You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 3, Issue 3
  • Comparing and contrasting ‘innovation platforms’ with other forms of professional networks for strengthening primary healthcare systems for Indigenous Australians

Article Text

Article menu

This article has a correction. Please see:

Download PDFPDF

XML
Analysis
Comparing and contrasting ‘innovation platforms’ with other forms of professional networks for strengthening primary healthcare systems for Indigenous Australians
  1. Jodie Bailie1,
  2. Frances Clare Cunningham2,
  3. Roxanne Gwendalyn Bainbridge3,
  4. Megan E Passey1,
  5. Alison Frances Laycock3,
  6. Ross Stewart Bailie1,
  7. Sarah L Larkins4,
  8. Jenny S M Brands3,
  9. Shanthi Ramanathan5,
  10. Seye Abimbola6,
  11. David Peiris7
  1. 1 University Centre for Rural Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2 Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  3. 3 Centre for Indigenous Health Equity Research, Central Queensland University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  4. 4 College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
  5. 5 Hunter Research Medical Institute, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
  6. 6 School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  7. 7 The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Jodie Bailie; jodie.bailie{at}sydney.edu.au

Abstract

Efforts to strengthen health systems require the engagement of diverse, multidisciplinary stakeholder networks. Networks provide a forum for experimentation and knowledge creation, information exchange and the spread of good ideas and practice. They might be useful in addressing complex issues or ‘wicked’ problems, the solutions to which go beyond the control and scope of any one agency.

Innovation platforms are proposed as a novel type of network because of their diverse stakeholder composition and focus on problem solving within complex systems. Thus, they have potential applicability to health systems strengthening initiatives, even though they have been predominantly applied in the international agricultural development sector.

In this paper, we compare and contrast the concept of innovation platforms with other types of networks that can be used in efforts to strengthen primary healthcare systems, such as communities of practice, practice-based research networks and quality improvement collaboratives. We reflect on our ongoing research programme that applies innovation platform concepts to drive large-scale quality improvement in primary healthcare for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and outline our plans for evaluation. Lessons from our experience will find resonance with others working on similar initiatives in global health.

  • health services research
  • health systems
  • public health
  • health systems evaluation

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000683

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Summary box

    • Health systems strengthening requires bringing together networks of stakeholders across traditional disciplines and fields in order to achieve relevant goals and objectives.

    • Innovation platforms are distinguished from other networks by the diverse range of stakeholder groups they bring together, and their focus on solving complex and often entrenched systemic problems.

    • We compare and contrast innovation platforms with other types of networks and reflect on our experience applying this concept to a large-scale quality improvement programme in primary healthcare for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, and outline our plans for evaluation.

    • Policymakers should support further experimentation with innovation platforms as a strategy for engaging with multiple stakeholders in health systems strengthening initiatives.

    Introduction

    There is a moral imperative to address the global disproportionate burden of disease and mortality for Indigenous people when compared with general populations.1 2 Stronger health systems are identified as a vital requirement for meeting this challenge and improving health outcomes for all,3 4 with calls to apply systems thinking approaches and to mobilise networks.2 At its core, systems thinking is focused on interactions and relationships between different components and levels of the health system—local, regional and national.2

    Efforts to strengthen health systems require, in part, the utilisation of diverse, multidisciplinary stakeholder networks working across different levels of the broader health system to problem solve collectively, build the capacity and learning of stakeholders and to foster system-wide planning, evaluation and research.3 4 Networks are promoted as providing a general mechanism for exchanging information, spreading good practice, promoting experimentation and for knowledge creation.5 The term ‘network’ tends to be used interchangeably with (or as a catchall for) terms such as ‘partnership’, ‘collaboration’, ‘group’ or ‘alliance’. It is also used to describe relationships through which people, groups or organisations connect to work effectively and synergistically together.6 Of most relevance to this paper, networks might be useful in addressing complex issues or ‘wicked’ problems, the solutions to which go beyond the control and scope of any one agency.7

    Many networks are focused on one professional group or one part of the health system, and are primarily established to address a specific local-level problem or to implement evidence-based practice. They tend to be focused at the clinical microsystem level in small, functional front-line units that provide most healthcare to most people.8 However, a recent publication by Nix et al 9 renews the call for expanded multidisciplinary networks that have both a system-wide lens, and include policymakers, researchers and health services. These authors also highlight the gap in the literature on understanding the factors that contribute to network effectiveness.9

    The term ‘innovation platform’ describes a form of network that aims to overcome challenges occurring at the interface of systems through bringing together people from different parts of the system.10 11 Leaders of large-scale change have argued that innovation platforms create an opportunity for people working in different parts of the system to tackle challenging issues together.12 13 These platforms have been most extensively applied in the international agricultural development sector, and to a more limited extent in health. They are promoted as being different to other networks, mainly due to their diverse stakeholder composition and focus on problem solving that requires a whole of system response (ie, within and across micro, meso and macrolevels of the health system).

    In this paper, we describe the application of the concept of innovation platforms—as a specific type of multidisciplinary network that engages stakeholders at national, regional and local levels to problem solve together—to our work in health services and health systems research in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter respectfully referred to as Indigenous) primary healthcare (PHC) in Australia. We compare and contrast innovation platforms with other types of commonly used network concepts, reflect on our ongoing experience in using the innovation platform concept and outline our plans for evaluation.

    Integrated quality improvement in Indigenous PHC

    Although Australia has a high-performing health system, underpinned by a universal health insurance scheme, it ranks low on measures of equity when compared with other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development nations.14 Indigenous Australians experience a disproportionate burden of ill health, shorter life expectancy and poorer access to PHC compared with the non-Indigenous population.15 16 These inequities are a pervasive legacy of colonisation, land dispossession, displacement, disempowerment, social and economic exclusion and ongoing racial discrimination.17 Furthermore, at least 34% of the health gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians is linked to social determinants of health, rising to 53% when combined with behavioural risk factors, such as tobacco and alcohol use, dietary factors and physical activity.15 18

    Continuous, system-wide quality improvement—a systematic way of using data to guide changes to improve how PHC is organised, structured or designed—can significantly improve the quality of PHC service delivery.19 20 Recognising the need to enhance and scale up continuous quality improvement initiatives in Indigenous PHC, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia provided funding to develop a Centre of Research Excellence in Integrated Quality Improvement in Indigenous Primary Health Care (CRE–IQI) from 2015 to 2019. The CRE–IQI aims to improve Indigenous health outcomes by accelerating and strengthening system-wide PHC quality improvement efforts through working at all levels of the health system, and supporting quality improvement efforts at the health service, regional and national levels. The conditions for effective quality improvement include the use of multifaceted approaches that are tailored to suit local context, action and engagement sustained at multiple levels, investments in staff training and development, and access to resources such as information technology to support quality improvement.21 The CRE–IQI builds on the Partnership Learning Model that was developed in a previous phase of collaborative quality improvement research.22 The model hypothesises how large-scale change can lead to improved population health outcomes through the interaction of comprehensive PHC, integrated quality improvement and system-based research networks and participatory action research.

    Distinguishing innovation platforms from other types of networks

    Types of networks that have been described in the PHC and quality improvement literature include (but are not limited to) communities of practice,23 practice-based research networks24 and quality improvement collaboratives.25

    Communities of practice

    The concept of ‘communities of practice’ describes a group of people (either individually or as members of an institution or organisation) with shared interests, or a common set of problems or concerns, who come together on an ongoing basis to explore ideas and solve problems, and to extend their knowledge and expertise on a specific topic.23 26 Communities of practice have been applied in a number of sectors, such as education and health. Broadly used in healthcare,26 27 they are generally established for the purpose of bringing together people with a similar professional skill set to improve clinical practice or to assist with the implementation of evidence-based practice: for example, a group of general practitioners developing a community of practice to improve the standard of referral letters written to specialists.28

    Practice-based research networks

    Practice-based research networks are a collaborative learning mechanism comprising research academics and primary care practitioners. They link dispersed practices in collaborative research, drawing on front-line PHC teams to help frame practice-relevant research questions, catalyse local knowledge with academic expertise and create opportunities to address important research questions generated at the local primary care level.24 29 30 A good example of this in Australia is the North Queensland Practice-Based Research Network, which aims to develop and conduct locally important, clinically relevant, high-quality primary care research. It involves general practitioners and practice nurses conducting small research projects relevant to local needs, with academic support from James Cook University.31 Practice-based research networks aim to address specific research questions relevant to their participants rather than addressing broader health system challenges.

    Quality improvement collaboratives

    Quality improvement collaboratives bring together healthcare professionals within one organisation or across multiple sites to focus in a structured manner on a common problem related to a particular clinical issue or area, for example, setting targets and undertaking rapid cycles of change to improve quality of care.25 32 Experts in areas such as clinical and service performance improvement provide the group with periodic instruction and encourage teams to share both lessons learnt and examples of best practice. The most prevalent quality improvement collaborative approach is the Breakthrough Series developed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.33

    Innovation platforms

    An ‘innovation platform’ is defined as:

    A space for learning, action, and change. It is a group of individuals (who often represent organizations) with different backgrounds, expertise, and interests… The members come together to diagnose problems, identify opportunities, and find ways to achieve their goals. They may design and implement activities as a platform, or coordinate activities by individual members.11 (p 1)

    Elements of an innovation platform include:

    • Linking people from a variety of backgrounds, expertise and interests.

    • Identifying shared goals and interests along the supply chain, common problems and solutions.

    • Leveraging research and/or technological expertise.

    • Creating spaces for long-term learning and change, and providing opportunities for capacity building.

    • Establishing effective managerial and administrative components to drive and coordinate the innovation platform.10 11 34 35

    To be effective, the facilitation of innovation platforms must recognise and value the diversity and knowledge of stakeholders. It also requires a high level of trust and willingness by stakeholders to share their information and knowledge to achieve a common goal.36 37 The role of researchers and research in innovation platforms is evolving, and there is recognition of their important role in improving the relevance and impact of research.34 35 The composition of an innovation platform often changes over time with people leaving and others joining. Innovation platforms have been most commonly applied in situations where interventions and solutions are required along a chain and at various levels of production, for example, in supporting small-scale farmers to improve productivity, including seed selection and availability, cultivation, harvesting and getting produce to markets efficiently.

    In table 1 we compare and contrast various elements of innovation platforms with other networks applied in healthcare settings. Notably, other network structures or forms of networks in the health sector do not typically include such a diverse range of stakeholders across levels of the health system, and are less focused on addressing system-wide issues at local, regional and national levels.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Key features and motivations of networks—communities of practice, practice-based research networks, quality improvement collaboratives and innovation platforms

    Applying an innovation platform to integrated quality improvement in Indigenous PHC

    The aims of the CRE–IQI are:

    • To refine and build new clinical audit tools and processes.

    • To develop systems for reporting quality improvement data at different PHC system levels.

    • To facilitate the use of quality improvement data in clinical governance.

    • To build on quality improvement capacity in the Indigenous workforce.

    • To identify what works for whom, why and under what circumstances in improving the quality of Indigenous PHC.

    The CRE as an innovation platform

    The CRE–IQI applies innovation platform concepts to the Partnership Learning Model22 by drawing on the experiences and learning gained from studying this model. The concept of innovation platforms inspired the inclusion of a wider range of stakeholder, such as policymakers, using diverse quality improvement approaches across multiple levels of the health system to solve problems and innovate together (table 2). Consistent with an innovation platform, a range of organisations and people working in diverse roles and at different levels of the health system are involved in the CRE–IQI. They include researchers from universities and research organisations, policy officers from State and Territory health departments, project managers from State/Territory level support organisations established for Indigenous community-controlled health services and practitioners from Indigenous health services.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Elements of an innovation platform and aspirations and examples of activities from the Centre of Research Excellence in Integrated Quality Improvement

    By fostering knowledge exchange and collaboration, the CRE–IQI brings together stakeholders who offer diverse perspectives on identifying problems (or bottlenecks in the PHC system), propose innovative solutions and work collaboratively on implementation and evaluation of these solutions.

    Our experience so far suggests that as an innovation platform, the CRE–IQI facilitates the collaborative development and translation of research projects. Priorities for research emerge fluidly, because PHC stakeholders articulate the knowledge gaps they want to address, and groups of research and health sector stakeholders form around topics. Transitioning from a priority research need to a research project requires the identification of an academic lead or chief investigator, who will be responsible for creating the conditions for collective problem solving across multiple stakeholders, sharing information and solutions and empowering others to drive change. Projects can receive some seed funding from the CRE–IQI, often for bringing together stakeholders to develop and refine the research proposal, but most project funds are leveraged from competitive research grant programmes or resourced by health sector stakeholders (usually government health departments). The CRE–IQI also actively supports the translation of research conducted under the auspice of the network.

    A platform for innovation, knowledge exchange and collaboration

    A portion of CRE–IQI resources is dedicated to providing the infrastructure that actively enables collaboration, learning and innovation (table 2). The core of this infrastructure is a small project coordinating team, who organise regular meetings, workshops and seminars or other events, and facilitate the flow of information. Biannual face-to-face meetings provide opportunities to progress project development and research translation, hear about project outcomes, share ideas and build relationships. The CRE–IQI includes cross-cutting programmes that strengthen research capacity, collaboration and research translation. Webinars and teleconferences enable members located across Australia to connect and engage with leaders in PHC research, and masterclasses are offered around each biannual meeting to increase the skills and knowledge of CRE–IQI members.

    Opportunities and challenges

    Progressing successful innovation platforms relies on strong engagement from all members, with a demonstrated willingness to work together and to trust each other. The CRE–IQI seeks to provide an open collaboration that actively encourages cooperation with other organisations and individuals to help achieve its aims. Over time, this sharing of information is expected to lead to an expansion of the membership, bringing additional capacity to the CRE–IQI and ultimately extending the potential impact of its programme of work. Changing membership with participating organisations requires constant effort to refresh and build relationships. The time frames for achieving change are long, which can make it difficult to maintain interest and engagement, particularly if people are expecting more rapid change. In particular, members in different roles may have different expectations in relation to time frames for achieving change. For example, clinicians usually work within short time frames when making care decisions with clients or in small teams within clinical microsystems for local continous quality improvement  (CQI) purposes; policymakers work in short-to-medium time frames developing policy in response to need; and researchers are accustomed to the longer time frames required to develop, undertake, analyse and disseminate research.

    The endeavour of creating multidisciplinary or interprofessional networks comes with substantial challenges.6 Power relations exist in all networks and play a role in all phases of innovation platform development—from stakeholder selection, agenda setting, identification of relevant research questions and the facilitation of dynamics between platform members.34 36 A key determinant of success, therefore, will be the extent to which the CRE–IQI is alert and responsive to power dynamics, and what actions it takes to facilitate the platform, promote reflexive practice and support stakeholders to maintain a commitment to collaboration.

    Evaluation of the CRE–IQI as an innovation platform

    Despite increased attention to networks in healthcare, evidence on their ability to influence systems change and contribution to improving long-term health outcomes generally yields equivocal findings.9 25 38 Undoubtedly, the challenges in assessing impact are driven by the complex environments in which such networks are implemented and the social practices that they are seeking to influence. It follows that the experience of networks in one setting might not necessarily be replicated in other settings, because effectiveness is intimately linked to context, purpose and composition.39 40

    Like these other networks, innovation platforms similarly run the risk of not being able to generate clear messages around their impact in terms of process, health and community outcomes. Given there is a general lack of published evaluations of networks and specifically of innovation platforms in the peer-reviewed literature, and the limited application of innovation platforms in the health sector, we seek to address these knowledge gaps by evaluating to what extent the concepts underpinning innovation platforms are applicable to the CRE–IQI and what impact they may be having on a range of outcomes. Specifically, the evaluation goal will be to study the formation, functioning and outcomes of the CRE–IQI as an innovation platform to drive large-scale change. Objectives include the following:

    1. Assess whether the concept of innovation platforms translates from agricultural to health sectors.

    2. Synthesise lessons learnt from the establishment, functioning and outcomes of the CRE–IQI as an innovation platform.

    3. Generate new knowledge about the mechanisms and contextual factors that influence the ability of innovation platforms to generate positive impact in Indigenous PHC systems.

    4. Contribute new knowledge on the optimal methodological approaches to evaluating innovation platforms.

    Because of the inherent challenges with evaluating complex networks (including innovation platforms) we have designed a mixed-methods, multipronged evaluation, employing three evaluation approaches to learning about the establishment, functioning and outcomes of the CRE–IQI as an innovation platform: social network analysis, developmental evaluation, and economic and impact assessment.

    The social network analysis will document the extent to which the CRE–IQI has facilitated collaboration, and the extent to which it has addressed factors associated with effective network structures. A social network survey was administered at the midpoint of the 5-year life-cycle of the CRE–IQI and will be administered again in the final year. The economic and impact evaluation is using a mixed-methods assessment based on the application of the ‘Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research’.41 Drawing on an embedded research model,42 43 we are conducting a developmental evaluation44 45 to synthesise and apply lessons from the establishment, functioning and outcomes of the innovation platform in real time. The findings from these approaches will be triangulated in a summative evaluation.

    Conclusion

    Promoted as a vehicle to stimulate and support multistakeholder collaboration, innovation platforms are considered particularly useful when there are complex, system-wide issues requiring coordinated action and collective problem solving. The innovation platform concept goes beyond that of other types of networks, and provides mechanisms to enable large-scale change with the potential to improve population health outcomes. Whether they can contribute to system-wide change, or if they are merely a continuation of ‘business as usual’, will largely be determined by their ability to achieve transformative change in the ways in which stakeholders engage with one another. Given the novelty of this concept, rigorous and critical evaluation is required to build the evidence base on impact of innovation platforms in Indigenous PHC and in other health system settings.

    Acknowledgments

    The development of this manuscript would not have been possible without the active support, enthusiasm and commitment of founding members and new partners and collaborators of the Centre of Research Excellence in Integrated Quality Improvement in Indigenous Primary Health Care. Thanks to Dr Veronica Matthews for her comments on an early draft.

    References

    1. 1.↵
      2. Anderson I
      . Indigenous and tribal peoples' health: a population study. The Lancet 2016;388:131–57.
      OpenUrl
    2. 2.↵
      2. Hernández A ,
      3. Ruano AL ,
      4. Marchal B , et al
      . Engaging with complexity to improve the health of indigenous people: a call for the use of systems thinking to tackle health inequity. Int J Equity Health 2017;16:26.doi:10.1186/s12939-017-0521-2
      OpenUrl
    3. 3.↵
      2. Gilson L
      . Health policy and system research: a methodology reader: World Health Organization., 2013.
    4. 4.↵
      2. De Savigny D ,
      3. Adam T
      . Systems thinking for health systems strengthening. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2009.
    5. 5.↵
      Health Foundation. Effective networks for improvement: developing and managing effective networks to support quality improvement in healthcare. London: Health Foundation, 2014.
    6. 6.↵
      2. Cunningham FC ,
      3. Ranmuthugala G ,
      4. Plumb J , et al
      . Health professional networks as a vector for improving healthcare quality and safety: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21:239–49.doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000187
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    7. 7.↵
      2. Ferlie E
      . Making Wicked Problems Governable? The case of managed networks in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
    8. 8.↵
      2. Nelson EC ,
      3. Batalden PB ,
      4. Huber TP , et al
      . Microsystems in health care: Part 1. Learning from high-performing front-line clinical units. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2002;28:472–93.doi:10.1016/S1070-3241(02)28051-7
      OpenUrlPubMed
    9. 9.↵
      2. Nix M ,
      3. McNamara P ,
      4. Genevro J , et al
      . Learning collaboratives: insights and a new taxonomy from AHRQ’s two decades of experience. Health Aff 2018;37:205–12.doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1144
      OpenUrl
    10. 10.↵
      2. Schut M
      . Guidelines for innovation platforms in agricultural research for development. The Netherlands: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Wageningen University, 2017.
    11. 11.↵
      2. Homann-Kee Tui S
      . What are innovation platforms? CGIAR: International Livestock Research Institute, 2013.
    12. 12.↵
      2. Hagel J
      . The power of platforms: business ecosystems come of age. 2015:79–89.
    13. 13.↵
      Sustainable Improvement Team and the Horizons Team. Leading large scale change: a practical guide, 2017.
    14. 14.↵
      2. Schneider EC
      . Mirror Mirror 2017: International Comparison Reflects Flaws and Opportunities for Better U.S. Health Care. 2017.
    15. 15.↵
      Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework. Canberra: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2017.
    16. 16.↵
      2. Bailie J ,
      3. Schierhout G ,
      4. Laycock A , et al
      . Determinants of access to chronic illness care: a mixed-methods evaluation of a national multifaceted chronic disease package for Indigenous Australians. BMJ Open 2015;5:e008103.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008103
    17. 17.↵
      2. Durey A ,
      3. Thompson SC
      . Reducing the health disparities of Indigenous Australians: time to change focus. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:151.doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-151
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. 18.↵
      Department of Health. My Life My Lead - Opportunities for strengthening approaches to the social determinants and cultural determinants of Indigenous health. Canberra, Australia: Report on the national consultations, C.o, 2017.
    19. 19.↵
      2. Shortell SM ,
      3. Bennett CL ,
      4. Byck GR
      . Assessing the impact of continuous quality improvement on clinical practice: what it will take to accelerate progress. Milbank Q 1998;76:593–624.doi:10.1111/1468-0009.00107
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    20. 20.↵
      2. Bailie R ,
      3. Matthews V ,
      4. Larkins S , et al
      . Impact of policy support on uptake of evidence-based continuous quality improvement activities and the quality of care for Indigenous Australians: a comparative case study. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016626.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016626
    21. 21.↵
      2. Powell A ,
      3. Rushmer R ,
      4. Davies H
      . A systematic narrative review of quality improvement models in health care. Scotland: NHS Quality Improvement Scotland, 2009.
    22. 22.↵
      2. Bailie R ,
      3. Matthews V ,
      4. Brands J , et al
      . A systems-based partnership learning model for strengthening primary healthcare. Implement Sci 2013;8:143.doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-143
      OpenUrlPubMed
    23. 23.↵
      2. Ranmuthugala G ,
      3. Cunningham FC ,
      4. Plumb JJ , et al
      . A realist evaluation of the role of communities of practice in changing healthcare practice. Implement Sci 2011;6:49.doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-49
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. 24.↵
      2. Koskela TH
      . Building a primary care research network - lessons to learn. Scand J Prim Health Care 2017;35:229–30.doi:10.1080/02813432.2017.1358439
      OpenUrl
    25. 25.↵
      2. Wells S ,
      3. Tamir O ,
      4. Gray J , et al
      . Are quality improvement collaboratives effective? A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf 2018;27.doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006926
    26. 26.↵
      2. Ranmuthugala G ,
      3. Plumb JJ ,
      4. Cunningham FC , et al
      . How and why are communities of practice established in the healthcare sector? A systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res 2011;11:273.doi:10.1186/1472-6963-11-273
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. 27.↵
      2. Jiwa M ,
      3. Chan W ,
      4. Ross J , et al
      . Communities of practice - quality improvement or research in general practice. Aust Fam Physician 2011;40(1-2):72–5.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    28. 28.↵
      2. Jiwa M ,
      3. Deas K ,
      4. Ross J , et al
      . An inclusive approach to raising standards in general practice: working with a ’community of practice' in Western Australia. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009;9:13.doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-13
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. 29.↵
      2. Davis MM ,
      3. Keller S ,
      4. DeVoe JE , et al
      . Characteristics and lessons learned from practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in the United States. J Healthc Leadersh 2012;4:107–16.doi:10.2147/JHL.S16441
      OpenUrl
    30. 30.↵
      2. Mold JW ,
      3. Peterson KA
      . Primary care practice-based research networks: working at the interface between research and quality improvement. Ann Fam Med 2005;3(Suppl 1):S12–20.doi:10.1370/afm.303
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    31. 31.↵
      2. Cheffins T ,
      3. Spillman M ,
      4. Heal C , et al
      . Evaluating the use of Enhanced Primary Care health assessments by general practices in North Queensland. Aust J Prim Health 2010;16:221–3.doi:10.1071/PY09078
      OpenUrlPubMed
    32. 32.↵
      2. Nadeem E ,
      3. Olin SS ,
      4. Hill LC , et al
      . Understanding the components of quality improvement collaboratives: a systematic literature review. Milbank Q 2013;91:354–94.doi:10.1111/milq.12016
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    33. 33.↵
      2. ØVretveit J ,
      3. Bate P ,
      4. Cleary P , et al
      . Quality collaboratives: lessons from research. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11:345–51.doi:10.1136/qhc.11.4.345
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. 34.↵
      2. Boogaard BK
      . Critical issues for reflection when designing and implementing research for development in innovation platforms. The Netherlands: Wageningen University & Research Centre, 2013.
    35. 35.↵
      2. Swaans K
      . A monitoring and evaluation framework to assess the performance of innovation platforms in the context of livestock value chains: CGIAR, 2013.
    36. 36.↵
      2. Cullen B ,
      3. Tucker J ,
      4. Snyder K , et al
      . An analysis of power dynamics within innovation platforms for natural resource management. Innovation and Development 2014;4:259–75.doi:10.1080/2157930X.2014.921274
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    37. 37.↵
      2. Dror I
      . Innovation platforms for agricultural development: evaluating the mature innovation platforms landscape. New York: Routledge, 2016.
    38. 38.↵
      2. Kothari A ,
      3. Boyko JA ,
      4. Conklin J , et al
      . Communities of practice for supporting health systems change: a missed opportunity. Health Res Policy Syst 2015;13:33.doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0023-x
      OpenUrl
    39. 39.↵
      2. Coles E ,
      3. Wells M ,
      4. Maxwell M , et al
      . The influence of contextual factors on healthcare quality improvement initiatives: what works, for whom and in what setting? Protocol for a realist review. Syst Rev 2017;6:168.doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0566-8
      OpenUrl
    40. 40.↵
      2. Bate P
      . Perspectives on context: a collection of essays considering the role of context in successful quality improvement. London: Health Foundation, 2014.
    41. 41.↵
      2. Ramanathan S ,
      3. Reeves P ,
      4. Deeming S , et al
      . Encouraging translation and assessing impact of the Centre for Research Excellence in Integrated Quality Improvement: rationale and protocol for a research impact assessment. BMJ Open 2017;7:e018572.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018572
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    42. 42.↵
      2. Vindrola-Padros C ,
      3. Pape T ,
      4. Utley M , et al
      . The role of embedded research in quality improvement: a narrative review. BMJ Qual Saf 2017;26:70–80.doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004877
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    43. 43.↵
      2. Ghaffar A ,
      3. Langlois EV ,
      4. Rasanathan K , et al
      . Strengthening health systems through embedded research. Bull World Health Organ 2017;95:87.doi:10.2471/BLT.16.189126
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    44. 44.↵
      2. Patton MQ
      . Developmental evaluation: applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York: Guilford Press, 2011.
    45. 45.↵
      2. Laycock A ,
      3. Bailie J ,
      4. Matthews V , et al
      . A developmental evaluation to enhance stakeholder engagement in a wide-scale interactive project disseminating quality improvement data: study protocol for a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016341.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016341
    46. 46.
      2. Lindenauer PK
      . Effects of quality improvement collaboratives. BMJ 2008;336:1448–9.doi:10.1136/bmj.a216
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    47. 47.
      Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Working together to answer community-based health care questions and translate research findings into practice. https://pbrn.ahrq.gov/ (accessed 19 Feb 2018).
    48. 48.
      2. Knight AW ,
      3. Ford D ,
      4. Audehm R , et al
      . The Australian primary care collaboratives program: improving diabetes care. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21:956–63.doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000460
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    49. 49.
      Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Improving Health and Health Care WorldWide. http://www.ihi.org/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 19 Feb 2018).
    50. 50.
      2. Adams O
      . Development innovation fund health: summative evaluation report. Oxford: Oxford Policy Management, 2015.

    Footnotes

    • Handling editor Valery Ridde

    • Contributors JB and RGB conceived the manuscript, with JB taking the lead on writing all drafts, integrating feedback upon reviews and finalising the manuscript. RSB is the principal investigator of the CRE–IQI. All authors reviewed the drafts of the manuscript, and read and approved the final manuscript.

    • Funding The National Health and Medical Research Council funded the Centre of Research Excellence in Integrated Quality Improvement (Grant ID No 1078927).

    • Competing interests The authors declare that this research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. SA is the editor in chief of BMJ Global Health, but was not involved in the evaluation or peer-review process of this article.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.

    • Collaborators Centre for Research Excellence in Integrated Quality Improvement (CRE–IQI) investigators: Professor Ross Bailie (principal investigator), Ms Lynette Feeney, Dr Ru Kwedza (University Centre for Rural Health, The University of Sydney); Professor David Peiris (The George Institute for Global Health); Dr Frances Cunningham, Professor Alan Cass, Ms Louise Clark (Menzies School of Health Research); Professor Sarah Larkins, Professor Komla Tsey (James Cook University); Associate Professor Roxanne Bainbridge, Professor Chris Doran, Associate Professor Janya McCalman (Central Queensland University); Dr Paul Burgess (Northern Territory Department of Health); Ms Kerry Copley, Dr Liz Moore (Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance Northern Territory); Professor Alex Brown (South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute); Associate Professor Andrew Searles (Hunter Medical Research Institute); Dr Mark Wenitong (Apunipima Cape York Health Council); Associate Professor Deborah Askew (Inala Indigenous Health Service).