The NIHR SSCR employ a simple framework to help identify the type of research needed to address a particular social care practice issue, and thereby to identify the methods that might appropriately be employed.
Five broad types of research study are distinguished here: scoping and description; piloting and feasibility; full evaluation; mainstreaming; and methodological.
The purpose is to focus attention on what is already known or understood, and therefore what type of study will generate evidence with greatest value-added and of most relevance to social care practice in England today and in the future.
Scoping, exploratory and hypothesis-generating studies
Scoping, exploratory and hypothesis-generating studies will be commissioned when work is needed to identify needs, key characteristics of interventions that could address them, and desired outcomes.
The tasks in this first type of study will therefore include consultation with people who use services, carers and other stakeholders, investment in appropriate theoretical constructs, hypothesis formulation, literature reviewing, and secondary analysis of extant data.
Description of individual circumstances and needs, of care and support arrangements, of incentive structures and so on will also be helpful. This type of work might also identify key methodological challenges that will need to be addressed in later evaluative work.
This type of research should generate:
-
A publishable output that describes the context and circumstances, explores the issues, and formulates hypotheses about approaches to addressing them (e.g. types and characteristics of interventions or arrangements that will address the identified problem and deliver desired outcomes).
-
Where appropriate, a stakeholder group might be identified as a sounding board to help shape the implications of the work for subsequent research, and how it should be taken forward.
Pilot or feasibility studies
The research tasks in this second type of study will be (a) to identify the most likely alternative approaches (interventions or support arrangements) to address individual and societal needs (including gaining an understanding of the acceptability, functionality, practicability and feasibility of the interventions); and (b) to conduct a small feasibility study of the processes, arrangements or interventions. Studies in this second group will usually be formative, exploring practical implementation issues, understanding care and support processes, and identifying indicative outcomes,
potential unintended consequences and early cost and cost-effectiveness indications. The work could involve consultation with a stakeholder group. The work could also involve development and piloting of methodological approaches that will be required for a full evaluation.
This second type of research should generate:
-
Evidence to support one or more proposed interventions and protocols which appear to be capable of meeting identified or specified needs.
-
Indicative outcome, cost and process findings that either point to the need for a full evaluation (see below) or suggest that further (and usually more expensive) research is unlikely to be helpful.
-
Identification of any practice and research challenges that will need to be overcome in a full evaluation.
-
A publishable output that describes the intervention and key issues that need to be taken into account in putting this into practice.
Full evaluation studies
A third type of study will be a full evaluation that tested the acceptability, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and other aspects of social care arrangements, processes or interventions. This evaluation should be designed as a high-quality study that will be able to generate robust evidence, and that will allow generalisation to a range of circumstances. As ever, in designing and conducting the study, a careful balance will need to be struck between scientific perfection and practically useful evidence. A study of this third type might also include validation and testing of new methodological approaches or measures alongside those already more familiar in the field.
This third type of research should generate:
-
Evidence to support one or more publishable outputs that describe the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, equity implications and other consequences of the arrangements, processes or interventions being evaluated; key issues that need to be taken into account in putting it into practice; and future research questions.
-
A review of the findings and their implications by a stakeholder group.
-
A proposal for next steps. This might set out what needs to be addressed in a broader ('mainstream') study and/or the need to undertake new scoping or hypothesis-generating work.
Mainstreaming studies
There could be good evidence of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, improved equity or other achievements in an experimental context - i.e. from one or more full evaluations - but uncertainty as to how that evidence will play out in everyday contexts, away from the sometimes unreal world of an evaluation setting. (Full-scale evaluations of the third type are not necessarily divorced from reality, but questions will often be raised about the wider relevance of research findings gathered in one particular locality or setting. Indeed, the very process of evaluation can sometimes alter practices and processes so that they no longer resemble everyday arrangements.)
The fourth study type, therefore, will look at social care arrangements, processes or interventions in their 'mainstream' context, and the cumulative relevance of evaluative evidence gleaned from previous studies. Are the earlier evaluation results still valid? Are these social care practices sustainable? How might it be performance-monitored? What incentives are required to sustain good performance? What organisational structures are required to support provision? This type of study might also include development, validation and/or testing of new methodological approaches or measures alongside those already better established.
This type of research should generate:
-
Evidence to support publishable outputs that address the above questions, describing the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, equity and other implications of the arrangement, process or intervention in mainstream practice; identifying key 'real world' practice issues; identifying further research needs.
-
Perhaps a good practice guide.
Methods reviews and studies
The School may occasionally commission reviews of research methods and studies to help to develop or adapt methods so as to be most useful in the social care practice research context.