This paper presents a critical analysis of the development of government policy and practice on health research, development and innovation over the last 25 years – starting from the publication of a seminal report from the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee in 1988. We first set out to map and analyse the trends in ideas and thinking that have shaped research policy and practice over this period, and to put the development of health research, development and innovation in the wider context of health system reforms and changes. We argue that though this has been a transformative period for health research, rather less progress has been made in the domains of development and innovation, and we offer an analysis of why this might be the case. Drawing on advances in our understanding about how research informs practice, we then make the case for a more integrative model of research, development and innovation. This leads us to conclude that recent experiments with Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care and Academic Health Science Centres and Networks offer some important lessons for future policy directions.
Office for National Statistics. Statistical bulletin. UK gross domestic expenditure on research and development, London: ONS, 2011.
2.
UK Clinical Research Collaboration. UK health research analysis 2009/10, London: UKCRC, 2012.
3.
HannaySKuruvillaSSoperB. Who needs what from a national health research system: lessons from reforms to the English Department of Health's R&D system. Health Res Policy Syst2010; 8: 11–11.
4.
GreerSL. Four way bet: how devolution has led to four different models for the NHS, London: UCL Constitution Unit, 2004.
5.
ShawSE. Reaching the parts that other theories and methods can’t reach: how and why a policy-as-discourse approach can inform health-related policy. Health2010; 14: 196–212.
6.
Heineman RA, Bluhm WT, Peterson SA, et al. The world of the policy analyst: rationality, values & politics. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press, 2001.
7.
House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee. Priorities in medical research, London: HMSO, 1988.
8.
DobbsER. The organisation and control of scientific research by the United Kingdom government. Higher Educ1972; 1: 345–355.
9.
SmithR. The sickening of medical research: multiple diagnoses and two remedies. BMJ1988; 296: 1079–1080.
10.
BlackN. A national strategy for research and development: lessons from England. Annu Rev Public Health1997; 18: 485–505.
11.
Department of Health. Research for health: a research and development strategy for the NHS, London: DH, 1991.
12.
ShawSEGreenhalghT. Best research – for what? Best health – for whom? A critical exploration of primary care research using discourse analysis. Soc Sci Med2008; 66: 2506–2519.
13.
National Institute for Health Research. Annual report 2010/11, London: DH, 2011.
14.
CulyerA. Research and development taskforce – supporting research and development in the NHS, London: DH, 1994.
15.
RogersD. The evolution of a local R&D strategy: the experience of a service in the UK National Health Service. R&D Manage2004; 34: 57–63.
16.
SmithR. An NHS research strategy: overdue but potential problems with implementation. BMJ1991; 302: 1034–1035.
17.
Health Economics Research Group, Office of Health Economics, RAND Europe. Medical Research: what’s it worth? Estimating the economic benefits from medical research in the UK, London: UK Evaluation Forum, 2008.
18.
CookseyD. A review of UK health research funding, London: HMSO, 2006.
19.
RobertsAMarshallLCharlesworthA. A decade of austerity; the funding pressures facing the NHS from 2010/11 to 2021/22, London: Nuffield Trust, 2012.
20.
Department of Health. Best research for best health: a new national health research strategy, London: DH, 2006.
21.
ChaseDMilneRSteinK. What are the relative merits of the sources used to identify potential research priorities for the NHS HTA programme?Int J Technol Assess Health Care2000; 16: 743–750.
22.
National Audit Office. HC491. Department of Health: management of NHS productivity, London: NAO, 2010.
23.
EmmanuelEJ. The future of biomedical research. J Am Med Assoc2013; 309: 1589–1590.
24.
GreenhalghTRobertGMacfarlaneF. Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations. Milbank Q2004; 82: 581–629.
25.
NutleySMWalterIDaviesHTO. Using evidence: how research can inform public services, Bristol: Policy Press, 2007.
26.
WalsheKHarveyGJasP. From knowing to doing: connecting knowledge and performance in public services, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
27.
Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.
28.
GabbayJle MayA. Practice based evidence for health care: clinical mindlines, Abingdon: Routledge, 2010.
29.
DopsonSFitzgeraldL. Knowledge to action: evidence based health care in context, Oxford: OUP, 2005.
30.
Department of Health. High quality care for all: NHS next stage review final report, London: DH, 2008.
31.
HarveyGFitzgeraldLFieldenS. The NIHR collaboration for leadership in applied health research and care (CLAHRC) for Greater Manchester: combining empirical, theoretical and experiential evidence to design and evaluate a large-scale implementation strategy. Implementation Sci2011; 6: 96–96.
32.
Department of Health. Innovation, health and wealth: accelerating innovation, diffusion and adoption in the NHS, London: DH, 2011.
33.
KleinR. The new politics of the NHS: from creation to reinvention, Oxford: Radcliffe, 2010.
34.
CribbA. Organizational reform and health-care goods: concerns about marketization in the UK NHS. J Med Philos2008; 33: 221–240.
35.
Academy of Medical Sciences. A new pathway for the regulation and governance of health research, London: AMS, 2011.
36.
ConradLUsluPG. Investigation of the impact of ‘Payment by Results’ on performance measurement and management in NHS Trusts. Manage Account Res2011; 22: 46–55.
37.
BoltonSCMuzioDBoyd-QuinnC. Making Sense of modern medical careers: the case of the UK's National Health Service. Sociology2011; 45: 682–699.
38.
National Audit Office. Dementia, London: NAO, 2010.
