’s kind of a precursor to the   main evaluation that starts at the end of the  year. Uh thanks Cobus. So just some reflections   um so impact on local research capacity  it’s very too much soon too soon for feedback  

From staff I don’t have. Katie had some really nice  feedback in her last presentation we’re not quite   there yet but I think we’re definitely going  to try and capture systematically how how um   staff have found this. There is high engagement uh I’ve actually tried similar approach approaches to  

This on busy hospital wards and some other local  authority services and I’ve had very little very   little luck. It doesn’t fly uh when staff have no capacity um so that does raise questions   about its scalability and also I should say local  leadership and there’s a really strong team team  

Here that is quite unique I think. Um but staff appear to enjoy the process and having that time   to reflect on practice, be involved in some kind  of systematic research processes uh can only be  

Be a good thing to spread kind of evidence-based  practices and that logic modeling process that we   go through I think it was Jo in her presentation  earlier talking about the importance of kind of   embedding a sense of intervention development  in the different stages to that of course logic  

Modelling is part of that. Uh some of the insights personally as a qualitative researcher this is   a new area for me so it’s really helped me  understand what stand the context and the   issues ahead of the main evaluation because I’ll  be heavily involved in that main evaluation um.   

It’s also generating learning uh which with with  with local and national import so that sense of   person centred outreach and the model underpinning it. Um there’s been examples of refocusing the outreach   away from general practices to supermarkets and  shopping centers and kind of tweaks to local data  

Collection uh to systematically collect where  service users first heard of the service offer   so we have some the team has some kind of ongoing  data to kind of reflect on and think about what’s   working in terms of their outreach which  will continue and is always adapting and  

In and changing. And actually as well this co-inquiry, this forum we’ve set up   we’re talking about actually this could be a  really useful mechanism to feedback the main   evaluation findings when that actually feeds in  and um we’re we we’re planning to actually extend  

It through that through that main evaluation it’s  a way to kind of involve a wider network of staff   in that uh just but just generally uh the field  the outreach field there’s a lot of quite quite  

Linear approaches but this feel is really quite  fitting here and it fits the kind of messy reality   of service delivery and how we’re coming in it’s  very formative all occurring in real real time and also I  

Think importantly kind of tries to um not impose a  lot on on on the staff. They’re attending meetings   and doing some kind of reflections on on what  they’re doing but much of the work is is kind   of carried by me. Yeah that’s it.

Great thank you so much James and thanks all our speakers okay so  (SPEAKER: Rona Campbell) we’re moving into the final part of the uh seminar  uh and that’s time for some questions so um   Tricia Jessiman has been monitoring the questions  very carefully as they’ve been coming in in the  

Chat and um they seem to be these seem to be there  seems to be four kind of key questions um that   have developed and so I I’ll I’ll go through those  and and uh ask various people to try and respond  

To those so the first question um is about um  the degree of overlap and / or synergy between work   of PHIRST teams and the new uh Health Determinants  Research Collaborations that that James mentioned   um in his introduction have been referred to so I  wonder James if you are able to perhaps uh offer  

Some reflections on that and I think I also  saw that Brian Ferguson um was attending and I   wonder perhaps and if if after James speaks Brian  might like to um say a few words on that topic as   well James are you okay to to speak on that?

Yeah absolutely thanks Rona I’m not sure Brian is still   (SPEAKER: James Morris) on the call but um I, I’d echo the point that I  think Brian um made in the chat which is that the   intention of the two schemes so PHIRST and HDRCs  the Health Determinants Research Collaborations  

Is that they’re very much complimentary um so  it’s probably worth emphasising that the HDRC funding um isn’t research funding as such but  it’s infrastructure funding and so we as NIHR   would then sort of encourage HDRCs to apply for  PHIRST um apply to PHIRST calls for expressions of  

Interest um in due course so so I think that’s  that’s one way in which the the schemes kind   of work synergistically um and and so yeah I’d  very much echo Brian’s comment on that.   Great. (SPEAKER: Rona Campbell)

Rona, I’m still here if you want me to comment very…. (SPEAKER: Brian Ferguson) Yes. please do Brian please do. (SPEAKER: Rona Campbell)  Thanks Rona. I’m only going to add really to (SPEAKER: Brian Ferguson)

What James has said and what I put in the chat but  I thought it might be um worth just emphasising to   people on the call as I put in the chat that we’ve  got you know we’ve now got over 70 million pounds  

Of resource to to work with here so it’s incumbent on us to get value from that and to not duplicate uh   but probably also worth saying that again many  people on the call know we’re planning to expand  

The PHIRST team uh in the next year uh to move from  six to ten teams that’s that’s the plan um and we   are also hoping for a second round of HDRCs in  the spring so there’ll be more to look out for  

That and just a flag there is a webinar on HDRCs.   James and Helen will correct me but I think it’s   the 17th of November but we can stick details in  the chat if that’s helpful. Great, well thank thank   (SPEAKER: Rona Campbell)

You both very much for for for answering that  question um and the second question that’s come in   is about the role of using local stakeholders as  researchers and and does that impact the results.  

So I um I think that’s possibly but someone could  correct me about whether it’s maybe too much of   a case of of of poacher turned gamekeeper um  is that an issue I think I think that may be  

What’s behind the question and I wonder if any  of our our speakers today who’ve who’ve who’ve   obviously been working very much in that way want  to comment on that because I can certainly think   of some of my um epidemiological colleagues  um who would definitely ask that question.  

I hope I’m interpreting it correctly but are any  would any speakers who’ve been working on that? Yeah I could I could come in here potentially  Peter might be able to come in as well um yeah I   (SPEAKER: Jenny Gillespie)

Absolutely take that that that point and I think  what what was key for us in our um sort of um evaluability assessment process in terms of co-producing  what our evaluation approach was going to be um   was basically that our research design was agreed  by sort of local stakeholders during that process  

Um and that actually pointed to the importance of  of involving key stakeholders to work alongside the   research team to conduct the interviews so it was  something that sort of came through um sort of our

Evaluability assessment erm and that I think there was a, I think its trying to strike that balance isn’t it between um there being potentially more trust in somebody who who you’re interviewing perhaps be making sure that there is more um honesty in in  

The responses. Um I’m not sure if that answers exactly the question but I think that might give   you a little bit of context in terms of what  we were doing in Dundee and Peter I don’t know   if you want to come in at that point as well?

Thanks yeah just building on your response we   (SPEAKER: Peter Van Der Graaf) see it actually has a strength so it allowed us  by using peer researchers to find people in wider   networks within the whole systems approach that  we wouldn’t be able to access as research team  

Members ourselves and that relationship of trust  that the peer researchers have with their colleagues   enabled them to recruit other participants for the  interviews and that there is a question about how   does that work in terms of of of bias or what we  as part of training we encourage peer researchers  

To keep a reflective diary of their experiences  of doing the peer interviews and understanding   sort of their own perspectives they brought to  these conversations and we take that back into   some of the conversations we’ll have afterwards in  a debriefing with the peer researchers so hopefully I  

Think that will use feel the insights and it’s a  strength instead of a a challenge.   Great, thank you thank you very much indeed um for for for those very comprehensive answers Jenny and Peter.    (SPEAKER: Rona Campbell)

So uh the a third question that’s come up is and  I can share this as a as a Scots woman who um   has spent time living in Northern Ireland and has  worked and collaborated a lot with people in Wales  

As well as obviously being based in England much  is much of what has been spoken about is about   England um and and I guess that’s particularly  probably perhaps thinking about Clinical Research   Networks and so on if those are not part of the  landscape in in Scotland and Wales and Northern  

Ireland where the public health structures are  different and I so I think there’s been a lot of   language has been a thread throughout this seminar  I think and and and I guess that’s something that   it’s not perhaps not so much a question but it’s  something to bear in mind that the landscapes in  

The four countries are different with regards to  to Public Health practice um and that’s something   that we need to to to bear in mind in terms of  thinking about capacity building um uh so I think  

That’s possibly not so much a question but a but  a point but if anybody wants to to to to speak to   that please please do say something now. I think it’s it’s a it’s a very important point that we  

All need to to bear in mind things things are not  the same and of course that is also an opportunity   in evaluation terms when things are different um  and and so that’s something that perhaps I mean  

That we perhaps can think about in terms of uh as  a collective of of of PHIRST teams how do we how   do we address that and how do we overcome that  and and how do we pay attention to that so so  

Thank you for for pointing that out as as we will  hear that James you want to come in on that?   Yeah I think Rona ju just on that so so I think one um I  think as a as as NIHR we’ve been sort of conscious   (SPEAKER: James Morris)

Of um using the most appropriate terminology  when it comes to this so local government um   so using the term local government perhaps more  so than local authorities which can be a little   bit England centric is something that we’ve been  um conscious of so I think um I think that just  

Speaks to the broader point that language is so  important and I was really interested to hear   the the comments and the reflections earlier  in the session on the use of um uh you know   plain language as well and often it’s just so  much um better to express things and easier to  

Express things in plain language to make things  understood so really interesting reflections.    Great. The final question that I’ve got down here was  about sharing resources across um the different   (SPEAKER: Rona Campbell) NIHR uh structures that we have so we’ve talked  about PHIRST teams obviously we’ve talked about  

HDRCs and we’ve talked about um Academic Research  Collaborations ARCs I mean I think there is an   attempt to do that already on the NIHR website to  share lots of things and obviously we all do have   our websites but um certainly again that’s  something we can take away and think about  

Whether we’re doing that um adequately or not. But I think we’ve just got a few minutes left   so I just want to offer some um some some final  reflections if I may and try and summarise some  

Of the things that we’ve we’ve been saying today  I think first of all um what I’ve been hearing   is the PHIRST initiative is highly valued um uh  by uh local government and by partners both in   the voluntary sector and members of the public um  and we’ve had four fabulous examples of different  

Models of of capacity building today. Thanks to everyone for for the very clear explications of those. We’ve heard about a need to build confidence  in local authorities to even submit evaluations   to for uh PHIRST team uh help and I and I think  that’s something you know that we take away from today.

Uh we also had a suggestion about embedding  um more formal training in order to tackle this   issue of of a shared language and there was a a  mention of uh of the MRC I think the MRC framework  

And that and that’s something um I think we we  can we can think about collectively as a group   of PHIRST what what what would that what would that training look like. Um there was also talk about  

The um value of leveraging capacity both in terms  of people working in public health practice in uh   local government um and also obviously in in in  the NHS and in Public Health Wales and other   bodies um and from public health trainees and  also um resource from Clinical Research Networks  

Although taking the point that I think someone  made in the chat there that there are some some   changes in uh in in in envisaged around um that  kind of support in England certainly. Um we heard   about the need for flexibility and for time being  allowed in the evaluations um and particularly  

Because it takes time to build um confidence and  trust and relationships and uh particularly uh and   making the case as it were for the for the need  for that and the understanding for that um and  

Then we talked a lot about language today um and  the need for a common language and for language to   be meaningful for for lots of different people and  again that time there needs to be time to attend  

To that and to be able to have that communication  and also the need for translators um and and   and perhaps some examples today of how embedded  researchers fulfill that kind of translation role  

As part of of what they do. Um if I may I think one of the things that perhaps we didn’t get to   talk about as much as maybe we should is is where  where the public and our public members sit in sit  

In all of that so for me I think there’s there’s  an issue about about about about that um Cobus if   we can just move to yes very sorry just hold on  that note okay go back sorry yes. I just wanted  

To say that there is lots of training available in  capacity development the NIHR academy is something   that provides lots of that. Can you go to the next  slide very quickly you also have a public health  

Incubator and we’re about to launch a website um  which is going to help people be able to find all   of the different kind of uh capacity building  opportunities and training opportunities that   there are within um public health research and  then Cobus if you can go to the last slide thank you.

I can’t talk about all the other things I was  planning to but what I did want to do finally was   just to say to thank you all so much um for all  the input this morning thanks to all our speakers  

To all our participants um and the colleagues  who’ve helped to make this possible and to say on   the subject of um patient and public involvement  that that is going to be the theme of our our next  

Seminar and that PHIRST Connect we’ll be we’ll be  hosting that I also want to say that the deadline   for expressions of interest from local authorities  for evaluations the next deadline is at 1PM on the  

31st of January um we have a PHIRST website which  has lots of information on it um and that web link   for that is there and if you want to tweet about  um our events then please use the hashtag um the  

Hashtag PHIRST and then if you want to follow  us um on Twitter the details are are also there.    Okay thank you all very much indeed see but I  look forward to seeing everyone at the next one