ArticleHealth research policy and systems2026
Facilitators and challenges to implementing a researcher-in-residence model to build research capacity in adult social care.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdult social care in England has long lacked the research infrastructure and capacity common in health, limiting evidence-informed improvement. The Kent Research Partnership (KRP) implemented a dual, bi-directional Researcher-in-Residence (RiR) model (one university-employed researcher embedded in the local authority and one local-authority-employed researcher embedded in the university) to build research capacity. This study explored implementation challenges and facilitators over the first 32 months of the partnership.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with eight participants (four current/former RiR; four core team/management). Interviews were recorded, transcribed and pseudonymized. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, then deductively mapped to the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0).
resultsThree themes described determinants of implementation. (a) Context and culture: system-level financial pressures, fragile regional research support and competing operational priorities limited engagement; post-coronavirus disease-19 (COVID) hybrid working and organisational restructuring impeded co-location and informal relationship-building. (b) Intervention design and implementation: dedicated, full-time RiR posts enabled proactive capacity-building; the dual, bi-directional structure conferred legitimacy and access across partnership settings. However, broad role definitions and unfamiliar terminology led to ambiguity and expectations of bespoke research delivery. Reframing the practice-based role as "Research Facilitator" improved clarity and was subsequently formalised within the local authority. (c) RiR personal and professional characteristics: effectiveness hinged on combined research expertise and practice/policy experience, plus relational skills (approachability, persistence, adaptability).
conclusionsA thoughtfully designed RiR model, with dual posts, protected time and individuals who bridge research and practice, can catalyse research capacity building in adult social care. However, persistent contextual barriers, such as resource constraints, cultural misalignment, remote/hybrid working patterns, can limit embedding and impact of research capacity building partnership in social care. Co-designed role clarity, alignment with service-improvement goals, innovative approaches to remote embedding and sustained infrastructure funding are recommended to lessen the impact of the contextual barriers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.