This section will help you understand how to engage three of the key audiences for research dissemination and achieve impact on policy and practice.

By working through this section you will:

• see how research communications can help to achieve impact
• understand the principles around engaging policy, practice and public audiences, with tips and guidance from researchers with a track record in doing this
• see what other researchers have done to engage policy, practice and public audiences in the communication of their findings.

There are four parts to this section:

1. Demonstrating impact through communications activity.
2. Influencing a policy audience.
3. Engaging a practice audience.
4. Communicating with the public.

Demonstrating impact through communications

Academic institutions are required, via the Research Excellence Framework, to demonstrate the impact of their findings beyond research and academic audiences. It is possible to shape your communications in order to monitor and gather impact indicators.

Find out how to demonstrate impact through communications activity.

Influencing policy audiences

Some research findings may have a relevance and potential application that can influence health policy. If this is the case, to influence any issue at scale it is necessary to communicate and engage with policymakers. With this much targeted, time-poor audience, knowing who to approach and how takes on particular importance.

Learn how to influence a policy audience.

Engaging practice audiences

Spreading evidence of good practice or any research that has implications for practice audiences will increase potential impact. The term ‘practice audiences’ covers a myriad of professions and levels. Here we explore some tried and tested means of targeting and reaching them, with examples from researchers who have engaged practice audiences in their findings.

Learn how to engage a practice audience in your findings.

Communicating with the public

Communication of research findings relevant to a public audience can lead to more informed choices, better population health, and less anxiety or confusion around treatment (for example). Effective communication can also help build trust between the research community and the public but it carries some risks – predominantly of misinterpretation of findings. Well-planned, well-targeted communications can help maximise opportunities and manage those risk factors.

Read about how to communicate with the public.

How to measure the impact of your communications, and the indicators to collect

'What is the point of my research if I don’t communicate the findings? I do this because I want to make a difference. I want to move thinking on. It’s also about demonstrating value for money for the research. We need to give this whole area more imagination, thought and time. We have to go beyond the academic paper to reach the people who have the power to use the findings and make something happen.'

Professor Bryony Dean Franklin, Executive Lead Pharmacist (Research), Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Professor of Medication Safety, University College London School of Pharmacy

Research Councils UK defines research impact as ‘the demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and the economy’.

With the rising importance of impact in assessing research excellence in the UK, researchers are increasingly expected by their host organisations and research funders to track and demonstrate the impact of their research.

This might be in the form of academic impact, where the research has meaningfully shifted understanding and/or advanced thinking in a specific academic discipline. Or it might also be in the form of social and economic impact, where the research is seen to make a wider contribution to the economy or society.

Traditional, established channels for achieving academic impact are academic conferences and journals. Achieving wider societal impact often requires broader engagement and communication to influence the understanding, practice and behaviour of policy, professional or public audiences.

By understanding how to track what you are achieving with your communication of research findings across these wider audiences, you can determine some measures that demonstrate the value, influence and impact of your research.

Communications objectives and indicators

Opportunities for impact can arise through your communications at any stage of the research process.

This means being as clear as you can be about your communications objectives from the outset, and identifying the indicators you need to track to demonstrate where you have achieved impact.

The communications indicators you aim to collect should flow from the communications objectives you set. The following table contains examples of communications indicators. They might provide an important subset of your broader research impact measures.

Gathering impact measures on your communications outputs, and on how your audiences respond to them, can be relatively straightforward. However, collecting impact measures on outcomes might not be feasible for many studies, due to the time and resource involved. For some research studies, it can also be very difficult to isolate the specific contribution communicating the research has had on changes in policy, practice or behaviour.

Evaluating the impact of your communications activity in its own right is also an important way to help ensure that you are investing time in the right activities, and to capture any learning to inform future communications and engagement work.

Resources

• The International Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communication has developed an interactive online framework for evaluating communications activity. Users can submit their objectives, outputs and impact measures into this free tool and generate a PDF report.
• The tool is supported by a range of resources, including a more detailed taxonomy of evaluation, which lists potential metrics and evaluation methods.
• The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) has developed an online pathways to impact toolkit for researchers. It includes advice on how to develop an impact statement for applications as well as guidance on planning evaluation activity.
• The National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement has produced guidance for those evaluating public engagement activity.

Download this chapter as a PDF

Download the guide to demonstrating impact through communications activity.

Why communicate with a health services policy audience?

Many researchers are motivated by driving improvement – to see the evidence from their studies contribute to better policy and practice in health services. To influence any issue at scale, it is often necessary to engage with policymakers: those that set, develop or influence the practice, regulatory, legislative and political frameworks for health services.

Who to engage?

There are a range of policymakers associated with health services. Who you engage with as a priority will depend on the nature of your study.

Health is a devolved issue within the UK. The UK Parliament legislates for England’s NHS. The Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly are all responsible for health legislation within their own country.

Policymakers draft policy under direction from the government of the day. However, policymaking is informed by a wide range of stakeholders or ‘influencers’. The following provide a brief overview of some of the main policy audiences associated with health care.

Politicians and political parties

Politicians can sit at a local, regional or national level. In the case of both councillors and Members of Parliament (including Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs), Assembly Members (AMs) and Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs)), not only can they fulfil their role as local representatives but they can also take on positions of policy influence through specialist committees or in party policy formulation, such as by developing manifestos and policy commitments. Politicians with an existing role or interest in health or the area of your study are a key entry point to engaging with policymakers.

Civil servants

Civil servants tend to move portfolios less than MPs and may have been working in the broad area of health for a number of years. They are tasked with developing and implementing workable policy. As such, if they are developing policy in an area that relates to your study, they are likely to be interested in hearing detailed evidence.

Ministers

Although visible and influential, government ministers can be difficult to reach and require a highly targeted approach. A large department like the Department of Health will have several ministers who split the portfolio among them. Understanding who has the closest interest in your study, and targeting specifically them, is important. Special advisers can be a good conduit of information and intelligence for a minister. Their role means they should be on top of the latest thinking and developments, so they may be open to approaches by external experts/sources of information.

Statutory bodies

Statutory arms-length bodies (regulatory bodies such as NHS England, Healthcare Improvement Scotland, the Care Quality Commission, Healthcare Inspectorate Wales and NHS Improvement) do not set national policy, but have a key role in implementing it. They may also influence national policymakers and set their own sector-specific policies and procedures (eg around inspection) to enable them to fulfil their statutory functions.

Professional sector bodies

These do not set national policy, but can influence it. Some professional bodies have a regulatory role and set standards and procedures that their members must meet in order to legally practise – for example, the General Medical Council (GMC) and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). Other professional bodies – such as the Royal College of Nursing (RCN), the British Medical Association (BMA) and NHS Professionals – have a role in representing their members’ interests and may deliver educational support.

Third sector organisations and other influencers

Although not policymakers in a strict sense, think tanks and third sector bodies (such as Diabetes UK, the British Heart Foundation and the Alzheimer’s Society) can be highly effective influencers of policy and amplifiers of evidence if they feel that it serves the interests or needs of their audiences and beneficiaries. As effective routes to policymakers, they are worth considering when thinking about your audiences. Some think tanks operate across the political spectrum, while others may have strong associations with a particular political party.

Some routes to engaging politicians

The following are practical routes through which you can try to reach politicians.

• Identify the parliamentarians and politicians that are already interested in health or your area of study, Google is an obvious but helpful tool. Seeing which posts they have held and which committees they have sat on is a useful starting point. Paid-for tools such as Foresight News provide a weekly parliamentary round-up, news of forthcoming events and a useful search function, but can be a significant long-term investment.
• Searching via keywords on Twitter is also a useful means of identifying interests.
• You can contact councillors, MPs, AMs, MSPs, MLAs and Peers direct via Twitter, email or post.
• Submit ideas for inquiries or present evidence (written or verbal) to relevant Commons or Lords committees. Every inquiry will issue an open call for submissions and evidence/contributions. This is often done via press release or can be found on the parliament.uk website. The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology has frequently covered health issues in recent years. Its subsequent reports are regularly debated in the House of Commons.
• Devolved parliaments/assemblies have their own influential committees. The Welsh Assembly has a range of health advisory committees, Scotland has its Health and Sport committee, and Northern Ireland has the Committee for Health.
• All-party parliamentary groups are informal, cross-party groups that coordinate around a specialist area. There are several covering specific aspects of mental and physical health. The speakers invited are generally relevant to the topic under discussion.
• Backbench committees often hear presentations from experts and are a useful way of gaining profile among parliamentarians in the early stages of formulating policy. Both the Labour and Conservative parties have backbench committees. Contact party offices for details of the officers who serve them.
• The House of Commons Library is tasked with providing impartial information to MPs in support of their parliamentary duties. This includes debate packs (briefings on upcoming debates) and an ad-hoc service for MPs to answer any questions confidentially. Academic research may be part of this information provision. The library has a number of subject specialists.
• The House of Lords Library produces a weekly Current Affairs Digest that includes summaries of journal articles. The digest is grouped by social policy, science, economic affairs, home affairs, international affairs and the Constitution.

How to go about it

Influencing policymakers: examples

Funding projections for NHS Wales 2019–2030: engaging policymakers throughout the research process

The Health Foundation’s study of the demand/cost pressures facing NHS Wales was designed to engage decision makers who could, potentially, reflect and implement the research findings from the very outset of the study. It did this through a carefully planned approach, which included the following.

• One-to-one interviews at scoping stage were able to build understanding around the particular health context in Wales, as well as the language and frameworks used. The relationships forged in this scoping exercise did not compromise the independence of the research but meant that there was a strong understanding of what evidence policymakers actively needed and felt would be helpful.
• Identifying and working with a local partner who knew and was already involved in the policy community in Wales provided an efficient way of identifying and forging that initial connection with key policymakers and influencers.
• As the study progressed, a series of workshops and meetings were held with key influential audiences (medical and finance directors, senior practitioners, etc). It was felt that their view of the work, and their potential support for it, could influence policymakers’ decisions once findings were available. Time was taken to ensure that these key audiences were familiar with the work and able to understand its methodology and approach.
• When research was complete, but ahead of any publication or release of results, presentations were made to senior NHS and government officials. Again, this had no material impact on the research itself but meant that key audiences were briefed and able to give a considered response to the findings. Even if that response was critical of an aspect of the research or findings, a view was taken that the goal was to generate informed, thoughtful debate around the study.
• Findings were made available, via a joint press conference with the Welsh NHS Confederation, two days before the Welsh budget was announced. This enabled the budget to reflect the study’s findings.
• Interim results were shared, which not only helped identify where improvements to the model could be made, but also helped identify how best to communicate results. For example, where consistent challenges or concerns were raised, the team were able to address these directly in the report.
• Relevant stakeholders were thoroughly briefed, which meant that they felt comfortable using the work for their own discussions and presentations. This led to the results reaching audiences that they would not otherwise have reached.
• The focus and limitation of the work was communicated clearly in order to manage expectations.
• The report was published in Welsh and English, which meant it reached audiences that it may not have otherwise.

Download a copy of the study.

Research into seven-day working: partnership working and using media coverage to raise awareness among policymakers

A team led by Rachel Meacock and Matt Sutton from Manchester Centre for Health Economics set out to estimate the costs of the proposed seven-day working week and compare these to the potential health benefits. They also re-investigated the evidence underpinning the policy to explore whether the ‘weekend effect’ was due to a lack of doctors and specialist staff or the nature of the patients admitted. As the study coincided with a strike by junior doctors and the government’s wish to implement seven-day working in doctors’ contracts, publication of the findings was time-sensitive. The findings did not support the government’s position on seven-day working. Therefore, care was needed not only to ensure that the findings were publicised to add to the body of knowledge around the issue, but also to ensure they were reported accurately.

• Meacock and Sutton undertook pre-publication briefings with practitioners and policy advisers around the research findings. As economists, they were keen to feed their findings into policy and practice to see how they aligned with practitioners’ experiences on the ground.
• They took every opportunity to present their findings – both pre- and post-publication.
• Their intention was to seek out other interested parties – identifying the audiences that would have the highest interest in their findings. As a consequence, contact was made with a member of the national junior doctors’ network and then the BMA, who were motivated to make the research as widely known as possible. Knowing that the findings were time sensitive, Meacock and Sutton chose journals based on their ability to publish quickly and enable open access to their paper.
• They launched their findings to the media using the media resources of their university’s press office.
• They also wrote various blogs and columns about the work, including in the Health Service Journal.
• They used Twitter to amplify traditional media coverage. Their papers ranked top for altmetrics in their respective journals.
• The publications have led to briefings with opposition parties and the Shadow Secretary of State for Health.

Download details of the research and details of media coverage.

Research into mental health advocacy: using strategic partnerships and innovative approaches to engage policymakers

Senior Lecturer in Health Policy and Management at the Health Services Management Centre (University of Birmingham), Dr Karen Newbigging began building a body of work on mental health advocacy in 2005. Karen and colleagues have, through the course of several studies and outputs, sought to engage policymakers in a deeper understanding of the need for, and organisation of, mental health advocacy. The work has contributed towards increased awareness of advocacy and its role in the promotion and protection of rights, particularly for people detained under the Mental Health Act. Recommendations from this research have been incorporated into inspections by the Care Quality Commission, informed the development of indicators for advocacy services by the National Development Team for inclusion, and been cited by the Department of Health and a House of Commons Select Committee.

• Newbigging and her team formed strategic partnerships with mental health charities and individuals with lived experience of being sectioned under the Mental Health Act. These partners were included throughout the research process (as co-researchers) also in the presentation of findings to policymakers, and have co-authored articles and briefings in a range of formats to maximise the impact of their research.
• The team had a clear view of their target audiences – proactive engagement with policymakers and the opportunity to present to parliamentarians was felt to be key to raising initial awareness of the findings. With policy influencers including the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Mental Health were made a priority.
• In presenting findings, Newbigging and her colleagues (including people with mental health issues), used both traditional and innovative presentation methods. With specific audiences, it was felt that disrupting the normal presentation format would make the findings more memorable and impactful.
• Newbigging secured additional funding for the development of communications resources. An implementation project was led by Dr Julie Ridley from the University of Central Lancashire to promote better understanding among parliamentarians and other stakeholders of advocacy, by people detained under the Mental Health Act.
• The work continues to create high levels of awareness and influence in mental health policy and legislation and has recently been extended to investigate the commissioning of advocacy under the Care Act.

Download a range of resources including films, briefings and guidelines.

Resources

• Contact the information offices in Westminster, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly for details of committee memberships, forthcoming business, and parliamentary and legislative procedures. Read information on how local government works can be found.
• The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) has produced a guide on influencing public affairs.
• the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology provides advice on writing a policy brief.
• Read advice on influencing policymakers, written from the perspective of a previous government special adviser.
• The National Council for Voluntary Organisations offers advice on influencing parliamentarians in the devolved nations.

Download this chapter as a PDF

Download the guide to influencing policy audiences.

Why communicate with health care practitioners?

If your research has implications for health care practice, engaging with practitioners is an important way to increase its impact. This is particularly the case where you can isolate specific insights that might influence their work.

Who to engage?

With more than 1 million people working in the NHS, the simple term ‘health care practitioner’ belies immense diversity in professions, career paths, attitudes, interests and outlooks. If any generalisation can be made about this audience, it is that they are busy people.

A crucial first step is to identify the practitioners for whom your research is most relevant. This means segmenting them potentially by professional group, career grade, health care setting, role, region and specialty. The more precisely you can identify the specific groups you might engage, the easier it will be to frame your research in ways that will speak to their particular contexts and interests.

It is also worth considering who the early adopters are likely to be within these groups. Early adopters are so named because they are among the first to adapt or change their practice in response to new information and ideas. They are often seeking practical solutions to the problems they perceive, or may have a strong commitment to a specific topic, such as patient safety or person-centred care.

How to go about it

Sharing research findings with practitioners: examples

Communicating about the potential to improve tracheostomy care

The National Tracheostomy Safety Project (NTSP) has undertaken research into the nature and severity of problems with tracheostomies in intensive care units, wards and the community. This research has demonstrated the significant impact that sub-optimal care has on patients. Consultant anaesthetist Dr Brendan McGrath is leading on the work to raise awareness of these findings among health professionals across the UK, funded by a grant from the Health Foundation.

There are important implications arising from this research for front-line hospital staff, managers, GPs and staff working in the community. They all have an influence on the outcomes for these patients, and the challenge has been demonstrating the relevance of our research to a wide range of professionals.

'We have tackled this by creating a suite of 30-second films in which the content is framed differently depending on the professional group. For example, our film for doctors focuses on these patients’ inability to communicate pain, and the implications for prescribing; in our film for nurses, we focus on the practicalities of bedside care; and for managers, we explore the impact of sub-optimal care on length of stay.

We’ve found we can communicate best practice much more quickly through film than through a written form, as staff can see the procedures and quickly grasp how they might need to adapt their own methods. The films will also act as a hook to prompt people to visit our website for more in-depth films and resources, tailored to their roles. We will be using social media sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn to promote the content, and we are planning to provide articles to the newsletters of the royal colleges.

My goal in my research is ultimately to improve patient care at the bedside, which means communicating the findings in meaningful and engaging ways directly to front-line staff. The great thing about online content is that we can track every interaction so we will know how many people we have reached, what they have looked at and for how long. While it’s a surrogate for measuring any impact on clinical and patient experience outcomes, I will have a much better understanding of the numbers of relevant staff reached than I would ever have gained through more traditional journal and conference routes.'

Dr Brendan McGrath, Consultant Anaesthetist, University Hospital of South Manchester and Lead Clinician for National Tracheostomy Safety Project

Communicating research on measuring and monitoring safety

In 2016, the Health Foundation published A framework for measuring and monitoring safety. This brief practical guide summarised an in-depth research project led by Professor Charles Vincent, Susan Burnett and Jane Carthey. It provided NHS staff with a framework for measuring and monitoring safety, and has since been downloaded more than 2,700 times.

The guide was tailored to the needs of practitioners in several ways. It included:

• a visual summary of the framework, including five dimensions and associated questions to help individuals and organisations understand and discuss what it means to be safe
• brief arguments in favour of a new approach to measurement, grounded in current debates
• a summary of what the framework might mean for front-line professionals, managers, board members, regulators, and patients and the public
• broad principles to consider in applying it, and prompts to help people focus on some of the main challenges
• a brief summary of the research underpinning the framework and details of further resources.

'We think the guide proved as popular as it did because it synthesised an area of research that was highly relevant to those responding to the fallout from high profile patient safety failures in the NHS at the time.

We were not able to provide practitioners with definitive answers about the steps to take locally in measuring safety, but we could help them focus their conversations and planning through a set of principles and prompts underpinned by research. The framework also provided a visual summary that could be quickly grasped and understood, with many people downloading the supporting slides to share with colleagues.'

John Illingworth, Health Foundation Improvement Fellow

Download this chapter as a PDF

Download the guide to engaging a practice audience in your findings.

Navigate to section 4 of the communications research toolkit – glossary of terms.