{"paper_id":"1f010fff-a164-49b1-8eda-4c3a0f2afde0","body_text":"Baseline assessments of research capacity, capability and culture in UK local authorities: Reflections from evaluators embedded in Health Determinants Research Collaborations | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Baseline assessments of research capacity, capability and culture in UK local authorities: Reflections from evaluators embedded in Health Determinants Research Collaborations Lauren Bell, Rachel Chapman, Charlotte Ashton, Claire Batey, Jack Brazier, and 13 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5915088/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 26 May, 2025 Read the published version in Health Research Policy and Systems → Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background. In the United Kingdom, local government is well-placed to conduct and apply research about the wider determinants of health. However, local authorities often lack sufficient research infrastructure to support research capacity, capability and culture. Since 2022, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research has funded 30 Health Determinants Research Collaborations (HDRCs) to develop this infrastructure. HDRCs are hosted by local authorities collaborating with universities and other partners to strengthen a culture of evidence-informed decision making. HDRCs are conducting local evaluations, including baseline assessments of local authority research capacity, capability and culture. Methods. A national peer-support group was formed to support shared learning among teams evaluating HDRCs. Here, as embedded evaluators from 10 HDRCs, we present reflections on the planning, delivery, and interpretation of baseline assessments. Reflections were gathered via group discussions and written submissions. All 10 HDRC baseline assessments explored local authority research capacity, capability and culture, and two also studied early HDRC team collaboration. Results. Competing priorities during early HDRC implementation called for pragmatic and timely baseline assessment methods. Most HDRCs developed baseline surveys, though interviews and focus groups were conducted by some. Despite similar aims, methods varied substantially according to local contexts. Evaluators often adapted existing validated survey tools, e.g., from health settings, as none were identified for use across local government. Definitions of research also ranged from academic definitions to broader notions of evidence. Useful insights were gathered across diverse samples to aid implementation locally, however low response rates were received to all-staff surveys and heterogenous approaches limited comparison across HDRCs. Findings contributed to recommendations for evaluating and developing HDRC activities (e.g., communications and training provisions) appropriate for local authorities with stretched resources. Where measured, collaborations were functioning well, with recommendations to enhance communication. Conclusions. The early contexts and challenges of HDRCs influenced pragmatic baseline assessments. Methods were often chosen to capture baseline contexts rapidly, and they will be refined and complemented by additional evaluation methods as HDRCs progress. Developing new validated measures and an agreed definition of research for local authorities may strengthen understanding of research capacity, capability and culture across local government. evaluation collaboration inequalities research capacity local government social determinants of health Background Local government plays a critical role in the lives and health of its residents. In the United Kingdom (UK), local authorities have responsibility for a range of services and policies that impact the wider determinants of health and health inequalities( 1 , 2 ), including housing, transport, education, employment, culture, regeneration, environments, public health, and social care( 3 ). Local government often also engages in innovation to support local development, yet operates in political and financially challenging contexts( 4 ). Increasingly, local authorities are tasked with making critical decisions about how to prioritise limited financial resources( 5 ). To ensure that local authority decisions are underpinned by the best available research evidence and meet the needs of local communities( 6 ), an enabling research culture and infrastructure is required( 7 ). This research infrastructure refers to research-related resources, facilities, funding, expertise, professional development pathways, and data and governance systems that can support the production of research and mobilisation of knowledge into practice( 8 ). A well-established research infrastructure facilitates high-quality health research in UK research institutions( 9 , 10 ). The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the largest funder of UK health research, allocates around £1.3 billion annually to generate health and care research, enabling significant advances in knowledge and health outcomes( 11 ). NIHR, along with other health research funders, provide funding for research infrastructure, as well as for research studies and programmes. Although UK local authorities are uniquely well-placed to build evidence about the wider determinants of health, they have historically been allocated significantly less funding for research programmes and infrastructure than health settings( 12 ). Funders have recently sought to better understand and increase research resources available to local government, including NIHR-commissioned studies part of the Local Authority Research Systems (LARS) work( 13 , 14 ). The evidence base has reported that existing research infrastructure is often inaccessible to local authorities, with limited staff time and research training( 14 – 17 ). Barriers to collaboration between local authorities, universities, and communities have included discordant research timelines and distrust( 7 , 14 , 16 ). The Local Authority Champions of Research (LACoR) study, funded by the Health Foundation, also found a lack of consensus across local government about what counts as evidence, and that despite interest in using evidence, capacity pressures and governance issues restricted capacity and capability for research( 18 ). Recommendations to increase research co-production with local government included increasing academic researchers’ understanding of local government, facilitating communication and knowledge brokering spaces, and engaging with council leaders to ensure political relevance( 19 ). Since 2022, NIHR has awarded funding to establish 30 UK Health Determinants Research Collaborations (HDRCs), initially for five years. This funding is to build research capacity, capability and culture for evidence-based decision-making on the health determinants. HDRCs are hosted by local authorities with universities, voluntary and community organisations, and other local organisations acting as partners usually within a local geographical area( 20 ). Each HDRC intends to develop research infrastructure suitable for local contexts, with diverse collaborators and approaches. Yet, all HDRCs share similar aims to build local authority research infrastructure, promote a culture of always using research evidence in decision making, involve local people and communities, and ultimately improve health determinants and reduce inequalities( 20 ). Typical workstreams to develop research capacity and capability include training and skills provisions, data processes, governance infrastructure, embedded researcher models, and strengthening involvement of communities and other partners in research. There is extensive evidence regarding healthcare and applied health research collaborations, including NIHR-funded infrastructure programmes( 21 ). HDRCs are the first NIHR collaborations hosted in local government, and evaluating the first examples is crucial. An independent study of the national HDRC programme is underway, and HDRCs are each evaluating locally to inform implementation and generate transferable evidence. In 2023, individuals planning local HDRC evaluations established a national peer-support group, meeting monthly to share learning and resources. This group highlighted the unique challenges to evaluating research collaborations in local authority contexts, and we (the authors) produced this reflective article to share our learning. Article aims To describe our early experiences, methods and preliminary insights from baseline assessments of a national programme of local authority-hosted research collaborations (HDRCs), to influence policy, practice and evaluation methodology in similar contexts. Methods Involvement of HDRCs in this article Evaluation teams from 10 HDRCs contributed to this article (Aberdeen, Coventry, Doncaster, Islington, Lambeth, Newcastle, Plymouth, Somerset, Tower Hamlets, and Wakefield). HDRCs launched in 2022 (phase 1), except Somerset and Wakefield who launched in 2023 (phase 2), and Islington, which began a ‘development year’ in 2022 and launched in 2023( 20 , 22 ). Evaluators in the peer-support group with a finalised ‘baseline assessment’ protocol by June 2024 were invited to contribute to this reflective article. ‘Baseline assessment’ refers to the initial phase of data collection in HDRC evaluations. The first year of HDRCs involved foundational activities such as recruiting staff (including evaluation teams), setting programme aims and objectives, and developing evaluation protocols( 22 ). Baseline assessments therefore may not have preceded all HDRC implementation, but still did reflect the early phases of implementation within the first two years of funding. HDRCs were not required to contribute findings to this article, reflecting the value of HDRCs sharing their experiences and learning from developing baseline assessments to date. Approach to developing this article Evaluation teams’ decisions and reflections about baseline assessments were gathered during group discussions and written submissions. Two online meetings were held and recorded in June and September 2024 to produce detailed notes; formal transcriptions were not obtained. Each HDRC submitted written information about the design, development, and conduct of their baseline assessment, plus findings and reflections to date. HDRC Coventry (LB, RC, BT) collated and interpreted these contributions, highlighting areas for further discussion in the second meeting. The article was drafted (LB, RC, BT) and then revised by all authors. Results Reflections and experiences of planning and delivering HDRC baseline assessments Each HDRC evaluation team’s baseline assessment is described in Table 1 . Evaluation teams Contributing evaluators to this article were embedded members of a HDRC and involved in wider HDRC meetings or workstreams. Evaluation teams comprised of either local authority professionals, academic researchers, or individuals from a mix of collaborating organisations, and were diverse in seniority, research and practice expertise. Our degree of embeddedness also varied. Some worked full time across different HDRC activities, and others delivered the evaluation part-time alongside roles outside the HDRC. Being embedded offered us valuable insights, for example to support plans to align with each local authority’s norms and processes, and accounting for contextual factors present at each locality. Our embeddedness also led to Table 1 Descriptions of baseline assessments conducted by HDRCs contributing to this article. Phase 1 HDRCs Phase 2 HDRCs Aberdeen Coventry Doncaster Islington Lambeth Newcastle Plymouth Tower Hamlets Somerset Wakefield Evaluation team Embedded evaluation by HDRC Skills & Culture workstream. Mixed team with roles in local authority. Embedded evaluation led by HDRC evaluation workstream. Mixed team with roles in local authority, NHS, and university. Embedded evaluation with HDRC evaluation lead researcher working in the local authority. Embedded evaluation with HDRC evaluation leads working in the local authority AND university. Embedded evaluation by HDRC team in the local authority and students’ input. Embedded evaluation led by HDRC knowledge mobilisation lead working in the local authority. Embedded evaluation led by university researchers in the HDRC team. Embedded evaluation team in the local authority with advice from university partners. Also plans for external evaluation contract. Embedded evaluation by HDRC team, led by Business Development and Research Intelligence Workstream, and supported by other HDRC workstreams, embedded researchers from partner university and voluntary, community, faith, and social enterprise (VCFSE) sector. Embedded evaluation led by researchers in the HDRC’s university partner. Baseline assessment aims Understand different aspects of local authority research culture and capacity Understand 1) different aspects of local authority research culture and capacity 2) how well the HDRC are functioning together Understand different aspects of local authority research culture and training preferences Obtain baseline measures to enable evaluation of the process and outcomes of HDRC Understand different aspects of local authority research culture and capacity Understand different aspects of local authority research culture and infrastructure, and identify staff interested in being involved in research activity Understand different aspects of local authority research culture and capacity Understand 1) different aspects of local authority research culture and capacity. 2) how well the HDRC collaboration are functioning together Understand different aspects of research culture and capacity in the local authority and VCFSE. Identify research training needs, and priority areas Understand different aspects of local authority research culture and capacity Ethics and governance approvals Local approvals Formal university ethical approval and local approvals Formal university ethical approval and local approvals Formal university ethical approval and local approvals Local approvals by HDRC leads Approval sought from HDRC director and service manager and Asst Chief Executive’s directorate leadership team Local approvals 1) Local approvals from local authority directors 2)Formal university ethical approval and local approvals Formal university ethical approval and compliance with local governance processes Formal university ethical approval and local approvals Design Online survey – quantitative questions plus open-ended questions Online survey for each of evaluation aims one and two. Both surveys included quantitative measures plus open-ended questions Online survey 1) Facilitated team or group surveys with local authority and voluntary sector groups, 2) Interviews with staff and partners, and, 3) Online survey Online survey – quantitative measures plus open-ended questions Online survey – quantitative measures plus open-ended questions. The survey was complemented by individual interviews in one council directorate Online survey – quantitative measures plus open-ended questions 1 + 2) Online survey - quantitative measures plus open-ended questions Focus groups, interviews, and online surveys with local authority and VCFSE representatives Interviews with purposefully sampled local authority participants Public and stakeholder involvement and piloting Developed by evaluation team only. Piloted with HDRC and local authority team. Two HDRC public co-applicants involved in tool choice; input from HDRC collaborators on plans. Piloted in local authority HDRC team. Involvement of steering group with academic, community group, and local authority representatives. Piloted in two local authorities. Resident involved in developing approach and methods; input from HDRC embedded researchers. Piloted in local authority teams. Developed by evaluation team only. Piloted with HDRC and local authority team. Input from local authority colleagues. Piloted in local authority teams Input from HDRC embedded team. Piloted with local authority team. 1)Input from local authority colleagues 2) Input from HDRC collaborators on proposals. Piloted in local authority teams. Consultation with local authority stakeholders about best engaging participant across the organisation. Local authority colleagues were also involved in developing the topic guide. Developed by evaluation team only. Inclusion or adaptation of existing tools and frameworks Bespoke 32-question tool informed by RCC but developed to suit local authority contexts. 1) RCC and perceived value subscale of SEER, language adapted for clarity in local authority contexts. 2) Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory, language adapted to HDRC. Research and Development Culture Index adapted to local authority terminology. 1) Shortened version of SEER to reduce completion time and duplication, language adapted to a group. 2) Informed by CFIR. 3) Adapted Research Culture and Capacity Tool Adapted RCC and SEER, changes to improve relevance and ease to participants and reduce completion time. Six bespoke questions developed for local authority contexts, though informed by RCC and SEER domains. Bespoke questions informed by research capacity and capability domains in existing tools developed in social care, adapted( 23 – 25 ) to enhance relevance to local authority. 1) Local Authority Research System (LARS) framework 2) Nuffield Partnership Assessment Tool Bespoke questions informed by previous work locally. Topic guides informed by previous work locally and evidence-informed typology( 17 ). Participant eligibility All council staff and councillors 1) All council staff councillors 2) HDRC members All council staff and councillors All council staff and councillors and voluntary sector partners All council staff and councillors All council staff and councillors All council staff and councillors 1) All council staff and councillors 2) HDRC members All council staff, VCFSE organisation representatives. Council service directors and leaders Recruitment Promoted via council intranet and service managers 1) Broad promotion across council channels and all-staff email. Targeted promotion to leadership roles. completion 2) Direct email, with reminders. Broad promotion via all staff email, available on intranet, word of mouth. Broad promotion across council channels, via HDRC strategic delivery group and manager briefings. Broad promotion across council channels and all-staff email, shared through professional networks and engagement events. Broad promotion across council channels and all-staff email cascaded by directorate business managers. Broad promotion across council channels and all-staff email. Engaged with council leaders to promote. 1) Broad promotion across council channels and all-staff email 2) Email to eligible participants, with three reminders. Targeted recruitment via email and joining serve-wide team meetings. Supported by local authority ambassadors. VCFSE organisations were recruited via email and local authority and voluntary alliance communication channels. Direct email to eligible participants. Data collection dates June 2023 to October 2023 December 2023 – February 2024 September 2023 – December 2023 June 2024 – February 2025 March 2024 – June 2024 January 2024 - March 2024 October 2023 – July 2024 1) October – December 2021 2) February 2024 September 2024 – Jan 2025 June 2024 November 2024 Note . HDRC = Health Determinants Research Collaboration, RCC = Research Culture and Capacity tool, SEER = Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research, CFIR = Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, VCFSE = Voluntary, Community, Faith, and Social Enterprise sector challenges balancing capacity for evaluation work alongside labour-intensive HDRC implementation, leading to more pragmatic baseline assessment designs. Governance processes Six out of the ten HDRCs obtained formal ethical approval from a university committee for the baseline assessment. Approval was obtained where mandatory for university-employed evaluators and/or to facilitate journal publication. Remaining HDRCs determined that ethical approval was not required for this low-risk evaluation activity, though followed local processes (e.g., communication team or director approval). Academic publication was often not a primary goal. Instead, evaluators needed to move quickly to capture timely baseline assessment, with the university ethics process sometimes perceived as a barrier. Some evaluators described challenges navigating usual local authority practice (no ethical approval due to lack of infrastructure) and university processes (mandatory for any data collection). Regardless, ethical practices such as informed consent and anonymous participation were adopted. For some HDRCs, baseline assessments also provided an opportunity to scope and test local HDRC research governance processes being developed. Aims and methods of HDRCs’ baseline assessments Aims and purpose HDRCs’ stated aims for their baseline assessment varied, but all aimed to understand their local authority’s research capacity, capability and culture at a very early phase of the HDRC. Tower Hamlets investigated this in 2021, prior to the HDRC, which served as a baseline assessment of research activity in the local authority at the time. Other HDRCs collected baseline assessment data during the first year or two of the HDRC funding period. The topics explored varied, though included involvement with and perceptions of research, training and qualifications, knowledge and skills, organisational support for research, and familiarity with research infrastructure. HDRCs Islington and Somerset also explored these topics with local voluntary, community, faith and social enterprise collaborators. One purpose of the baseline assessments was to facilitate summative evaluation of HDRC impact throughout the funding period. Many HDRCs had logic models or theories of change for how implementation would be realised, and the baseline assessments and broader evaluation plans provided an opportunity to test and refine these theories. Understanding early local contexts was also expected to influence HDRC activities in real-time (e.g., training and communication plans), and the baseline assessment was viewed as a tool to raise engagement with the HDRC. HDRCs Coventry( 28 ) and Tower Hamlets also aimed to understand how the HDRC team leading the implementation were functioning and collaborating at this early phase. Aspects including shared vision, leadership, involvement, communication, and clarity of roles and plans were explored to provide recommendations and monitor collaboration over time. Baseline assessment design The design of the baseline assessment was decided by individual HDRCs and influenced by local contexts, academic expertise, published evidence, and the team’s previous experiences. As evaluators, we reflected that competing demands around early HDRC implementation meant in-depth academic research design was often balanced with available resource. As a result, most HDRCs developed surveys to capture baseline insights, despite longer-term plans for more comprehensive mixed-methods evaluations. Surveys. Nine HDRCs developed online surveys hosted on Microsoft Forms, Qualtrics, Google Forms, or Survey Monkey. Surveys included quantitative scales or items, supplemented with open-ended questions to gain qualitative insight. Lengths varied from brief ‘snapshot’ surveys (e.g., six items) to in-depth 20-minute surveys (e.g., approximately 80 items). These differences reflected some HDRCs favouring shorter surveys to increase recruitment, and others prioritising longer surveys with validated tools, sought to enable reliable testing and comparison across studies. All HDRCs intended to repeat surveys (e.g., (bi)-annually), though anticipated modifying tools or recruitment approaches to reflect changing contexts and incorporate learning. Qualitative and mixed-methods approaches. HDRC Wakefield used a wholly qualitative approach using interviews and focus groups to gather in-depth information and identify thematic areas, building upon previous qualitative work conducted locally. HDRCs Islington, Somerset, and Newcastle planned mixed-methods baseline assessments involving surveys and interviews or focus groups to triangulate evidence. In HDRC Somerset’s baseline assessment, interviews and focus groups were the prioritised methods, though the topic guide was developed into a survey to collect data from participants who did not wish to participate in the qualitative work. HDRC Islington devised a topic guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)( 29 ). CFIR was also used by HDRC Coventry to analyse qualitative responses to the team collaboration survey. Several HDRCs reported plans for additional mixed and qualitative work as part of their longer-term evaluation plans, for example conducting interviews towards the end of HDRC year two. In this way, baseline assessments were only one part of broader mixed-methods evaluation methods planned by HDRCs throughout the funding period. Survey content Defining research Definitions of ‘research’ provided to participants differed across HDRCs. Some aligned with the academic research-focused UK Health Research Authority definition, whereby research is considered an attempt to derive generalisable or transferable knowledge using scientifically sound methods( 30 ). HDRCs using this definition described how they selected it to enable assessment of change in academic research activity likely to be supported by major funding bodies, and lead to high impact research outputs. Other HDRCs favoured broader definitions of ‘research’ activity, including routine data analysis, consulting, auditing or quality improvement, and benchmarking exercises. This more inclusive definition, which differs from the Health Research Authority definition, intended to recognise and value the different components of ‘research’ activity and ‘evidence’ used in local authority and community contexts and support participants to consider how evidence relates to their roles. Use and adaptation of existing tools and frameworks Independently, and within our peer-support group, we searched for, shared, and critiqued validated tools for measuring research culture and capacity. No tool validated for use in UK local government contexts was identified. Tools most commonly considered were the Research Culture and Capacity (RCC) tool( 26 ) and Seeking, Engaging with, and Evaluating Research (SEER)( 27 ). No HDRC had used a validated tool verbatim, and there were varying degrees of adaptation. HDRC Coventry( 28 ) used RCC with minor modifications (items specified ‘academic’ research). HDRC Doncaster used the Research and Culture Development Index( 31 ), and adapted language from the original healthcare context to suit local government. HDRC Aberdeen modelled survey questions on the ADKAR change framework ( 32 ) already trusted and familiar to staff and councillors in their local authority. HDRC Plymouth’s survey was informed by previous work and tools to investigate research culture in adult social care( 24 , 25 , 33 ). Tower Hamlets’ pre-HDRC baseline survey was a modified tool initially delivered as part of NIHR funded Local Authority Research System (LARS) work in Bradford( 34 ). Several HDRCs adapted existing tools via partial inclusion of subscales, removing items, or using the tools to create new questions. HDRC Newcastle mapped the underlying domains in RCC and SEER and devised one question per domain to create a shortened tool. In their original formats, tools were considered too long to engage busy participants. Tools also included technical language (e.g., ‘systematic reviews’) that assumed previous exposure to research. We therefore agreed that developing new tools to investigate local government research capacity, capability, and culture would be beneficial. HDRCs measuring collaboration functioning adopted either the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory Index ( 35 ) (Coventry) or the Nuffield Partnership Assessment Tool ( 36 )(Tower Hamlets). Minor wording changes to both were made to increase relevance, as again tools developed for contexts similar to HDRCs were not found. Additional survey questions HDRCs created additional questions to investigate aims, including about participants’ previous research-related training and/or training preferences, involvement in research, or awareness of research infrastructure. Most HDRCs collected professional characteristics such as role and department. Some collected personal characteristics like education, age, gender, and ethnicity. Characteristics were intended to help understand survey reach and generalisability and, where sample sizes permitted, compare groups. Stakeholder and public involvement Most HDRCs involved professional stakeholders in planning evaluations. Close engagement with local authority staff increased suitability of methods and was expected to enhance ownership for implementing recommendations. Piloting led to changes to reduce survey length, reframe questions, and amend participant consent processes. Involving multiple stakeholders contributed challenges when diverse perspectives created unwieldy surveys, which was anticipated to reduce completion rates. Three HDRCs involved members of the public in developing plans, recruitment approaches, or tool choice, which improved appropriateness of methods. Members of the public were already involved in HDRC work, for example as grant co-applicants. Whilst public involvement is an important cornerstone of HDRCs, payment processes and recruitment pathways were being established alongside baseline assessment work, limiting the scale of public involvement in this work. Participants and recruitment Across HDRCs, all local authority staff, regardless of role or team, plus councillors were eligible to participate in baseline surveys. Some HDRCs prioritised strategies to recruit staff with decision-making responsibilities where research was considered more relevant. HDRC Wakefield adopted maximum-variation purposeful sampling to interview key individuals (e.g., service directors). Survey recruitment strategies included all-staff emails, internal communications, adverts in offices, word of mouth, embedding in email signatures, and promotion at events and meetings. Direct engagement with senior managers aimed to encourage participation and/or top-down dissemination, and additional methods were employed to target certain groups, for example inclusion in councillor bulletins. Face-to-face promotion, where staff were offered refreshments while participating on tablet devices, reportedly substantially improved uptake in HDRC Lambeth. Conversely, there was a report that proactive recruitment of certain groups (e.g. councillors) was avoided due to local contexts, and some HDRCs reported groups (e.g., staff without work email addresses) that did not receive survey invitations directly. We reflected on the importance of understanding and responding to local contexts. For example, some local authorities had higher office attendance where surveys could be more effectively promoted in-person. In other local authorities, remote working was more prevalent, and online group chat channels were more suitable for survey promotion. Surveys also needed to align and be visible alongside other important staff surveys and communications. Decisions were frequently made to maintain parity with other council surveys by not offering incentives (e.g., vouchers or competition entries). Other strategies were recruiting via trusted gatekeepers and enabling anonymous participation. In the two HDRCs using additional surveys to measure the quality of the collaboration, eligible participants were HDRC colleagues involved in implementation or with a specific HDRC role. These participants were recruited via email with reminders and promotion in meetings. Findings from HDRC baseline assessments At the time of writing, seven phase 1 HDRCs (Aberdeen, Coventry, Doncaster, Lambeth, Newcastle, Plymouth, Tower Hamlets) had baseline findings available reporting local authority research capacity, capability, and culture (Table 2 ). HDRCs Coventry and Tower Hamlets additionally contributed findings from surveys assessing early collaboration functioning (Table 3 ). HDRCs’ baseline assessment data were collected between June 2023 and July 2024 for a period between one and five months (with the exception of the pre-HDRC work conducted in Tower Hamlets, which collected data October to December 2021). Key findings are summarised below. Findings from baseline local authority research capacity, capability and culture surveys Survey participants The number of participants in each HDRC ranged from 58 to 282, with response rates between 2 and 3% of local authority employees, with the exception of Lambeth at 10% (Table 2 ). Participants worked across departments, although some groups (e.g., teachers, public health officers) were overrepresented. HDRC Aberdeen received responses from 28.9% of councillors, whilst others received far fewer responses from this group. HDRCs with longer surveys identified high drop-out rates, though final response rates were consistent with shorter surveys. We also collectively reflected about likely sampling bias. Relative to the wider local authority workforce, participants were often more likely to be in managerial roles and/or have higher educational qualifications, which may be linked with greater research experience (i.e., via university degrees). We also considered that surveys about research would recruit respondents more interested in research, and therefore research capacity and capability may have been overestimated (a positive bias). Survey results and interpretations Across HDRCs, survey participants reported diverse levels of research-related skills and experience (Table 2 ). Some groups, such as public health teams, reported higher levels of research involvement, aligning with preliminary qualitative findings by HDRC Wakefield. Due to heterogeneity in survey tools and definitions of research, we could not make direct comparisons between HDRCs. However, findings indicated varying levels of research capacity and capability. Almost half of participants in one local authority reported research activities being part of their role, whereas in another one quarter were involved in any research-related activity in the previous year. Overall, more participants reported applying evidence to decision-making, than reported involvement in primary research. Barriers to using, doing and leading research included lack of infrastructure (e.g., limited journal access and research governance processes) and insufficient time and resource. Many participants wanted to learn more about research, however, and some participants reported that existing skills and training were underused in their local authority roles. Findings provided useful insights into participants’ preferences and needs, for example for training on applying for research funding, and a desire to connect with professional researchers. Table 2 Findings and recommendations related to local authority research capacity and culture measured by five HDRCs Results Aberdeen Coventry Doncaster Lambeth Newcastle Plymouth Tower Hamlets Sample size N = 268. Responses from 3.1% of council staff and 28.9% of councillors Relevant data from N > 250, including 101 complete responses, reflecting approx. 2–4% of council staff N = 58, 2% of council staff N = 282 responses, including 225 complete responses, reflecting approx.10% of council staff N = 100 complete responses, approx. 3% of council staff with email addresses N = 60 2–3% of council staff N = 142 responses, approx. 3% of council staff Data collection June – October 2023 Dec 2023 – February 2024 Sept-Dec 2023 March – June 2024 Jan – March 2024 Oct 2023 – July 2024 Oct – Dec 2021 Participant characteristics Around one quarter of participants were teachers, and otherwise mainly from City Growth (11%) and Children’s and Family Services (10%). Over 20 responses were received from 8 (of 13 total) council directorates (< 20 responses from 5 directorates). 72% had higher education qualification, and over one quarter were managers or leaders. Over 10 responses were received from 3 service areas. 45% had previously undertaken research which was largely as a result of a higher education qualification. 31% were managers. Over 20 responses from 5 (of 8) different directorates. 77% had at least a higher education degree. Over 10 responses were received from 6 (of 7 total) directorates. 85% had higher education, and 27% were managers. Responses were from all 5 directorates (15 sub-directorates), including 18 strategic/senior leaders (30%). 59% had least a higher education degree. Participants were from Place (26% of participants), Resources (25%), Children and Culture (20%), Health (18%), and Governance (11%) Findings related to research culture, capacity, or infrastructure Most had been involved in research when making decisions (78%), writing reports (72.8%), and accessing and drawing upon internal data sources (71.3%). Respondents tended to use and apply existing research rather than conduct primary studies. Around half agreed that the council’s strategic direction and policies are based on evidence. Less than one-third thought that the council works closely with partner organisations in research projects. One quarter had been involved in at least one research-related activity in the past 12 months, most often attending conferences. One quarter had applied research evidence to their work. Perceptions of research as moderately valuable in a council context. Low-medium scores were reported for aspects of organisational research culture and capacity. Results indicated limited awareness of existing research infrastructure, and limited resources (time, capacity) for teams to deliver research. Organisational research culture differed between service areas, with Public Health scoring the highest on the validated research culture index and the highest levels of research activity. Teams with high levels of measurable service delivery, reported the lowest research activity or knowledge of research evidence being applied to their work, but described an appetite to learn and use research. 48% reported research related activities as being part of their role, and 38% were frequently involved in data collection activities. The least frequent research activity was securing research funding. 46% searched for evidence reviews when developing policies. A notable barrier to research involvement was having allocated time for research. One quarter had tools needed to engage in research, which could indicate existing skills are underutilised. Capacity was a barrier to research involvement. Support to be involved in research varied depending on person’s manager and location in organisation. Lack of awareness of existing research, or where to go for research. Self-selecting respondents were interested in, and valued, research, and most thought senior leaders supported research, though were unsure about how research translated into policy/practice. Qualitative findings indicated that there was inconsistency in how research was accessed and carried out across similar roles in the council. 37% had formal training in research, 63% thought research was extremely/very relevant to their role, 68% had the opportunity to discuss research and 68% accessed research literature, with 73% to accessing non-council resources. Promoting evidence-base practice, to guide service developments, supported by senior manager were the strongest areas research practice/culture and organisational infrastructure and planning less developed. Although 67% reported research would improve the quality of their work only 50% reported wanting to be more involved in research, and only 48% wanting to take part in research skills training (particularly analytical skills), with only 23% reporting the capacity to do so. Time and capacity were reported as the largest barriers to undertaking more research 21% of respondents frequent used research findings, predominantly in-house research and national statistics, 48% sometimes do and would like to do so more. Main barriers – not knowing how to access or where from. At organisation level – 48% agreed council values use of research evidence for decision making, 33% felt that senior leaders encouraged use of evidence. 30% of respondents reported that their department or service had commissioned research, predominantly from private sector (80%), with only 12% and 8% from the voluntary and community and higher education sector. Findings related to research-related training, knowledge, and skills Over half reported research skills (e.g., searching literature and collecting data). 11.2% had research qualifications and 19% had professional research experience. The most frequent research related activity was training or continued professional development (80.2%). Participants had varied levels of research training and skills. There were some examples of higher-level training or professional development. Training most often occurred prior to the participant’s role in the council. Over 75% of respondents were interested in future training and development opportunities to develop research skills. Findings indicated topics for training should centre around: effective impact and evaluations, how to apply evidence into practice and co-production with communities. For training and development opportunities there was an equal split between those that preferred face to face engagement and those that preferred online. For 70%, the primary motivator for engaging in research was skill development, though more resources to support training were required. Findings indicated topics for training should be around applying for and securing funding and offering workshops or modules to help develop knowledge. Qualitative findings indicated some staff reported existing research capabilities that were not always fully utilised. In relation to skills and confidence across a range of research activities there was generally a fairly even distribution between extremely and no skills or confidence across a wide range of research areas, with staff reporting being more skills and confidence in engaging user and presenting findings and less in planning research, recruitment and protecting participants from harm. 80% reported that they would like to use research evidence more in their role. Respondents were asked what support would be most helpful. Formal training seen as least helpful. Regular bulletins on research relevant subjects (56%), informal opportunities to meet council colleagues to share expertise (16%), in house training on how to use research (11%), informal in-house opportunities to find out more on using research in my work (11%), access to formal external training (6%) Key recommendations from findings Consider separate, bespoke training for councillors and staff including hands-on training with internal (particularly for councillors) and external data sources, and training on how to better use research. Enable increased involvement of councillors and staff in external research activities. Consider influence of time pressures and work demands when planning activities. Respond to diversity in existing skills and experience through a training offer suitable for introductory to advanced levels. Develop research governance to support the local authority to lead and carry out research. Raise awareness of the HDRC and other external research infrastructure. Recognise and respond to challenging contexts and time pressures when planning activities. Develop a variety of bespoke training and development opportunities including face to face and online workshops. Develop a community of research practice and case studies across several service areas. Create space to share and discuss practice, barriers, and methodologies. Create infrastructure to carry out co-produced research. Enhance research training and support for research-related skills and activities where confidence lower. Consider strategies to enhance time capacity for staff involvement in research. Create space to share and discuss research initiatives and resources. Raise awareness of HDRC work. Develop community of practice, communications and capacity building opportunities. Develop communication and awareness raising activities. Recognise the existing diversity of research skill and experience that was showcased. Harness what is already there as well as build skills. Explore work with key council teams, senior leaders, and management, to create processes and infrastructure that support organisational research and learning. Work ‘bottom up’, involving council staff, academics, and community partners early in research development to promote relevant and impactful research. Facilitate increased access to evidence, including peer-reviewed journal articles, and increase capacity and capability to assess quality of research. Provide introductory training around research to build staff knowledge, skills, and confidence, initially around refining research questions, planning research, recruiting participants and ensuring safe participation in research. Support staff career development including through fellowships and research funding opportunities. Review staff research ideas and consider how those aligning with HDRC priorities can be best supported. Address ‘quick wins’ - only 10% could access peer reviewed journal articles online, 20% not using research evidence don’t as they don’t know where to access it – provide comms and support. Develop/deliver internal programme of training. Connect with NIHR (looking into identifying learning needs in non-NHS settings), Explore how to strengthen the championing by senior leaders of using and doing research across the organisation. Take opportunities to strengthen our engagement with higher education and voluntary and community organisations when doing and commissioning research Note. HDRC = Health Determinants Research Collaboration, N = number, NIHR = National Institute for Health and Care Research Table 3 Findings and recommendations related to collaboration functioning measured by two HDRCs Coventry Tower Hamlets Sample sizes N = 20 (53% of eligible HDRC members) N = 20 (65% of eligible HDRC members) Data collection Dec 2023 – February 2024 Feb 2024 Participant characteristics Working in local authority (n = 7), university (n = 5), NHS (n = 3), voluntary, community or social enterprise organisation (n = 3) and/or other (including public contributor) (n = 3). Working in local authority (n = 9), university (n = 7), voluntary, community organisation (n = 2) and/or other (including public contributor) (n = 2). Findings related to collaboration functioning On a five-point agreeability scale, the three items with highest satisfaction were mutual respect, understanding and trust ( M = 4.30), members see HDRC as being in their self-interest ( M = 4.35), and unique purpose ( M = 4.38). Lowest scores (reflecting neutral/no opinion) were for multiple layers of participation ( M = 3.15), sufficient funds, staff, materials, and time (M = 3.20), and development of clear rules and policy guidelines ( M = 3.35). Due to the substantial scale of the HDRC and challenging contexts, qualitative comments suggested greater reflective discussion was needed, as well as identifying ways to enhance capacity to engage among collaborating organisations. The partnership was largely achieving its aims and objectives and the principles of partnership performing reasonably well. The highest performing partnership principle was Develop Clarity and Realism of Purpose (17.7 / 24), while the lowest performing partnership principle was Recognise and Accept the Need for Partnership (16.7 / 24). Findings indicated the partnership had clear values and success criteria. However, the vision could be inconsistent between partners and successes should be better communicated. Clarifying when and how partners should work more independently, and ensuring the partnership does not become too council-dominated were indicated. Key recommendations from the findings Collaboratively review internal communication pathways to enable reflective practice. Identify ways of increasing capacity and connectedness of collaborators, including via streamlined communication, prioritization of available resource, and engaging widely with individuals from across collaborating organisations. Ensure the HDRC vision is clear for all partners. Consider strategic operational arrangements to support autonomy and workload distribution, and that partners all value involvement. Consider mechanisms for how successes are communicated. Note . HDRC = Health Determinants Research Collaboration. N = number. M = mean. Responding to the challenging demands on resource and capacity within local authorities will be fundamental to implementing functional and sustainable HDRCs. Findings from baseline assessments of collaboration functioning Participants HDRCs Coventry and Tower Hamlets each recruited 20 participants from their HDRC teams, with response rates of 53% and 65% respectively (Table 3 ). Fewer responses were from HDRC members more peripherally involved, for example steering or executive committee members, compared to workstream leads. Results and interpretation Results from both HDRCs indicated their collaboration was functioning well, though different survey tools used by each HDRC explored different domains of collaboration (Table 3 ). For example, Coventry participants were highly satisfied with respect, understanding and trust in the collaboration, and reported that the HDRC had a unique purpose aligned with individual interests( 28 ). In Tower Hamlets’ survey, participants appraised their HDRC as achieving its aims to date, with clear values and success criteria. Scores and qualitative comments in both HDRCs resulted in recommendations to revise communication pathways, including strategies to facilitate more reflection as a collaboration, clarify roles, and share successes, to build on the collaborative foundations established. Discussion In this article, embedded evaluators from 10 HDRCs shared reflections regarding the planning, delivery, and interpretation of baseline assessments. Through involvement in a peer-support group, as evaluators we benefitted from shared critical discussions about baseline assessment methodology, strategies, tools, and the definitions and framing of concepts including ‘research’. Fellow evaluators acted as critical friends, and the forum provided an opportunity to share knowledge and expertise in a group with diverse academic and local authority backgrounds. Despite exploring opportunities to align data collection methods, local contexts contributed to HDRCs adopting different approaches. There was variation in team and stakeholder involvement, ethical and governance approvals, methodology, definitions of research, use and adaptation of validated tools, and participant recruitment. All 10 HDRC baseline assessments aimed to assess local authority research capacity, capability and culture, and two also explored HDRC team culture. Most HDRCs used surveys, though survey design varied without suitable ‘off the shelf’ tools available and the influence of local contexts. Local authority surveys also experienced low response rates, and evaluators recognised the competing political and financial challenges of many local authorities that may have contributed to this outcome( 37 ). However, findings provided valuable insights to inform the development of HDRCs and learning that can be taken forward in evaluations of HDRCs and similar contexts. Considerations for evaluating research collaborations hosted in local government Given the challenges of early HDRC implementation, including staff recruitment and competing priorities( 22 ) and unavoidable pressures in local authorities, as embedded evaluators we frequently developed pragmatic baseline methods to capture timely assessments. The baseline assessments provided early insights to pragmatically influence HDRC development and evaluation, and many teams were planning additional work to evaluate other aspects of HDRC implementation and impact moving forwards. A key strength of evaluators being embedded in HDRCs was that findings could be actively mobilised within HDRCs in timely ways, for example by engaging with interested participants or shaping training provisions. Moreover, contextual factors or local challenges could be accounted for in method design, in turn supporting the recruitment of participants to baseline assessments. Engaging with local authority stakeholders was considered important to shape baseline assessment methods appropriate for local contexts( 38 ), though contributed to heterogeneity across HDRCs. As existing research culture and capacity measurement tools were not validated across local government contexts( 26 , 27 , 31 ), most HDRCs chose to modify tools, or create new ones. Evaluators also defined research differently, from more academic definitions to broader notions of research and evidence, reflecting variation in HDRC workplans and wider debates( 39 , 40 ). These variations limited opportunity to compare findings, and highlight how ‘research’ has a different meaning across sectors, which may influence how HDRCs work in practice and how their success will be judged. Though not available at the time of these baseline assessments, work is currently ongoing to develop a new validated tool, and to recognise and define the components of ‘research’ in local government contexts( 40 ). These developments, if used widely and consistently, may facilitate a more integrated understanding of local government research culture and capacity and support practical application of evidence. Among HDRCs who were able to share findings from baseline assessments, low response rates and likely sampling bias were consistent challenges, for both shorter and longer-length surveys. A recent review of response rates for surveys with local government professionals reported a highly variable range between 1.4% and 96.7%, with a downward trend in recent decades( 41 ). Defining the study population is an important consideration when assessing response rates. Response rates among HDRC baseline assessments typically used the entire local authority workforce as denominator, yet some groups (e.g., those with ‘offline’ roles and without regular access to a work email) were unlikely to see the survey promotion. The low response rates might also reflect that those in certain roles (e.g., without decision-making responsibilities) may perceive a survey about research culture to not be relevant to their roles. Our HDRC evaluation peer-support group identified feasible and successful recruitment strategies (proactive, visible, and regular engagement with council teams) along with others which were less suitable in council contexts (e.g. use of financial incentives). Evidence also supports engagement with stakeholders and senior staff who are well-placed to endorse surveys and implement findings( 42 ), alongside increased notifications and completion reminders( 43 ). Considerations for implementing research collaborations hosted in local government Baseline assessments provided useful insights for HDRCs building and implementing research infrastructure, developing inclusive training offers, and promoting engagement and awareness of HDRCs. Baseline findings from the seven HDRCs with results available suggest that improvements to research infrastructure are required to facilitate local authority involvement with research. Consistent with previous studies, barriers to involvement included insufficient training opportunities, time, and capacity( 14 , 16 , 34 , 44 ), and HDRCs may consider ensuring training opportunities and research involvement can effectively align with existing work pressures and activities. Findings from the UK social care workforce have also reported low involvement in research, despite higher levels of interest ( 33 ), consistent with findings from HDRCs and wider literature( 34 , 44 ). Indications that existing staff research skills and experience may be underutilised in local government have also been reported( 18 ). HDRCs are therefore likely to benefit from actively identifying and engaging employees with existing research-related interest and skills to champion the purpose and activities of the HDRC. Effective collaboration is essential to realise visions like HDRCs( 7 ). Two HDRCs measured team culture using different tools, and both reported favourable levels of collaboration at this early phase. Their recommendations aligned with insights gained from another whole-systems programme (ActEarly) that aimed to develop research capacity between local authorities, researchers and communities( 45 ). The ActEarly evaluation similarly highlighted the importance of clear communication, aims and scope, a united vision and resources across partners, flexibility in approach, and sufficient levels of resource and infrastructure, whilst recognising the challenges implementing complex programmes amidst changing and complex contexts( 45 ). Strengths and Limitations This article brings together the methods, findings and reflections from 10 UK HDRC baseline assessments, collated in September 2024. It offers a snapshot of baseline contexts and findings from this new, innovative research infrastructure. A practical strength of bringing together learning across HDRC baseline assessments is that individual HDRCs have access to broader, generalisable insights about considerations and challenges for implementing and evaluating HDRCs. As embedded evaluators and insiders in our respective HDRCs, we are well placed to support action on the findings of the baseline assessments. A consideration of this work is that 20 HDRCs are being implemented elsewhere, and their evaluation perspectives, methods, local contexts, and points of learning may differ. Conclusion HDRCs are an exciting development in UK research infrastructure, aiming to address the historical gap in funding and research to address the wider determinants of health in local authority and community settings. This work highlights the substantial efforts and achievements of local HDRC evaluation teams, along with the challenges in evaluating research collaborations in complex contexts. It emphasises the need for tailored evaluation approaches and the development of new tools to avoid duplication and heterogeneity, and to enable assessment and comparison of impact across settings. The evidence and insights presented in this article will support ongoing evaluations of HDRCs and similar programmes to develop methodology, deliver rigorous evaluations and generate meaningful evidence of impact. Abbreviations HDRC Health Determinants Research Collaborations NIHR National Institute for Health and Care Research RCC Research Culture and Capacity tool SEER Seeking, Engaging with, and Evaluating Research tool UK United Kingdom CFIR Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science NHS National Health Service VCFSE Voluntary, Community, Faith, and Social Enterprise sector Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable Consent for publication Not applicable Availability of data and materials Not applicable. Written reflections and unpublished reports that were collated to develop this article are available on reasonable request. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This work was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research who provided the funding for Health Determinants Research Collaborations inCoventry [NIHR151356], Lambeth [NIHR151065], Islington [NIHR151399], Newcastle [NIHR151476], Somerset [NIHR159191], Plymouth [NIHR151310], Doncaster [NIHR150691], Tower Hamlets [NIHR150727], Aberdeen [NIHR150995], and Wakefield [NIHR158707]. JS is funded by an NIHR Population Health Career Scientist Award (ref: 303616) Author’s contributions BT, LB, and RC contributed to the conception of the work. All authors (LB, RC, CA, CB, JB, EC, AC, JE, FE, HGS, LH, CW, JS, DS, IS, ST, JW, BT) contributed to the design and acquisition and interpretation of data. The work was drafted by LB, substantially revised by RC and BT, and then by all authors. All authors have approved the submitted version AND agreed to be personally accountable for the work. Acknowledgements All Health Determinants Research Collaborations express thanks to their teams and colleagues who supported the delivery of baseline assessments, and to the wider HDRC evaluation peer-support group. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. References Local Government Association. Social determinants of health and the role of local government. 2020. Available from: https://www.local.gov.uk/publications/social-determinants-health-and-role-local-government [accessed 17 January 2025] Local Government Information Unit. Information about local government. 2024 Available from: https://lgiu.org/resources/local-government-facts-and-figures/local-government-facts-and-figures-england/ [accessed 17 January 2025] Marmot M. Fair Society, Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review: strategic review of health inequalities in England Post 2010. 2010. Available from: https://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review [accessed 17 January 2025] Ferreira C, Broughton K, Broadhurst K, Ferreira J. Collaborative innovation in a local authority – ‘local economic development-by-project’? Public Management Review. 2024;26(5):1405–23. doi.10.1080/14719037.2023.2185663 Local Government Association. Local government budget setting surveys 2024/25. 2024. Available from: https://www.local.gov.uk/publications/local-government-budget-setting-surveys-202425 [accessed 17 January 2025] Brownson RC, Fielding JE, Maylahn CM. Evidence-Based Public Health: A Fundamental Concept for Public Health Practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30(1):175–201. 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100134 Hock ES, Scope A, Booth A. Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review. Evidence & Policy. 2023;1–26. doi.10.1332/17442648Y2023D000000002 Giffoni F, Vignetti S, Kroll H, Zenker A, Schubert T, Becker E, et al. Working note on Research Infrastructure Typology (Deliverable 3.1). 2018. UK Research and Innovation. UKRI Strategy 2022–2027: Transforming tomorrow together. 2022. Available from: https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/UKRI-210422-Strategy2022To 2027TransformingTomorrowTogether.pdf [accessed 17 January 2025] National Institute for Health and Care Research. What we do. 2024. Available from: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/what-we-do [accessed 17 January 2025] National Institute for Health and Care Research. NIHR Annual Report 2023/24. 2024. Available from: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/nihr-annual-report-202324 [accessed 17 January 2025] King’s Fund Round Table. How can the NIHR work with local government to increase the relevance of public health research to practice and policy? 2018. Available upon request from: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/exploring-how-support-local-government-health-research [accessed 17 January 2025] National Institute for Health and Care Research. Exploring how to support local government health research. 2022. Available from: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/exploring-how-support-local-government-health-research [accessed 17 January 2025] National Institute for Health and Care Research Public Health Research. Local Authority Research Systems Call. 2022 Unpublished. Available on request from: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/exploring-how-support-local-government-health-research [accessed 17 January 2025] Homer C, Woodall J, Freeman C, South J, Cooke J, Holliday J, et al. Changing the culture: a qualitative study exploring research capacity in local government. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1341. doi.10.1186/s12889-022-13758-w McGee CE, Barlow-Pay M, Vassilev I, Baird J, Fenge LA, Chase D, et al. Supporting and enabling health research in a local authority (SERLA): an exploratory study. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1316. doi.10.1186/s12889-022-13396-2 West J, Wright J, Bridges S, Cartwright C, Ciesla K, Pickett K, et al. Developing a model for health determinants research within local government: lessons from a large, urban local authority. Wellcome Open Research. 2022;6(276). Available from: https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/6-276/v2 [accessed 17 January 2025] Cheetham M, Redgate S, van de Graaf P, Hunter R, Ritson L, Adamson A, et al. Local Authority Champions of Research Project: A Report for the Health Foundation. 2019. Available from: https://www.fuse.ac.uk/askfuse/resources/LACoR%20report%20final%20311019%20draft%20for%20website.pdf [accessed 17 January 2025] van der Graaf P, Cheetham M, Redgate S, Humble C, Adamson A. Co-production in local government: process, codification and capacity building of new knowledge in collective reflection spaces. Workshops findings from a UK mixed methods study. Health Research Policy & Systems. 2021;19(1):1–13. doi.10.1186/s12961-021-00677-2 National Institute for Health and Care Research. Health Determinants Research Collaborations. 2023. Available from: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/explore-nihr/support/health-determinants-research-collaborations.htm [accessed 17 January 2025] Kislov R, Wilson PM, Knowles S, Boaden R. Learning from the emergence of NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs): a systematic review of evaluations. Implementation Science. 2018;13(1):111. doi.10.1186/s13012-018-0805-y Newbury-Birch D, Harbin K, Adamson A, Asthana S, Batey C, Buffardi AL, et al. Establishing Research Ecosystems in Local Government: Ten lessons from the front line of the first year of the NIHR Health Determinants Research Collaborations (HDRCs). NIHR Open Res. 2024;4(11):11. doi.10.3310/nihropenres.1115225.1 Wakefield J, Lavender S, Nixon K, Hornby S, Dobel-Ober D, Lambley-Burke R, et al. Social Work and Social Care: Mapping Workforce Engagement, Relevance, Experience and Interest in Research. The British Journal of Social Work. 2022;52(4):2291–311. doi.10.1093/bjsw/bcab169 Harvey D, Plummer D, Pighills A, Pain T. Practitioner Research Capacity: A Survey of Social Workers in Northern Queensland. Australian Social Work. 2013;66(4):540–54. doi.10.1080/0312407X.2012.754916 Tawodzera O, Glasby J. Who decides ‘what works’, and how does it get implemented? Insights from the UK’s new centre for implementing evidence in adult social care. International Journal of Care and Caring. 2024;1–20. 10.1332/23978821Y2024D000000034 Holden L, Pager S, Golenko X, Ware RS. Validation of the research capacity and culture (RCC) tool: measuring RCC at individual, team and organisation levels. Aust J Prim Health. 2012;18(1):62–7. doi.10.1071/PY10081 Brennan SE, McKenzie JE, Turner T, Redman S, Makkar S, Williamson A, et al. Development and validation of SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research): a measure of policymakers’ capacity to engage with and use research. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2017;15(1):1. doi.10.1186/s12961-016-0162-8 Bell, L, Chapman R, Taylor B. Early Assessment of Research Culture, Capacity, and Collaboration in the Coventry Health Determinants Research Collaboration. NIHR Open Research. 2025. (in press) Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Widerquist MAO, Lowery J. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science. 2022;17(1):75. doi.10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0 Health Research Authority. Is my study research? Available from: https://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/research/ [accessed 17 January 2025] Watson B, Clarke C, Swallow V, Forster S. Exploratory factor analysis of the research and development culture index among qualified nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2005;14(9):1042–7. doi.10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01214.x PROSCI. The Prosci ADKAR model. 2024. Available from: https://www.prosci.com/methodology/adkar Wakefield J, Lavender S, Nixon K, Hornby S, Dobel-Ober D, Lambley-Burke R, et al. Social Work and Social Care: Mapping Workforce Engagement, Relevance, Experience and Interest in Research. The British Journal of Social Work. 2022;52(4):2291–311. doi.10.1093/bjsw/bcab169 Wright J, West J, Bridges S, Cartwright C, Ciesla K, Pickett K, et al. A local authority research system (LARS) for Bradford: Final Report. 2020. Available from: https://actearly.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Appendix-D-Report-version-for-our-local-partners.pdf [accessed 17 January 2025] Amherst H Wilder Foundation. Collaboration Factors Inventory, 3rd Edition. 2018. Available from: https://www.wilder.org/wilder-research/research-library/collaboration-factors-inventory [accessed 17 January 2025] Hardy B, Hudson B, Waddington E. Assessing Strategic Partnership: The Partnership Assessment Tool. 2003 Stride G, Woods M. The State of Local Government Finance in England 2024. Local Government Information Unit. 2024. Available from: https://lgiu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/State-of-Local-Government-Finance-in-England-2024.pdf [accessed 17 January 2025] Huzzard T. Achieving impact: exploring the challenge of stakeholder engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2021;30(3):379–89. doi.10.1080/1359432X.2020.1761875 Oliver KA, de Vocht F. Defining ‘evidence’ in public health: a survey of policymakers’ uses and preferences. European Journal of Public Health. 2017;27(suppl_2):112–7. doi.10.1093/eurpub/ckv082 National Institute for Health and Care Research. Research Support Service Specialist Centre for Public Health. 2024. Available from: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/support-and-services/research-support-service/public-health-specialist-centre [accessed 17 January 2025] Krause RM, Fatemi SM, Nguyen Long LA, Arnold G, Hofmeyer SL. What is the Future of Survey-Based Data Collection for Local Government Research? Trends, Strategies, and Recommendations. Urban Affairs Review. 2024;60(3):1094–115. doi.10.1177/107808742311758 Huebner LA, Zacher H. Following Up on Employee Surveys: A Conceptual Framework and Systematic Review. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg .2021.801073 [accessed 17 January 2025] Sammut R, Griscti O, Norman IJ. Strategies to improve response rates to web surveys: A literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2021;123:104058. doi.10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104058 Woodall J, Homer C, Freeman C, South J, Cooke J, Holliday J, et al. Evidence-based decision-making in a climate of political expediency: insights from local government. Perspect Public Health. 2024. doi.10.1177/175791392412568 Nixon L, Sheard L, Sheringham J, Creaser A, Iqbal H, Gansallo P, et al. Navigating the complexity of a collaborative, system-wide public health programme: learning from a longitudinal qualitative evaluation of the ActEarly City Collaboratory. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2024;22(1):138. doi.10.1186/s12961-024-01227-2 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 26 May, 2025 Read the published version in Health Research Policy and Systems → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 08 Mar, 2025 Reviews received at journal 04 Mar, 2025 Reviews received at journal 24 Feb, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 24 Feb, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Feb, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 21 Feb, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 20 Feb, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 20 Feb, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 20 Feb, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 29 Jan, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 29 Jan, 2025 First submitted to journal 27 Jan, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-5915088\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Research Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":425888954,\"identity\":\"754e7953-05ba-483f-82aa-ce6aafccf54d\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"Lauren Bell\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Health Determinants Research Collaboration Coventry, Coventry City Council\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Lauren\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Bell\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":425888955,\"identity\":\"193eaf40-55d5-4865-8a6e-78fdc4a5835d\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"Rachel Chapman\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Rachel\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Chapman\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":425888956,\"identity\":\"18452a21-7801-455d-9da2-4970f22c4bb0\",\"order_by\":2,\"name\":\"Charlotte Ashton\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Health Determinants Research Collaboration Islington, Islington Council\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Charlotte\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Ashton\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":425888957,\"identity\":\"101af86e-25d6-4e9b-aa52-35077a394db4\",\"order_by\":3,\"name\":\"Claire Batey\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Health Determinants Research Collaboration Newcastle, Newcastle City Council\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Claire\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Batey\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":425888958,\"identity\":\"b597bf0f-bf68-4f9f-8715-92e02b0de6b5\",\"order_by\":4,\"name\":\"Jack Brazier\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Health Determinants Research Collaboration Somerset, Somerset Council\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Jack\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Brazier\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":425888959,\"identity\":\"0bf5ae06-d85f-43df-8929-8131b8cc9f3f\",\"order_by\":5,\"name\":\"Elizabeth Castle\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Health Determinants Research Collaboration Newcastle, Newcastle City Council\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Elizabeth\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Castle\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":425888960,\"identity\":\"fa0856e7-689a-429a-b7a4-819ff1637460\",\"order_by\":6,\"name\":\"Arundeep Chaggar\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Health Determinants Research Collaboration Lambeth\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Arundeep\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Chaggar\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":425888961,\"identity\":\"4993d2f6-295d-49d0-8d2a-0ef25bc0eb8d\",\"order_by\":7,\"name\":\"Julian Elston\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"University of Plymouth\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Julian\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Elston\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":425888962,\"identity\":\"eeece4e4-c46a-4104-a25f-39cf16e9c871\",\"order_by\":8,\"name\":\"Faye Esat\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Health Determinants Research Collaboration Doncaster, City of Doncaster Council\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Faye\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Esat\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":425888963,\"identity\":\"03373c9e-2cdb-40c7-b5f9-34c53a35e047\",\"order_by\":9,\"name\":\"Hannah Goldwyn Simpkins\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Health Determinants Research Collaboration Tower Hamlets\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Hannah\",\"middleName\":\"Goldwyn\",\"lastName\":\"Simpkins\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":425888964,\"identity\":\"37d18d0a-e1e4-4ddf-bf47-188148c898ee\",\"order_by\":10,\"name\":\"Leonard Ho\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Health Determinants Research Collaboration Aberdeen, Aberdeen City Council\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Leonard\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Ho\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":425888965,\"identity\":\"617efb0b-004b-45dc-bbd6-83195e5d9ace\",\"order_by\":11,\"name\":\"Cath Quinn\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"University of Plymouth\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Cath\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Quinn\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":425888966,\"identity\":\"ad605b65-cb7d-4ca4-ac5c-aadab006ba24\",\"order_by\":12,\"name\":\"Jessica Sheringham\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"University College London\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Jessica\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Sheringham\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":425888967,\"identity\":\"fa81c933-8a63-49a8-8090-3870500868f3\",\"order_by\":13,\"name\":\"Demelza Smeeth\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Health Determinants Research Collaboration Lambeth\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Demelza\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Smeeth\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":425888968,\"identity\":\"e5577f97-aec4-4adb-846c-2dbea16aabf8\",\"order_by\":14,\"name\":\"Irene Stylianou\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Health Determinants Research Collaboration Lambeth\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Irene\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Stylianou\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":425888969,\"identity\":\"2cf88883-83d1-4c38-9b87-182e3d3c374d\",\"order_by\":15,\"name\":\"Simon Twite\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Health Determinants Research Collaboration Tower Hamlets\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Simon\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Twite\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":425888971,\"identity\":\"94687c40-adce-49bf-8635-35b08e0fa698\",\"order_by\":16,\"name\":\"James Woodall\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Health Determinants Research Collaboration Wakefield\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"James\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Woodall\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":425888973,\"identity\":\"a40e84a6-c8c6-453d-9ef6-1a06e9fbe6aa\",\"order_by\":17,\"name\":\"Beck Taylor\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"University of Warwick\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Beck\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Taylor\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2025-01-27 21:38:12\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5915088/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5915088/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[{\"content\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01323-x\",\"type\":\"published\",\"date\":\"2025-05-26T15:57:23+00:00\"}],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":83782856,\"identity\":\"55f0f05b-488c-40d7-9d4e-b5a664551403\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-06-02 16:07:36\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":1395117,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5915088/v1/edee2a21-8313-42cd-a34b-5bf051e129ba.pdf\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"No competing interests reported.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"Baseline assessments of research capacity, capability and culture in UK local authorities: Reflections from evaluators embedded in Health Determinants Research Collaborations\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"Background\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eLocal government plays a critical role in the lives and health of its residents. In the United Kingdom (UK), local authorities have responsibility for a range of services and policies that impact the wider determinants of health and health inequalities(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e), including housing, transport, education, employment, culture, regeneration, environments, public health, and social care(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR3\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e). Local government often also engages in innovation to support local development, yet operates in political and financially challenging contexts(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR4\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e4\\u003c/span\\u003e). Increasingly, local authorities are tasked with making critical decisions about how to prioritise limited financial resources(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR5\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e5\\u003c/span\\u003e). To ensure that local authority decisions are underpinned by the best available research evidence and meet the needs of local communities(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e6\\u003c/span\\u003e), an enabling research culture and infrastructure is required(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e7\\u003c/span\\u003e). This research infrastructure refers to research-related resources, facilities, funding, expertise, professional development pathways, and data and governance systems that can support the production of research and mobilisation of knowledge into practice(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR8\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e8\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eA well-established research infrastructure facilitates high-quality health research in UK research institutions(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR9\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e9\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e10\\u003c/span\\u003e). The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the largest funder of UK health research, allocates around \\u0026pound;1.3\\u0026nbsp;billion annually to generate health and care research, enabling significant advances in knowledge and health outcomes(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR11\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e11\\u003c/span\\u003e). NIHR, along with other health research funders, provide funding for research infrastructure, as well as for research studies and programmes. Although UK local authorities are uniquely well-placed to build evidence about the wider determinants of health, they have historically been allocated significantly less funding for research programmes and infrastructure than health settings(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR12\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e12\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFunders have recently sought to better understand and increase research resources available to local government, including NIHR-commissioned studies part of the Local Authority Research Systems (LARS) work(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR13\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e13\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e14\\u003c/span\\u003e). The evidence base has reported that existing research infrastructure is often inaccessible to local authorities, with limited staff time and research training(\\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\\\"CR15 CR16\\\" citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e14\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u0026ndash;\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e17\\u003c/span\\u003e). Barriers to collaboration between local authorities, universities, and communities have included discordant research timelines and distrust(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e7\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e14\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR16\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e16\\u003c/span\\u003e). The Local Authority Champions of Research (LACoR) study, funded by the Health Foundation, also found a lack of consensus across local government about what counts as evidence, and that despite interest in using evidence, capacity pressures and governance issues restricted capacity and capability for research(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR18\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e18\\u003c/span\\u003e). Recommendations to increase research co-production with local government included increasing academic researchers\\u0026rsquo; understanding of local government, facilitating communication and knowledge brokering spaces, and engaging with council leaders to ensure political relevance(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR19\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e19\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSince 2022, NIHR has awarded funding to establish 30 UK Health Determinants Research Collaborations (HDRCs), initially for five years. This funding is to build research capacity, capability and culture for evidence-based decision-making on the health determinants. HDRCs are hosted by local authorities with universities, voluntary and community organisations, and other local organisations acting as partners usually within a local geographical area(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR20\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e20\\u003c/span\\u003e). Each HDRC intends to develop research infrastructure suitable for local contexts, with diverse collaborators and approaches. Yet, all HDRCs share similar aims to build local authority research infrastructure, promote a culture of always using research evidence in decision making, involve local people and communities, and ultimately improve health determinants and reduce inequalities(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR20\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e20\\u003c/span\\u003e). Typical workstreams to develop research capacity and capability include training and skills provisions, data processes, governance infrastructure, embedded researcher models, and strengthening involvement of communities and other partners in research.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThere is extensive evidence regarding healthcare and applied health research collaborations, including NIHR-funded infrastructure programmes(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR21\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e21\\u003c/span\\u003e). HDRCs are the first NIHR collaborations hosted in local government, and evaluating the first examples is crucial. An independent study of the national HDRC programme is underway, and HDRCs are each evaluating locally to inform implementation and generate transferable evidence. In 2023, individuals planning local HDRC evaluations established a national peer-support group, meeting monthly to share learning and resources. This group highlighted the unique challenges to evaluating research collaborations in local authority contexts, and we (the authors) produced this reflective article to share our learning.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eArticle aims\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTo describe our early experiences, methods and preliminary insights from baseline assessments of a national programme of local authority-hosted research collaborations (HDRCs), to influence policy, practice and evaluation methodology in similar contexts.\\u003c/p\\u003e \"},{\"header\":\"Methods\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec3\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec4\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eInvolvement of HDRCs in this article\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEvaluation teams from 10 HDRCs contributed to this article (Aberdeen, Coventry, Doncaster, Islington, Lambeth, Newcastle, Plymouth, Somerset, Tower Hamlets, and Wakefield). HDRCs launched in 2022 (phase 1), except Somerset and Wakefield who launched in 2023 (phase 2), and Islington, which began a \\u0026lsquo;development year\\u0026rsquo; in 2022 and launched in 2023(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR20\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e20\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e22\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEvaluators in the peer-support group with a finalised \\u0026lsquo;baseline assessment\\u0026rsquo; protocol by June 2024 were invited to contribute to this reflective article. \\u0026lsquo;Baseline assessment\\u0026rsquo; refers to the initial phase of data collection in HDRC evaluations. The first year of HDRCs involved foundational activities such as recruiting staff (including evaluation teams), setting programme aims and objectives, and developing evaluation protocols(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e22\\u003c/span\\u003e). Baseline assessments therefore may not have preceded all HDRC implementation, but still did reflect the early phases of implementation within the first two years of funding. HDRCs were not required to contribute findings to this article, reflecting the value of HDRCs sharing their experiences and learning from developing baseline assessments to date.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eApproach to developing this article\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e Evaluation teams\\u0026rsquo; decisions and reflections about baseline assessments were gathered during group discussions and written submissions. Two online meetings were held and recorded in June and September 2024 to produce detailed notes; formal transcriptions were not obtained. Each HDRC submitted written information about the design, development, and conduct of their baseline assessment, plus findings and reflections to date. HDRC Coventry (LB, RC, BT) collated and interpreted these contributions, highlighting areas for further discussion in the second meeting. The article was drafted (LB, RC, BT) and then revised by all authors.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Results\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec7\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eReflections and experiences of planning and delivering HDRC baseline assessments\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEach HDRC evaluation team\\u0026rsquo;s baseline assessment is described in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec8\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eEvaluation teams\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eContributing evaluators to this article were embedded members of a HDRC and involved in wider HDRC meetings or workstreams. Evaluation teams comprised of either local authority professionals, academic researchers, or individuals from a mix of collaborating organisations, and were diverse in seniority, research and practice expertise. Our degree of embeddedness also varied. Some worked full time across different HDRC activities, and others delivered the evaluation part-time alongside roles outside the HDRC. Being embedded offered us valuable insights, for example to support plans to align with each local authority\\u0026rsquo;s norms and processes, and accounting for contextual factors present at each locality. Our embeddedness also led to\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab1\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 1\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eDescriptions of baseline assessments conducted by HDRCs contributing to this article.\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"11\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\" colnum=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\" colnum=\\\"7\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\" colnum=\\\"8\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\" colnum=\\\"9\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\" colnum=\\\"10\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c11\\\" colnum=\\\"11\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"8\\\" nameend=\\\"c9\\\" namest=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePhase 1 HDRCs\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\" nameend=\\\"c11\\\" namest=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePhase 2 HDRCs\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAberdeen\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCoventry\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDoncaster\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIslington\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLambeth\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNewcastle\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePlymouth\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTower Hamlets\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSomerset\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c11\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWakefield\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEvaluation team\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEmbedded evaluation by HDRC Skills \\u0026amp; Culture workstream. Mixed team with roles in local authority.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEmbedded evaluation led by HDRC evaluation workstream. Mixed team with roles in local authority, NHS, and university.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEmbedded evaluation with HDRC evaluation lead researcher working in the local authority.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEmbedded evaluation with HDRC evaluation leads working in the local authority AND university.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEmbedded evaluation by HDRC team in the local authority and students\\u0026rsquo; input.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEmbedded evaluation led by HDRC knowledge mobilisation lead working in the local authority.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEmbedded evaluation led by university researchers in the HDRC team.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEmbedded evaluation team in the local authority with advice from university partners. Also plans for external evaluation contract.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEmbedded evaluation by HDRC team, led by Business Development and Research Intelligence Workstream, and supported by other HDRC workstreams, embedded researchers from partner university and voluntary, community, faith, and social enterprise (VCFSE) sector.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c11\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEmbedded evaluation led by researchers in the HDRC\\u0026rsquo;s university partner.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBaseline assessment aims\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnderstand different aspects of local authority research culture and capacity\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnderstand\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1) different aspects of local authority research culture and capacity\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2) how well the HDRC are functioning together\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnderstand different aspects of local authority research culture and training preferences\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eObtain baseline measures to enable evaluation of the process and outcomes of HDRC\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnderstand different aspects of local authority research culture and capacity\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnderstand different aspects of local authority research culture and infrastructure, and identify staff interested in being involved in research activity\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnderstand different aspects of local authority research culture and capacity \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnderstand 1) different aspects of local authority research culture and capacity.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2) how well the HDRC collaboration are functioning together\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnderstand different aspects of research culture and capacity in the local authority and VCFSE. Identify research training needs, and priority areas\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c11\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnderstand different aspects of local authority research culture and capacity\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEthics and governance approvals\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLocal approvals\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFormal university ethical approval and local approvals\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFormal university ethical approval and local approvals\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFormal university ethical approval and local approvals\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLocal approvals by HDRC leads\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eApproval sought from HDRC director and service manager and Asst Chief Executive\\u0026rsquo;s directorate leadership team\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLocal approvals\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1) Local approvals from local authority directors\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2)Formal university ethical approval and local approvals\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFormal university ethical approval and compliance with local governance processes\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c11\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFormal university ethical approval and local approvals\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDesign\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOnline survey \\u0026ndash; quantitative questions plus open-ended questions\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOnline survey for each of evaluation aims one and two. Both surveys included quantitative measures plus open-ended questions\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOnline survey\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1) Facilitated team or group surveys with local authority and voluntary sector groups,\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2) Interviews with staff and partners, and,\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3) Online survey\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOnline survey \\u0026ndash; quantitative measures plus open-ended questions\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOnline survey \\u0026ndash; quantitative measures plus open-ended questions. The survey was complemented by individual interviews in one council directorate\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOnline survey \\u0026ndash; quantitative measures plus open-ended questions\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1\\u0026thinsp;+\\u0026thinsp;2) Online survey - quantitative measures plus open-ended questions\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFocus groups, interviews, and online surveys with local authority and VCFSE representatives\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c11\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eInterviews with purposefully sampled local authority participants\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePublic and stakeholder involvement and piloting\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDeveloped by evaluation team only. Piloted with HDRC and local authority team.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTwo HDRC public co-applicants involved in tool choice; input from HDRC collaborators on plans. Piloted in local authority HDRC team.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eInvolvement of steering group with academic, community group, and local authority representatives. Piloted in two local authorities.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eResident involved in developing approach and methods; input from HDRC embedded researchers. Piloted in local authority teams.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDeveloped by evaluation team only. Piloted with HDRC and local authority team.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eInput from local authority colleagues. Piloted in local authority teams\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eInput from HDRC embedded team. Piloted with local authority team.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1)Input from local authority colleagues\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2) Input from HDRC collaborators on proposals. Piloted in local authority teams.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eConsultation with local authority stakeholders about best engaging participant across the organisation. Local authority colleagues were also involved in developing the topic guide.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c11\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDeveloped by evaluation team only.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eInclusion or adaptation of existing tools and frameworks\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBespoke 32-question tool informed by RCC but developed to suit local authority contexts.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1) RCC and perceived value subscale of SEER, language adapted for clarity in local authority contexts.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2) Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory, language adapted to HDRC.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eResearch and Development Culture Index adapted to local authority terminology.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1) Shortened version of SEER to reduce completion time and duplication, language adapted to a group. \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2) Informed by CFIR.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3) Adapted Research Culture and Capacity Tool\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAdapted RCC and SEER, changes to improve relevance and ease to participants and reduce completion time.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSix bespoke questions developed for local authority contexts, though informed by RCC and SEER domains.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBespoke questions informed by research capacity and capability domains in existing tools developed in social care, adapted(\\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\\\"CR24\\\" citationid=\\\"CR23\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e23\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u0026ndash;\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e25\\u003c/span\\u003e) to enhance relevance to local authority.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1) Local Authority Research System (LARS) framework\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2) Nuffield Partnership Assessment Tool\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBespoke questions informed by previous work locally.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c11\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTopic guides informed by previous work locally and evidence-informed typology(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e17\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eParticipant eligibility\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAll council staff and councillors\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1) All council staff councillors\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2) HDRC members\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAll council staff and councillors\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAll council staff and councillors and voluntary sector partners\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAll council staff and councillors\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAll council staff and councillors\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAll council staff and councillors\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1) All council staff and councillors\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2) HDRC members\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAll council staff, VCFSE organisation representatives.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c11\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCouncil service directors and leaders\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRecruitment\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePromoted via council intranet and service managers\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1) Broad promotion across council channels and all-staff email. Targeted promotion to leadership roles. completion\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2) Direct email, with reminders.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBroad promotion via all staff email, available on intranet, word of mouth.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBroad promotion across council channels, via HDRC strategic delivery group and manager briefings.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBroad promotion across council channels and all-staff email, shared through professional networks and engagement events.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBroad promotion across council channels and all-staff email cascaded by directorate business managers.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBroad promotion across council channels and all-staff email. Engaged with council leaders to promote.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1) Broad promotion across council channels and all-staff email\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2) Email to eligible participants, with three reminders.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTargeted recruitment via email and joining serve-wide team meetings. Supported by local authority ambassadors. VCFSE organisations were recruited via email and local authority and voluntary alliance communication channels.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c11\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDirect email to eligible participants.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eData collection dates\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eJune 2023 to October 2023\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDecember 2023 \\u0026ndash; February 2024\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSeptember 2023 \\u0026ndash; December 2023\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eJune 2024 \\u0026ndash; February 2025\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMarch 2024 \\u0026ndash; June 2024\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eJanuary 2024 - March 2024\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOctober 2023 \\u0026ndash; July 2024\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c9\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1) October \\u0026ndash; December 2021\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2) February 2024\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c10\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSeptember 2024 \\u0026ndash; Jan 2025\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c11\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eJune 2024 November 2024\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"11\\\" nameend=\\\"c11\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eNote\\u003c/em\\u003e. HDRC\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;Health Determinants Research Collaboration, RCC\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;Research Culture and Capacity tool, SEER\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research, CFIR\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, VCFSE\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;Voluntary, Community, Faith, and Social Enterprise sector\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003echallenges balancing capacity for evaluation work alongside labour-intensive HDRC implementation, leading to more pragmatic baseline assessment designs.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eGovernance processes\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eSix out of the ten HDRCs obtained formal ethical approval from a university committee for the baseline assessment. Approval was obtained where mandatory for university-employed evaluators and/or to facilitate journal publication. Remaining HDRCs determined that ethical approval was not required for this low-risk evaluation activity, though followed local processes (e.g., communication team or director approval). Academic publication was often not a primary goal. Instead, evaluators needed to move quickly to capture timely baseline assessment, with the university ethics process sometimes perceived as a barrier. Some evaluators described challenges navigating usual local authority practice (no ethical approval due to lack of infrastructure) and university processes (mandatory for any data collection). Regardless, ethical practices such as informed consent and anonymous participation were adopted. For some HDRCs, baseline assessments also provided an opportunity to scope and test local HDRC research governance processes being developed.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eAims and methods of HDRCs’ baseline assessments\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec11\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eAims and purpose\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHDRCs\\u0026rsquo; stated aims for their baseline assessment varied, but all aimed to understand their local authority\\u0026rsquo;s research capacity, capability and culture at a very early phase of the HDRC. Tower Hamlets investigated this in 2021, prior to the HDRC, which served as a baseline assessment of research activity in the local authority at the time. Other HDRCs collected baseline assessment data during the first year or two of the HDRC funding period. The topics explored varied, though included involvement with and perceptions of research, training and qualifications, knowledge and skills, organisational support for research, and familiarity with research infrastructure. HDRCs Islington and Somerset also explored these topics with local voluntary, community, faith and social enterprise collaborators.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOne purpose of the baseline assessments was to facilitate summative evaluation of HDRC impact throughout the funding period. Many HDRCs had logic models or theories of change for how implementation would be realised, and the baseline assessments and broader evaluation plans provided an opportunity to test and refine these theories. Understanding early local contexts was also expected to influence HDRC activities in real-time (e.g., training and communication plans), and the baseline assessment was viewed as a tool to raise engagement with the HDRC.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHDRCs Coventry(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR28\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e28\\u003c/span\\u003e) and Tower Hamlets also aimed to understand how the HDRC team leading the implementation were functioning and collaborating at this early phase. Aspects including shared vision, leadership, involvement, communication, and clarity of roles and plans were explored to provide recommendations and monitor collaboration over time.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec12\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eBaseline assessment design\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e The design of the baseline assessment was decided by individual HDRCs and influenced by local contexts, academic expertise, published evidence, and the team\\u0026rsquo;s previous experiences. As evaluators, we reflected that competing demands around early HDRC implementation meant in-depth academic research design was often balanced with available resource. As a result, most HDRCs developed surveys to capture baseline insights, despite longer-term plans for more comprehensive mixed-methods evaluations.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eSurveys.\\u003c/b\\u003e Nine HDRCs developed online surveys hosted on Microsoft Forms, Qualtrics, Google Forms, or Survey Monkey. Surveys included quantitative scales or items, supplemented with open-ended questions to gain qualitative insight. Lengths varied from brief \\u0026lsquo;snapshot\\u0026rsquo; surveys (e.g., six items) to in-depth 20-minute surveys (e.g., approximately 80 items). These differences reflected some HDRCs favouring shorter surveys to increase recruitment, and others prioritising longer surveys with validated tools, sought to enable reliable testing and comparison across studies. All HDRCs intended to repeat surveys (e.g., (bi)-annually), though anticipated modifying tools or recruitment approaches to reflect changing contexts and incorporate learning.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eQualitative and mixed-methods approaches.\\u003c/b\\u003e HDRC Wakefield used a wholly qualitative approach using interviews and focus groups to gather in-depth information and identify thematic areas, building upon previous qualitative work conducted locally. HDRCs Islington, Somerset, and Newcastle planned mixed-methods baseline assessments involving surveys and interviews or focus groups to triangulate evidence. In HDRC Somerset\\u0026rsquo;s baseline assessment, interviews and focus groups were the prioritised methods, though the topic guide was developed into a survey to collect data from participants who did not wish to participate in the qualitative work. HDRC Islington devised a topic guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e29\\u003c/span\\u003e). CFIR was also used by HDRC Coventry to analyse qualitative responses to the team collaboration survey.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSeveral HDRCs reported plans for additional mixed and qualitative work as part of their longer-term evaluation plans, for example conducting interviews towards the end of HDRC year two. In this way, baseline assessments were only one part of broader mixed-methods evaluation methods planned by HDRCs throughout the funding period.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec13\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eSurvey content\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec14\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eDefining research\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDefinitions of \\u0026lsquo;research\\u0026rsquo; provided to participants differed across HDRCs. Some aligned with the academic research-focused UK Health Research Authority definition, whereby research is considered an attempt to derive generalisable or transferable knowledge using scientifically sound methods(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR30\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e30\\u003c/span\\u003e). HDRCs using this definition described how they selected it to enable assessment of change in academic research activity likely to be supported by major funding bodies, and lead to high impact research outputs. Other HDRCs favoured broader definitions of \\u0026lsquo;research\\u0026rsquo; activity, including routine data analysis, consulting, auditing or quality improvement, and benchmarking exercises. This more inclusive definition, which differs from the Health Research Authority definition, intended to recognise and value the different components of \\u0026lsquo;research\\u0026rsquo; activity and \\u0026lsquo;evidence\\u0026rsquo; used in local authority and community contexts and support participants to consider how evidence relates to their roles.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec15\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eUse and adaptation of existing tools and frameworks\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIndependently, and within our peer-support group, we searched for, shared, and critiqued validated tools for measuring research culture and capacity. No tool validated for use in UK local government contexts was identified. Tools most commonly considered were the Research Culture and Capacity (RCC) tool(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e26\\u003c/span\\u003e) and Seeking, Engaging with, and Evaluating Research (SEER)(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR27\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e27\\u003c/span\\u003e). No HDRC had used a validated tool verbatim, and there were varying degrees of adaptation. HDRC Coventry(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR28\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e28\\u003c/span\\u003e) used RCC with minor modifications (items specified \\u0026lsquo;academic\\u0026rsquo; research). HDRC Doncaster used the Research and Culture Development Index(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR31\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e31\\u003c/span\\u003e), and adapted language from the original healthcare context to suit local government. HDRC Aberdeen modelled survey questions on the ADKAR change framework (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR32\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e32\\u003c/span\\u003e) already trusted and familiar to staff and councillors in their local authority. HDRC Plymouth\\u0026rsquo;s survey was informed by previous work and tools to investigate research culture in adult social care(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR24\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e24\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e25\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR33\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e33\\u003c/span\\u003e). Tower Hamlets\\u0026rsquo; pre-HDRC baseline survey was a modified tool initially delivered as part of NIHR funded Local Authority Research System (LARS) work in Bradford(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR34\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e34\\u003c/span\\u003e). Several HDRCs adapted existing tools via partial inclusion of subscales, removing items, or using the tools to create new questions. HDRC Newcastle mapped the underlying domains in RCC and SEER and devised one question per domain to create a shortened tool. In their original formats, tools were considered too long to engage busy participants. Tools also included technical language (e.g., \\u0026lsquo;systematic reviews\\u0026rsquo;) that assumed previous exposure to research. We therefore agreed that developing new tools to investigate local government research capacity, capability, and culture would be beneficial.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHDRCs measuring collaboration functioning adopted either the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory Index (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR35\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e35\\u003c/span\\u003e) (Coventry) or the Nuffield Partnership Assessment Tool (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR36\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e36\\u003c/span\\u003e)(Tower Hamlets). Minor wording changes to both were made to increase relevance, as again tools developed for contexts similar to HDRCs were not found.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec16\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eAdditional survey questions\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHDRCs created additional questions to investigate aims, including about participants\\u0026rsquo; previous research-related training and/or training preferences, involvement in research, or awareness of research infrastructure. Most HDRCs collected professional characteristics such as role and department. Some collected personal characteristics like education, age, gender, and ethnicity. Characteristics were intended to help understand survey reach and generalisability and, where sample sizes permitted, compare groups.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec17\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eStakeholder and public involvement\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMost HDRCs involved professional stakeholders in planning evaluations. Close engagement with local authority staff increased suitability of methods and was expected to enhance ownership for implementing recommendations. Piloting led to changes to reduce survey length, reframe questions, and amend participant consent processes. Involving multiple stakeholders contributed challenges when diverse perspectives created unwieldy surveys, which was anticipated to reduce completion rates.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThree HDRCs involved members of the public in developing plans, recruitment approaches, or tool choice, which improved appropriateness of methods. Members of the public were already involved in HDRC work, for example as grant co-applicants. Whilst public involvement is an important cornerstone of HDRCs, payment processes and recruitment pathways were being established alongside baseline assessment work, limiting the scale of public involvement in this work.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec18\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eParticipants and recruitment\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAcross HDRCs, all local authority staff, regardless of role or team, plus councillors were eligible to participate in baseline surveys. Some HDRCs prioritised strategies to recruit staff with decision-making responsibilities where research was considered more relevant. HDRC Wakefield adopted maximum-variation purposeful sampling to interview key individuals (e.g., service directors).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSurvey recruitment strategies included all-staff emails, internal communications, adverts in offices, word of mouth, embedding in email signatures, and promotion at events and meetings. Direct engagement with senior managers aimed to encourage participation and/or top-down dissemination, and additional methods were employed to target certain groups, for example inclusion in councillor bulletins. Face-to-face promotion, where staff were offered refreshments while participating on tablet devices, reportedly substantially improved uptake in HDRC Lambeth. Conversely, there was a report that proactive recruitment of certain groups (e.g. councillors) was avoided due to local contexts, and some HDRCs reported groups (e.g., staff without work email addresses) that did not receive survey invitations directly. We reflected on the importance of understanding and responding to local contexts. For example, some local authorities had higher office attendance where surveys could be more effectively promoted in-person. In other local authorities, remote working was more prevalent, and online group chat channels were more suitable for survey promotion. Surveys also needed to align and be visible alongside other important staff surveys and communications. Decisions were frequently made to maintain parity with other council surveys by not offering incentives (e.g., vouchers or competition entries). Other strategies were recruiting via trusted gatekeepers and enabling anonymous participation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn the two HDRCs using additional surveys to measure the quality of the collaboration, eligible participants were HDRC colleagues involved in implementation or with a specific HDRC role. These participants were recruited via email with reminders and promotion in meetings.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec19\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eFindings from HDRC baseline assessments\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAt the time of writing, seven phase 1 HDRCs (Aberdeen, Coventry, Doncaster, Lambeth, Newcastle, Plymouth, Tower Hamlets) had baseline findings available reporting local authority research capacity, capability, and culture (Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e). HDRCs Coventry and Tower Hamlets additionally contributed findings from surveys assessing early collaboration functioning (Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab3\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e). HDRCs\\u0026rsquo; baseline assessment data were collected between June 2023 and July 2024 for a period between one and five months (with the exception of the pre-HDRC work conducted in Tower Hamlets, which collected data October to December 2021). Key findings are summarised below.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec20\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eFindings from baseline local authority research capacity, capability and culture surveys\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec21\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eSurvey participants\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe number of participants in each HDRC ranged from 58 to 282, with response rates between 2 and 3% of local authority employees, with the exception of Lambeth at 10% (Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e). Participants worked across departments, although some groups (e.g., teachers, public health officers) were overrepresented. HDRC Aberdeen received responses from 28.9% of councillors, whilst others received far fewer responses from this group. HDRCs with longer surveys identified high drop-out rates, though final response rates were consistent with shorter surveys. We also collectively reflected about likely sampling bias. Relative to the wider local authority workforce, participants were often more likely to be in managerial roles and/or have higher educational qualifications, which may be linked with greater research experience (i.e., via university degrees). We also considered that surveys about research would recruit respondents more interested in research, and therefore research capacity and capability may have been overestimated (a positive bias).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec22\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eSurvey results and interpretations\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAcross HDRCs, survey participants reported diverse levels of research-related skills and experience (Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e). Some groups, such as public health teams, reported higher levels of research involvement, aligning with preliminary qualitative findings by HDRC Wakefield. Due to heterogeneity in survey tools and definitions of research, we could not make direct comparisons between HDRCs. However, findings indicated varying levels of research capacity and capability. Almost half of participants in one local authority reported research activities being part of their role, whereas in another one quarter were involved in any research-related activity in the previous year. Overall, more participants reported applying evidence to decision-making, than reported involvement in primary research. Barriers to using, doing and leading research included lack of infrastructure (e.g., limited journal access and research governance processes) and insufficient time and resource. Many participants wanted to learn more about research, however, and some participants reported that existing skills and training were underused in their local authority roles.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFindings provided useful insights into participants\\u0026rsquo; preferences and needs, for example for training on applying for research funding, and a desire to connect with professional researchers.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab2\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 2\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFindings and recommendations related to local authority research capacity and culture measured by five HDRCs\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\" colnum=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\" colnum=\\\"7\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\" colnum=\\\"8\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eResults\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAberdeen\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCoventry\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDoncaster\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLambeth\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNewcastle\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePlymouth\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTower Hamlets\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSample size\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;268. Responses from 3.1% of council staff and 28.9% of councillors\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRelevant data from \\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026gt;\\u0026thinsp;250, including 101 complete responses, reflecting approx. 2\\u0026ndash;4% of council staff\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;58, 2% of council staff\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;282 responses, including 225 complete responses, reflecting\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eapprox.10% of council staff\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;100 complete responses, approx. 3% of council staff with email addresses\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;60\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2\\u0026ndash;3% of council staff\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;142 responses, approx. 3% of council staff\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eData collection\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eJune \\u0026ndash; October 2023\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDec 2023 \\u0026ndash; February 2024\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSept-Dec 2023\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMarch \\u0026ndash; June 2024\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eJan \\u0026ndash; March 2024\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOct 2023 \\u0026ndash; July 2024\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOct \\u0026ndash; Dec 2021\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eParticipant characteristics\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAround one quarter of participants were teachers, and otherwise mainly from City Growth (11%) and Children\\u0026rsquo;s and Family Services (10%).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOver 20 responses were received from 8 (of 13 total) council directorates (\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;20 responses from 5 directorates). 72% had higher education qualification, and over one quarter were managers or leaders.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOver 10 responses were received from 3 service areas.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e45% had previously undertaken research which was largely as a result of a higher education qualification. 31% were managers.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOver 20 responses from 5 (of 8) different directorates. 77% had at least a higher education degree.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOver 10 responses were received from 6 (of 7 total) directorates. 85% had higher education, and 27% were managers.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eResponses were from all 5 directorates (15 sub-directorates), including 18 strategic/senior leaders (30%). 59% had least a higher education degree.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eParticipants were from Place (26% of participants), Resources (25%), Children and Culture (20%), Health (18%), and Governance (11%)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFindings related to research culture, capacity, or infrastructure\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMost had been involved in research when making decisions (78%), writing reports (72.8%), and accessing and drawing upon internal data sources (71.3%). Respondents tended to use and apply existing research rather than conduct primary studies.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAround half agreed that the council\\u0026rsquo;s strategic direction and policies are based on evidence. Less than one-third thought that the council works closely with partner organisations in research projects.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOne quarter had been involved in at least one research-related activity in the past 12 months, most often attending conferences. One quarter had applied research evidence to their work. Perceptions of research as moderately valuable in a council context.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLow-medium scores were reported for aspects of organisational research culture and capacity. Results indicated limited awareness of existing research infrastructure, and limited resources (time, capacity) for teams to deliver research.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOrganisational research culture differed between service areas, with Public Health scoring the highest on the validated research culture index and the highest levels of research activity.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTeams with high levels of measurable service delivery, reported the lowest research activity or knowledge of research evidence being applied to their work, but described an appetite to learn and use research.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e48% reported research related activities as being part of their role, and 38% were frequently involved in data collection activities. The least frequent research activity was securing research funding.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e46% searched for evidence reviews when developing policies.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eA notable barrier to research involvement was having allocated time for research.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOne quarter had tools needed to engage in research, which could indicate existing skills are underutilised. Capacity was a barrier to research involvement. Support to be involved in research varied depending on person\\u0026rsquo;s manager and location in organisation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLack of awareness of existing research, or where to go for research.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSelf-selecting respondents were interested in, and valued, research, and most thought senior leaders supported research, though were unsure about how research translated into policy/practice.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eQualitative findings indicated that there was inconsistency in how research was accessed and carried out across similar roles in the council.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e37% had formal training in research, 63% thought research was extremely/very relevant to their role, 68% had the opportunity to discuss research and 68% accessed research literature, with 73% to accessing non-council resources.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePromoting evidence-base practice, to guide service developments, supported by senior manager were the strongest areas research practice/culture and organisational infrastructure and planning less developed. Although 67% reported research would improve the quality of their work only 50% reported wanting to be more involved in research, and only 48% wanting to take part in research skills training (particularly analytical skills), with only 23% reporting the capacity to do so. Time and capacity were reported as the largest barriers to undertaking more research\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e21% of respondents frequent used research findings, predominantly in-house research and national statistics, 48% sometimes do and would like to do so more. Main barriers \\u0026ndash; not knowing how to access or where from. At organisation level \\u0026ndash; 48% agreed council values use of research evidence for decision making, 33% felt that senior leaders encouraged use of evidence. 30% of respondents reported that their department or service had commissioned research, predominantly from private sector (80%), with only 12% and 8% from the voluntary and community and higher education sector.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFindings related to research-related training, knowledge, and skills\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOver half reported research skills (e.g., searching literature and collecting data). 11.2% had research qualifications and 19% had professional research experience. The most frequent research related activity was training or continued professional development (80.2%).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eParticipants had varied levels of research training and skills. There were some examples of higher-level training or professional development. Training most often occurred prior to the participant\\u0026rsquo;s role in the council.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOver 75% of respondents were interested in future training and development opportunities to develop research skills. Findings indicated topics for training should centre around: effective impact and evaluations, how to apply evidence into practice and co-production with communities. For training and development opportunities there was an equal split between those that preferred face to face engagement and those that preferred online.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFor 70%, the primary motivator for engaging in research was skill development, though more resources to support training were required. Findings indicated topics for training should be around applying for and securing funding and offering workshops or modules to help develop knowledge.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eQualitative findings indicated some staff reported existing research capabilities that were not always fully utilised.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn relation to skills and confidence across a range of research activities there was generally a fairly even distribution between extremely and no skills or confidence across a wide range of research areas, with staff reporting being more skills and confidence in engaging user and presenting findings and less in planning research, recruitment and protecting participants from harm.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e80% reported that they would like to use research evidence more in their role. Respondents were asked what support would be most helpful. Formal training seen as least helpful. Regular bulletins on research relevant subjects (56%), informal opportunities to meet council colleagues to share expertise (16%), in house training on how to use research (11%), informal in-house opportunities to find out more on using research in my work (11%), access to formal external training (6%)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eKey recommendations from findings\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eConsider separate, bespoke training for councillors and staff including hands-on training with internal (particularly for councillors) and external data sources, and training on how to better use research.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEnable increased involvement of councillors and staff in external research activities.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eConsider influence of time pressures and work demands when planning activities.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRespond to diversity in existing skills and experience through a training offer suitable for introductory to advanced levels.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDevelop research governance to support the local authority to lead and carry out research.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRaise awareness of the HDRC and other external research infrastructure.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRecognise and respond to challenging contexts and time pressures when planning activities.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDevelop a variety of bespoke training and development opportunities including face to face and online workshops. Develop a community of research practice and case studies across several service areas. Create space to share and discuss practice, barriers, and methodologies.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCreate infrastructure to carry out co-produced research.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEnhance research training and support for research-related skills and activities where confidence lower.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eConsider strategies to enhance time capacity for staff involvement in research.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCreate space to share and discuss research initiatives and resources.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRaise awareness of HDRC work.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDevelop community of practice, communications and capacity building opportunities.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDevelop communication and awareness raising activities.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRecognise the existing diversity of research skill and experience that was showcased. Harness what is already there as well as build skills.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eExplore work with key council teams, senior leaders, and management, to create processes and infrastructure that support organisational research and learning. Work \\u0026lsquo;bottom up\\u0026rsquo;, involving council staff, academics, and community partners early in research development to promote relevant and impactful research. Facilitate increased access to evidence, including peer-reviewed journal articles, and increase capacity and capability to assess quality of research. Provide introductory training around research to build staff knowledge, skills, and confidence, initially around refining research questions, planning research, recruiting participants and ensuring safe participation in research. Support staff career development including through fellowships and research funding opportunities. Review staff research ideas and consider how those aligning with HDRC priorities can be best supported.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c8\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAddress \\u0026lsquo;quick wins\\u0026rsquo; - only 10% could access peer reviewed journal articles online, 20% not using research evidence don\\u0026rsquo;t as they don\\u0026rsquo;t know where to access it \\u0026ndash; provide comms and support.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDevelop/deliver internal programme of training. Connect with NIHR (looking into identifying learning needs in non-NHS settings),\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eExplore how to strengthen the championing by senior leaders of using and doing research across the organisation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTake opportunities to strengthen our engagement with higher education and voluntary and community organisations when doing and commissioning research\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"8\\\" nameend=\\\"c8\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eNote.\\u003c/em\\u003e HDRC\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;Health Determinants Research Collaboration, \\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;number, NIHR\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;National Institute for Health and Care Research\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab3\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 3\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFindings and recommendations related to collaboration functioning measured by two HDRCs\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCoventry\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTower Hamlets\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"1\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSample sizes\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;20 (53% of eligible HDRC members)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;20 (65% of eligible HDRC members)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"1\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eData collection\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDec 2023 \\u0026ndash; February 2024\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFeb 2024\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"1\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eParticipant characteristics\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWorking in local authority (n\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;7), university (n\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;5), NHS (n\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;3), voluntary, community or social enterprise organisation (n\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;3) and/or other (including public contributor) (n\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;3).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWorking in local authority (n\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;9), university (n\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;7), voluntary, community organisation (n\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;2) and/or other (including public contributor) (n\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;2).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"1\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFindings related to collaboration functioning\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOn a five-point agreeability scale, the three items with highest satisfaction were mutual respect, understanding and trust (\\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;4.30), members see HDRC as being in their self-interest (\\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;4.35), and unique purpose (\\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;4.38). Lowest scores (reflecting neutral/no opinion) were for multiple layers of participation (\\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;3.15), sufficient funds, staff, materials, and time \\u003cem\\u003e(M\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;3.20), and development of clear rules and policy guidelines (\\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;3.35). Due to the substantial scale of the HDRC and challenging contexts, qualitative comments suggested greater reflective discussion was needed, as well as identifying ways to enhance capacity to engage among collaborating organisations.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe partnership was largely achieving its aims and objectives and the principles of partnership performing reasonably well. The highest performing partnership principle was Develop Clarity and Realism of Purpose (17.7 / 24), while the lowest performing partnership principle was Recognise and Accept the Need for Partnership (16.7 / 24). Findings indicated the partnership had clear values and success criteria. However, the vision could be inconsistent between partners and successes should be better communicated. Clarifying when and how partners should work more independently, and ensuring the partnership does not become too council-dominated were indicated.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"1\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eKey recommendations from the findings\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCollaboratively review internal communication pathways to enable reflective practice.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIdentify ways of increasing capacity and connectedness of collaborators, including via streamlined communication, prioritization of available resource, and engaging widely with individuals from across collaborating organisations.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEnsure the HDRC vision is clear for all partners. Consider strategic operational arrangements to support autonomy and workload distribution, and that partners all value involvement.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eConsider mechanisms for how successes are communicated.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"1\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c3\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eNote\\u003c/em\\u003e. HDRC\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;Health Determinants Research Collaboration. \\u003cem\\u003eN\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;number. \\u003cem\\u003eM\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;mean.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"1\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eResponding to the challenging demands on resource and capacity within local authorities will be fundamental to implementing functional and sustainable HDRCs.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec23\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eFindings from baseline assessments of collaboration functioning\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec24\\\" class=\\\"Section4\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eParticipants\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHDRCs Coventry and Tower Hamlets each recruited 20 participants from their HDRC teams, with response rates of 53% and 65% respectively (Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab3\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e). Fewer responses were from HDRC members more peripherally involved, for example steering or executive committee members, compared to workstream leads.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec25\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eResults and interpretation\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eResults from both HDRCs indicated their collaboration was functioning well, though different survey tools used by each HDRC explored different domains of collaboration (Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab3\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e). For example, Coventry participants were highly satisfied with respect, understanding and trust in the collaboration, and reported that the HDRC had a unique purpose aligned with individual interests(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR28\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e28\\u003c/span\\u003e). In Tower Hamlets\\u0026rsquo; survey, participants appraised their HDRC as achieving its aims to date, with clear values and success criteria. Scores and qualitative comments in both HDRCs resulted in recommendations to revise communication pathways, including strategies to facilitate more reflection as a collaboration, clarify roles, and share successes, to build on the collaborative foundations established.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Discussion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eIn this article, embedded evaluators from 10 HDRCs shared reflections regarding the planning, delivery, and interpretation of baseline assessments. Through involvement in a peer-support group, as evaluators we benefitted from shared critical discussions about baseline assessment methodology, strategies, tools, and the definitions and framing of concepts including \\u0026lsquo;research\\u0026rsquo;. Fellow evaluators acted as critical friends, and the forum provided an opportunity to share knowledge and expertise in a group with diverse academic and local authority backgrounds. Despite exploring opportunities to align data collection methods, local contexts contributed to HDRCs adopting different approaches. There was variation in team and stakeholder involvement, ethical and governance approvals, methodology, definitions of research, use and adaptation of validated tools, and participant recruitment.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e All 10 HDRC baseline assessments aimed to assess local authority research capacity, capability and culture, and two also explored HDRC team culture. Most HDRCs used surveys, though survey design varied without suitable \\u0026lsquo;off the shelf\\u0026rsquo; tools available and the influence of local contexts. Local authority surveys also experienced low response rates, and evaluators recognised the competing political and financial challenges of many local authorities that may have contributed to this outcome(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR37\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e37\\u003c/span\\u003e). However, findings provided valuable insights to inform the development of HDRCs and learning that can be taken forward in evaluations of HDRCs and similar contexts.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec27\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eConsiderations for evaluating research collaborations hosted in local government\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGiven the challenges of early HDRC implementation, including staff recruitment and competing priorities(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e22\\u003c/span\\u003e) and unavoidable pressures in local authorities, as embedded evaluators we frequently developed pragmatic baseline methods to capture timely assessments. The baseline assessments provided early insights to pragmatically influence HDRC development and evaluation, and many teams were planning additional work to evaluate other aspects of HDRC implementation and impact moving forwards. A key strength of evaluators being embedded in HDRCs was that findings could be actively mobilised within HDRCs in timely ways, for example by engaging with interested participants or shaping training provisions. Moreover, contextual factors or local challenges could be accounted for in method design, in turn supporting the recruitment of participants to baseline assessments.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEngaging with local authority stakeholders was considered important to shape baseline assessment methods appropriate for local contexts(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR38\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e38\\u003c/span\\u003e), though contributed to heterogeneity across HDRCs. As existing research culture and capacity measurement tools were not validated across local government contexts(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e26\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR27\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e27\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR31\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e31\\u003c/span\\u003e), most HDRCs chose to modify tools, or create new ones. Evaluators also defined research differently, from more academic definitions to broader notions of research and evidence, reflecting variation in HDRC workplans and wider debates(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR39\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e39\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR40\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e40\\u003c/span\\u003e). These variations limited opportunity to compare findings, and highlight how \\u0026lsquo;research\\u0026rsquo; has a different meaning across sectors, which may influence how HDRCs work in practice and how their success will be judged. Though not available at the time of these baseline assessments, work is currently ongoing to develop a new validated tool, and to recognise and define the components of \\u0026lsquo;research\\u0026rsquo; in local government contexts(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR40\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e40\\u003c/span\\u003e). These developments, if used widely and consistently, may facilitate a more integrated understanding of local government research culture and capacity and support practical application of evidence.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAmong HDRCs who were able to share findings from baseline assessments, low response rates and likely sampling bias were consistent challenges, for both shorter and longer-length surveys. A recent review of response rates for surveys with local government professionals reported a highly variable range between 1.4% and 96.7%, with a downward trend in recent decades(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR41\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e41\\u003c/span\\u003e). Defining the study population is an important consideration when assessing response rates. Response rates among HDRC baseline assessments typically used the entire local authority workforce as denominator, yet some groups (e.g., those with \\u0026lsquo;offline\\u0026rsquo; roles and without regular access to a work email) were unlikely to see the survey promotion. The low response rates might also reflect that those in certain roles (e.g., without decision-making responsibilities) may perceive a survey about research culture to not be relevant to their roles. Our HDRC evaluation peer-support group identified feasible and successful recruitment strategies (proactive, visible, and regular engagement with council teams) along with others which were less suitable in council contexts (e.g. use of financial incentives). Evidence also supports engagement with stakeholders and senior staff who are well-placed to endorse surveys and implement findings(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR42\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e42\\u003c/span\\u003e), alongside increased notifications and completion reminders(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR43\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e43\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec28\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eConsiderations for implementing research collaborations hosted in local government\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBaseline assessments provided useful insights for HDRCs building and implementing research infrastructure, developing inclusive training offers, and promoting engagement and awareness of HDRCs. Baseline findings from the seven HDRCs with results available suggest that improvements to research infrastructure are required to facilitate local authority involvement with research. Consistent with previous studies, barriers to involvement included insufficient training opportunities, time, and capacity(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e14\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR16\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e16\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR34\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e34\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR44\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e44\\u003c/span\\u003e), and HDRCs may consider ensuring training opportunities and research involvement can effectively align with existing work pressures and activities. Findings from the UK social care workforce have also reported low involvement in research, despite higher levels of interest (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR33\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e33\\u003c/span\\u003e), consistent with findings from HDRCs and wider literature(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR34\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e34\\u003c/span\\u003e, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR44\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e44\\u003c/span\\u003e). Indications that existing staff research skills and experience may be underutilised in local government have also been reported(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR18\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e18\\u003c/span\\u003e). HDRCs are therefore likely to benefit from actively identifying and engaging employees with existing research-related interest and skills to champion the purpose and activities of the HDRC.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEffective collaboration is essential to realise visions like HDRCs(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e7\\u003c/span\\u003e). Two HDRCs measured team culture using different tools, and both reported favourable levels of collaboration at this early phase. Their recommendations aligned with insights gained from another whole-systems programme (ActEarly) that aimed to develop research capacity between local authorities, researchers and communities(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR45\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e45\\u003c/span\\u003e). The ActEarly evaluation similarly highlighted the importance of clear communication, aims and scope, a united vision and resources across partners, flexibility in approach, and sufficient levels of resource and infrastructure, whilst recognising the challenges implementing complex programmes amidst changing and complex contexts(\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR45\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e45\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec29\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eStrengths and Limitations\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis article brings together the methods, findings and reflections from 10 UK HDRC baseline assessments, collated in September 2024. It offers a snapshot of baseline contexts and findings from this new, innovative research infrastructure. A practical strength of bringing together learning across HDRC baseline assessments is that individual HDRCs have access to broader, generalisable insights about considerations and challenges for implementing and evaluating HDRCs. As embedded evaluators and insiders in our respective HDRCs, we are well placed to support action on the findings of the baseline assessments. A consideration of this work is that 20 HDRCs are being implemented elsewhere, and their evaluation perspectives, methods, local contexts, and points of learning may differ.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Conclusion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eHDRCs are an exciting development in UK research infrastructure, aiming to address the historical gap in funding and research to address the wider determinants of health in local authority and community settings. This work highlights the substantial efforts and achievements of local HDRC evaluation teams, along with the challenges in evaluating research collaborations in complex contexts. It emphasises the need for tailored evaluation approaches and the development of new tools to avoid duplication and heterogeneity, and to enable assessment and comparison of impact across settings. The evidence and insights presented in this article will support ongoing evaluations of HDRCs and similar programmes to develop methodology, deliver rigorous evaluations and generate meaningful evidence of impact.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Abbreviations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv class=\\\"DefinitionList\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"DefinitionListEntry\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"Term\\\"\\u003eHDRC\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"Description\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHealth Determinants Research Collaborations\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"DefinitionListEntry\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"Term\\\"\\u003eNIHR\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"Description\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNational Institute for Health and Care Research\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"DefinitionListEntry\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"Term\\\"\\u003eRCC\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"Description\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eResearch Culture and Capacity tool\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"DefinitionListEntry\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"Term\\\"\\u003eSEER\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"Description\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSeeking, Engaging with, and Evaluating Research tool\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"DefinitionListEntry\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"Term\\\"\\u003eUK\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"Description\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnited Kingdom\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"DefinitionListEntry\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"Term\\\"\\u003eCFIR\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"Description\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eConsolidated Framework for Implementation Science\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"DefinitionListEntry\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"Term\\\"\\u003eNHS\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"Description\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNational Health Service\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"DefinitionListEntry\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"Term\\\"\\u003eVCFSE\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"Description\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eVoluntary, Community, Faith, and Social Enterprise sector\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Declarations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eNot applicable\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eConsent for publication\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eNot applicable\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAvailability of data and materials\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eNot applicable. Written reflections and unpublished reports that were collated to develop this article are available on reasonable request.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eCompeting interests\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eFunding\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis work was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research who provided the funding for Health Determinants Research Collaborations inCoventry [NIHR151356], Lambeth [NIHR151065], Islington [NIHR151399], Newcastle [NIHR151476], Somerset [NIHR159191], Plymouth [NIHR151310], Doncaster [NIHR150691], Tower Hamlets [NIHR150727], Aberdeen [NIHR150995], and Wakefield [NIHR158707]. JS is funded by an NIHR Population Health Career Scientist Award (ref: 303616)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAuthor’s contributions\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBT, LB, and RC contributed to the conception of the work. All authors (LB, RC, CA, CB, JB, EC, AC, JE, FE, HGS, LH, CW, JS, DS, IS, ST, JW, BT) contributed to the design and acquisition and interpretation of data. The work was drafted by LB, substantially revised by RC and BT, and then by all authors. All authors have approved the submitted version AND agreed to be personally accountable for the work.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAcknowledgements\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAll Health Determinants Research Collaborations express thanks to their teams and colleagues who supported the delivery of baseline assessments, and to the wider HDRC evaluation peer-support group. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLocal Government Association. Social determinants of health and the role of local government. 2020. Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.local.gov.uk/publications/social-determinants-health-and-role-local-government\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.local.gov.uk/publications/social-determinants-health-and-role-local-government\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLocal Government Information Unit. Information about local government. 2024 Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://lgiu.org/resources/local-government-facts-and-figures/local-government-facts-and-figures-england/\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://lgiu.org/resources/local-government-facts-and-figures/local-government-facts-and-figures-england/\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMarmot M. Fair Society, Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review: strategic review of health inequalities in England Post 2010. 2010. Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFerreira C, Broughton K, Broadhurst K, Ferreira J. Collaborative innovation in a local authority \\u0026ndash; \\u0026lsquo;local economic development-by-project\\u0026rsquo;? Public Management Review. 2024;26(5):1405\\u0026ndash;23. doi.10.1080/14719037.2023.2185663\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLocal Government Association. Local government budget setting surveys 2024/25. 2024. Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.local.gov.uk/publications/local-government-budget-setting-surveys-202425\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.local.gov.uk/publications/local-government-budget-setting-surveys-202425\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBrownson RC, Fielding JE, Maylahn CM. Evidence-Based Public Health: A Fundamental Concept for Public Health Practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30(1):175\\u0026ndash;201. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003e10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100134\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100134\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHock ES, Scope A, Booth A. Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review. Evidence \\u0026amp; Policy. 2023;1\\u0026ndash;26. doi.10.1332/17442648Y2023D000000002\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGiffoni F, Vignetti S, Kroll H, Zenker A, Schubert T, Becker E, et al. Working note on Research Infrastructure Typology (Deliverable 3.1). 2018.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eUK Research and Innovation. UKRI Strategy 2022\\u0026ndash;2027: Transforming tomorrow together. 2022. Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/UKRI-210422-Strategy2022To\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/UKRI-210422-Strategy2022To\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e2027TransformingTomorrowTogether.pdf [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNational Institute for Health and Care Research. What we do. 2024. Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/what-we-do\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/what-we-do\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNational Institute for Health and Care Research. NIHR Annual Report 2023/24. 2024. Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.nihr.ac.uk/nihr-annual-report-202324\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.nihr.ac.uk/nihr-annual-report-202324\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKing\\u0026rsquo;s Fund Round Table. How can the NIHR work with local government to increase the relevance of public health research to practice and policy? 2018. Available upon request from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.nihr.ac.uk/exploring-how-support-local-government-health-research\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.nihr.ac.uk/exploring-how-support-local-government-health-research\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNational Institute for Health and Care Research. Exploring how to support local government health research. 2022. Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.nihr.ac.uk/exploring-how-support-local-government-health-research\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.nihr.ac.uk/exploring-how-support-local-government-health-research\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNational Institute for Health and Care Research Public Health Research. Local Authority Research Systems Call. 2022 Unpublished. Available on request from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.nihr.ac.uk/exploring-how-support-local-government-health-research\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.nihr.ac.uk/exploring-how-support-local-government-health-research\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHomer C, Woodall J, Freeman C, South J, Cooke J, Holliday J, et al. Changing the culture: a qualitative study exploring research capacity in local government. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1341. doi.10.1186/s12889-022-13758-w\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMcGee CE, Barlow-Pay M, Vassilev I, Baird J, Fenge LA, Chase D, et al. Supporting and enabling health research in a local authority (SERLA): an exploratory study. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1316. doi.10.1186/s12889-022-13396-2\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWest J, Wright J, Bridges S, Cartwright C, Ciesla K, Pickett K, et al. Developing a model for health determinants research within local government: lessons from a large, urban local authority. Wellcome Open Research. 2022;6(276). Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/6-276/v2\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/6-276/v2\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCheetham M, Redgate S, van de Graaf P, Hunter R, Ritson L, Adamson A, et al. Local Authority Champions of Research Project: A Report for the Health Foundation. 2019. Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.fuse.ac.uk/askfuse/resources/LACoR%20report%20final%20311019%20draft%20for%20website.pdf\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.fuse.ac.uk/askfuse/resources/LACoR%20report%20final%20311019%20draft%20for%20website.pdf\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003evan der Graaf P, Cheetham M, Redgate S, Humble C, Adamson A. Co-production in local government: process, codification and capacity building of new knowledge in collective reflection spaces. Workshops findings from a UK mixed methods study. Health Research Policy \\u0026amp; Systems. 2021;19(1):1\\u0026ndash;13. doi.10.1186/s12961-021-00677-2\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNational Institute for Health and Care Research. Health Determinants Research Collaborations. 2023. Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.nihr.ac.uk/explore-nihr/support/health-determinants-research-collaborations.htm\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.nihr.ac.uk/explore-nihr/support/health-determinants-research-collaborations.htm\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKislov R, Wilson PM, Knowles S, Boaden R. Learning from the emergence of NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs): a systematic review of evaluations. Implementation Science. 2018;13(1):111. doi.10.1186/s13012-018-0805-y\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNewbury-Birch D, Harbin K, Adamson A, Asthana S, Batey C, Buffardi AL, et al. Establishing Research Ecosystems in Local Government: Ten lessons from the front line of the first year of the NIHR Health Determinants Research Collaborations (HDRCs). NIHR Open Res. 2024;4(11):11. doi.10.3310/nihropenres.1115225.1\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWakefield J, Lavender S, Nixon K, Hornby S, Dobel-Ober D, Lambley-Burke R, et al. Social Work and Social Care: Mapping Workforce Engagement, Relevance, Experience and Interest in Research. The British Journal of Social Work. 2022;52(4):2291\\u0026ndash;311. doi.10.1093/bjsw/bcab169\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHarvey D, Plummer D, Pighills A, Pain T. Practitioner Research Capacity: A Survey of Social Workers in Northern Queensland. Australian Social Work. 2013;66(4):540\\u0026ndash;54. doi.10.1080/0312407X.2012.754916\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eTawodzera O, Glasby J. Who decides \\u0026lsquo;what works\\u0026rsquo;, and how does it get implemented? Insights from the UK\\u0026rsquo;s new centre for implementing evidence in adult social care. International Journal of Care and Caring. 2024;1\\u0026ndash;20. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003e10.1332/23978821Y2024D000000034\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1332/23978821Y2024D000000034\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHolden L, Pager S, Golenko X, Ware RS. Validation of the research capacity and culture (RCC) tool: measuring RCC at individual, team and organisation levels. Aust J Prim Health. 2012;18(1):62\\u0026ndash;7. doi.10.1071/PY10081\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBrennan SE, McKenzie JE, Turner T, Redman S, Makkar S, Williamson A, et al. Development and validation of SEER (Seeking, Engaging with and Evaluating Research): a measure of policymakers\\u0026rsquo; capacity to engage with and use research. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2017;15(1):1. doi.10.1186/s12961-016-0162-8\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBell, L, Chapman R, Taylor B. Early Assessment of Research Culture, Capacity, and Collaboration in the Coventry Health Determinants Research Collaboration. NIHR Open Research. 2025. (in press)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDamschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Widerquist MAO, Lowery J. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science. 2022;17(1):75. doi.10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHealth Research Authority. Is my study research? Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/research/\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/research/\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWatson B, Clarke C, Swallow V, Forster S. Exploratory factor analysis of the research and development culture index among qualified nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2005;14(9):1042\\u0026ndash;7. doi.10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01214.x\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ePROSCI. The Prosci ADKAR model. 2024. Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.prosci.com/methodology/adkar\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.prosci.com/methodology/adkar\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWakefield J, Lavender S, Nixon K, Hornby S, Dobel-Ober D, Lambley-Burke R, et al. Social Work and Social Care: Mapping Workforce Engagement, Relevance, Experience and Interest in Research. The British Journal of Social Work. 2022;52(4):2291\\u0026ndash;311. doi.10.1093/bjsw/bcab169\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWright J, West J, Bridges S, Cartwright C, Ciesla K, Pickett K, et al. A local authority research system (LARS) for Bradford: Final Report. 2020. Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://actearly.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Appendix-D-Report-version-for-our-local-partners.pdf\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://actearly.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Appendix-D-Report-version-for-our-local-partners.pdf\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAmherst H Wilder Foundation. Collaboration Factors Inventory, 3rd Edition. 2018. Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.wilder.org/wilder-research/research-library/collaboration-factors-inventory\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.wilder.org/wilder-research/research-library/collaboration-factors-inventory\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHardy B, Hudson B, Waddington E. Assessing Strategic Partnership: The Partnership Assessment Tool. 2003\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eStride G, Woods M. The State of Local Government Finance in England 2024. Local Government Information Unit. 2024. Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://lgiu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/State-of-Local-Government-Finance-in-England-2024.pdf\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://lgiu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/State-of-Local-Government-Finance-in-England-2024.pdf\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHuzzard T. Achieving impact: exploring the challenge of stakeholder engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2021;30(3):379\\u0026ndash;89. doi.10.1080/1359432X.2020.1761875\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eOliver KA, de Vocht F. Defining \\u0026lsquo;evidence\\u0026rsquo; in public health: a survey of policymakers\\u0026rsquo; uses and preferences. European Journal of Public Health. 2017;27(suppl_2):112\\u0026ndash;7. doi.10.1093/eurpub/ckv082\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNational Institute for Health and Care Research. Research Support Service Specialist Centre for Public Health. 2024. Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.nihr.ac.uk/support-and-services/research-support-service/public-health-specialist-centre\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.nihr.ac.uk/support-and-services/research-support-service/public-health-specialist-centre\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKrause RM, Fatemi SM, Nguyen Long LA, Arnold G, Hofmeyer SL. What is the Future of Survey-Based Data Collection for Local Government Research? Trends, Strategies, and Recommendations. Urban Affairs Review. 2024;60(3):1094\\u0026ndash;115. doi.10.1177/107808742311758\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHuebner LA, Zacher H. Following Up on Employee Surveys: A Conceptual Framework and Systematic Review. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12. Available from: \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.2021.801073 [accessed 17 January 2025]\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSammut R, Griscti O, Norman IJ. Strategies to improve response rates to web surveys: A literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2021;123:104058. doi.10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104058\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWoodall J, Homer C, Freeman C, South J, Cooke J, Holliday J, et al. Evidence-based decision-making in a climate of political expediency: insights from local government. Perspect Public Health. 2024. doi.10.1177/175791392412568\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNixon L, Sheard L, Sheringham J, Creaser A, Iqbal H, Gansallo P, et al. Navigating the complexity of a collaborative, system-wide public health programme: learning from a longitudinal qualitative evaluation of the ActEarly City Collaboratory. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2024;22(1):138. doi.10.1186/s12961-024-01227-2\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":false,\"hideJournal\":false,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":true,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"health-research-policy-and-systems\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"externalIdentity\":\"hrps\",\"sideBox\":\"Learn more about [Health Research Policy and Systems](http://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/)\",\"snPcode\":\"12961\",\"submissionUrl\":\"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12961/3\",\"title\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"twitterHandle\":\"@HarpsJournal\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":true,\"editorialSystem\":\"stoa\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"BMC/SO AJ\",\"inReviewEnabled\":true,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true},\"keywords\":\"evaluation, collaboration, inequalities, research capacity, local government, social determinants of health\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5915088/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5915088/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003ch2\\u003eBackground.\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn the United Kingdom, local government is well-placed to conduct and apply research about the wider determinants of health. However, local authorities often lack sufficient research infrastructure to support research capacity, capability and culture. Since 2022, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research has funded 30 Health Determinants Research Collaborations (HDRCs) to develop this infrastructure. HDRCs are hosted by local authorities collaborating with universities and other partners to strengthen a culture of evidence-informed decision making. HDRCs are conducting local evaluations, including baseline assessments of local authority research capacity, capability and culture.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eMethods.\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eA national peer-support group was formed to support shared learning among teams evaluating HDRCs. Here, as embedded evaluators from 10 HDRCs, we present reflections on the planning, delivery, and interpretation of baseline assessments. Reflections were gathered via group discussions and written submissions. All 10 HDRC baseline assessments explored local authority research capacity, capability and culture, and two also studied early HDRC team collaboration.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eResults.\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCompeting priorities during early HDRC implementation called for pragmatic and timely baseline assessment methods. Most HDRCs developed baseline surveys, though interviews and focus groups were conducted by some. Despite similar aims, methods varied substantially according to local contexts. Evaluators often adapted existing validated survey tools, e.g., from health settings, as none were identified for use across local government. Definitions of research also ranged from academic definitions to broader notions of evidence. Useful insights were gathered across diverse samples to aid implementation locally, however low response rates were received to all-staff surveys and heterogenous approaches limited comparison across HDRCs. Findings contributed to recommendations for evaluating and developing HDRC activities (e.g., communications and training provisions) appropriate for local authorities with stretched resources. Where measured, collaborations were functioning well, with recommendations to enhance communication.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eConclusions.\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe early contexts and challenges of HDRCs influenced pragmatic baseline assessments. Methods were often chosen to capture baseline contexts rapidly, and they will be refined and complemented by additional evaluation methods as HDRCs progress. Developing new validated measures and an agreed definition of research for local authorities may strengthen understanding of research capacity, capability and culture across local government.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"Baseline assessments of research capacity, capability and culture in UK local authorities: Reflections from evaluators embedded in Health Determinants Research Collaborations\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2025-03-17 18:21:41\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5915088/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0},{\"type\":\"decision\",\"content\":\"Revision requested\",\"date\":\"2025-03-08T07:04:43+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-03-04T14:59:48+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-02-24T23:02:29+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"157837530730091187934516328102855314956\",\"date\":\"2025-02-24T22:16:08+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"297720251518519638705762549085261509960\",\"date\":\"2025-02-22T23:40:41+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"200652613332462743272182902326247771756\",\"date\":\"2025-02-21T13:11:22+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"63725984543957960106028731476643170690\",\"date\":\"2025-02-20T11:32:15+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"334221169809480929216328187167853481032\",\"date\":\"2025-02-20T09:48:05+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewersInvited\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-02-20T05:38:47+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorAssigned\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-01-29T07:45:08+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"checksComplete\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2025-01-29T07:44:33+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"submitted\",\"content\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"date\":\"2025-01-27T21:27:41+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"health-research-policy-and-systems\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"externalIdentity\":\"hrps\",\"sideBox\":\"Learn more about [Health Research Policy and Systems](http://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/)\",\"snPcode\":\"12961\",\"submissionUrl\":\"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12961/3\",\"title\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"twitterHandle\":\"@HarpsJournal\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":true,\"editorialSystem\":\"stoa\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"BMC/SO AJ\",\"inReviewEnabled\":true,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"b769c59b-52de-438d-9726-17e4d3b85720\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"March 17th, 2025\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"published-in-journal\",\"subjectAreas\":[],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2025-06-02T16:00:42+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":{\"articleIdentity\":\"rs-5915088\",\"link\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01323-x\",\"journal\":{\"identity\":\"health-research-policy-and-systems\",\"isVorOnly\":false,\"title\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\"},\"publishedOn\":\"2025-05-26 15:57:23\",\"publishedOnDateReadable\":\"May 26th, 2025\"},\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2025-03-17 18:21:41\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"10.1186/s12961-025-01323-x\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01323-x\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-5915088\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-5915088\",\"identity\":\"rs-5915088\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}