National Longitudinal Survey of Public Health Systems: 2011-2012 Wave

Since 1998, researchers have followed a nationally representative cohort of U.S. communities to examine the types of public health activities performed within the community, the range of organizations contributing to each activity, and the perceived effectiveness of each activity in addressing community needs. This information, obtained through a validated survey of local public health officials, provides an in-depth view of the structure and function of local public health delivery systems and how these systems evolve over time. Originally conducted with support from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Longitudinal Survey of Public Health Systems (NLSPHS) was fielded for the first time in 1998, with a follow-up survey conducted in 2006 as part of a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation-funded project to develop an evidence-based typology of local public health delivery systems. Each wave of the survey has been linked with data on local health departments collected from the prior year’s National Profile of Local Health Departments survey conducted by the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO), allowing for an in-depth view of how local health departments relate to the multi-organizational delivery systems in which they operate. These data, linked with still other data sources on community demographic, health, and economic characteristics, have supported a wide array of studies regarding the organization, financing, and delivery of public health services and provided considerable insight into policy and administrative mechanisms for improving the practice of public health

Using Public Health PBRN Research to Inform Policy & Practice

The Public Health Practice-Based Research Networks Program is a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that supports research networks dedicated to producing new scientific knowledge on how best to organize, finance, and deliver public health strategies in realworld practice settings. This body of scientific inquiry, known as Public Health Services and Systems Research (PHSSR), is a rapidly developing area of scholarship within the larger fields of public health research and health services research. A public health practice-based research network (PBRN) brings multiple public health organizations into collaboration with an academic research center for the purposes of designing and implementing PHSSR studies in real-world practice settings. Participating public health professionals and researchers collaborate to identify pressing research questions of interest, design rigorous and relevant studies, execute research effectively and efficiently, and translate findings rapidly into practice

Aligning Evidence-Based Practice With Translational Research: Opportunities for Clinical Practice Research

Magnet(R) and other organizations investing resources in evidence-based practice (EBP) are ideal laboratories for translational nursing research. Translational research, the study of implementation of evidence into practice, provides a unique opportunity to leverage local EBP work for maximum impact. Aligning EBP projects with rigorous translational research can efficiently meet both EBP and research requirements for Magnet designation or redesignation, inform clinical practice, and place organizations at the leading edge of practice-based knowledge development for the nursing discipline

Building a Sustainable Public Health PBRN: Tips for Securing Ongoing Research Funding

Diversify your network’s research funding base. The Public Health PBRN Program funding made available by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation provides start-up resources and initial research support for networks, but networks will require larger and more sustainable sources of funding for public health research as they progress. The most ample sources can be found in federal funding agencies that operate competitive extramural research programs, include CDC, NIH, AHRQ, HRSA, USDA, and NSF. Public health research funding is also available from state and foundation sources, and even corporate sources (e.g. Pfizer’s Public Health Research Fellowship Program). For sustainability, networks should look to diversify their sources of funding for research projects and avoid reliance on a single source for very long. The research and demonstration opportunities created by the federal Affordable Care Act, and the growing emphasis on translational and community-based research at NIH, provide particularly compelling funding opportunities for public health PBRNs

Public Health PBRNs: Generating Evidence for Policy & Practice

The Public Health Practice-Based Research Networks Program is a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that supports the development of research networks for studying the comparative effectiveness, efficiency and equity of public health strategies deployed in real-world practice settings. A practice-based research network (PBRN) brings multiple public health agencies together with research partners to design and implement studies of population-based strategies that prevent disease and injury and promote health. Participating practitioners and researchers collaborate to identify pressing research questions of interest, design rigorous and relevant studies, execute research effectively, and translate findings rapidly into practice. As such, PBRNs represent vehicles for expanding the volume and quality of practice-based research needed for evidence-based decision-making in public health. The Public Health PBRN Program is based at the University of Kentucky College of Public Health, under the direction of Dr. Glen Mays

Competitiveness in Urban Europe: research based, practice led

Metropolitan regions and cities are often coined as the ‘motors of the economy’. The performance of national economies – and even the EU in general – is increasingly dependent on the cumulative performance of metropolitan regions and/or cities. All around the world, cities are increasingly in competition with one another; interconnected in a network of criss-cross relations between firms and institutions. With respect to urban competitiveness, numerous activities of benchmarking and ‘best practises’ between cities exist. Many policies are based upon these evaluations leading to cherry-picking and the hasty copying of experiences from one specific urban context to another. A deeper understanding of the problems and structural mechanisms behind urban competitiveness is often lacking. This paper aims to analyse the competitiveness of European metropolitan regions via a comparative case study research, defining the main threats and challenges concerning the economic vitality of urban areas. It will be driven by the input of regions and cities with the aim to identify ‘best’ and ‘bad’ practices across Europe. In other words, we will set out the contours of a research framework on economic competitiveness that aims to bridge the gap between academic research and urban practices by means of a policy-driven research agenda. The competitiveness of five European regions will be discussed in more detail: Munich, Warsaw, Madrid, Bucharest and Stockholm. Based on roundtable discussions with stakeholders in these cities, the missing blanks in urban research will be defined. This paper will go beyond the ranking lists based solely on economic productivity figures by discussing cities’ competitiveness from an integral perspective. The underlying determinants of competitiveness (e.g. local economic sectoral structure, labour market) will be analysed to create a better understanding of the economic performance of cities. It is the aim of this study to make academic research on urban competitiveness applicable for urban practice by listing knowledge and research questions that are of interest for both researchers as well as urban practitioners.

Practice-based doctorates and questions of academic legitimacy

Over the last six years there has been a massive increase in the number of students studying for practice-based doctorates in Art and Design. It is now possible to do a practice-based PhD in over forty departments, although what is expected from doctoral students varies considerably across institutions. In 1997 the United Kingdom Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) addressed the variance between practice-based doctorates in the report Practice-Based Doctorates in the Creative and Performing Arts and Design. This paper examines the recommendations made by the report and asks to what extent does it acknowledge art as a legitimate research practice within the university. The UKCGE report recommends that all practice-based PhDs have a substantial theoretical and contextualising element that will demonstrate general scholarly requirements and render the artwork accessible to judgement. I argue that this proposal is problematic on several counts; it draws a firm line between theory and practice, places academic research in opposition to practice generally and artwork specifically, maintains the stereotype of art as anti-intellectual and forgets the degree to which theory is itself a practice. In addition it suggests that art practice can only be legitimised as research when it is framed by a conventionally academic enquiry. I suggest that instead of trying to make art practice fit academic regulations it would be more productive to use the practice-based PhDs as a way of re-thinking academic conventions and scholarly requirements