Background While there is evidence showing associations between environmental features and health outcomes, such as for air quality, green spaces, housing and transport infrastructure, often urban development decisions do not prioritise health in what is a complex decision-making system. There are challenges to ensure research evidence influences policy and practice, including contextual relevance and timeliness. To understand how to improve research impact and increase uptake of evidence for healthier urban development we conducted collaborative interventions with practitioners on a regeneration project in a UK city..

Methods An embedded researcher worked with local government during development of a spatial regeneration framework (October 2020 – February 2024). The framework set future development principles for a 15 ha area which would change from predominantly industrial buildings to residential, alongside parks, a river and community and employment spaces. The embedded researcher created a bridge between academics and practitioners to enable intervention at multiple timepoints during development of the framework. This began with sharing of general health impact evidence (May 2022), followed by modelling outcomes for the local context (while supporting development of a new health economic tool called HAUS (‘Health Assessment for Urban Systems’)). This demonstrated trade-offs for different development scenarios to support decision-making (Oct/Nov 2022). Modelling also informed a decision to support creation of a new park (February 2023) and provided evidence of health impacts to be included throughout the framework document (March – July 2023).

Intervention evaluation involved framework analysis of semi-structured interview transcripts with practitioner team members (n=5), embedded researcher field notes and meeting notes.

Results We developed two main themes: 1. Evidence for different purposes - health evidence was used by practitioners to: highlight problems; support good and aspirational designs; and consider competing issues/trade-offs; 2. Partnerships to address local needs - the embedded researcher helped academics to understand the complex system of urban development decision-making and enabled collaborative health evidence interventions which influenced the regeneration framework and its health messaging. They provided additional capacity to the practitioner team, although practitioner time was also required to use health evidence.

Conclusion Understanding how practitioners use evidence in different ways can improve research translation strategies to influence practice. Embedded researchers can help collaborations between academics and practitioners to develop contextually relevant and timely interventions to tackle complex public health challenges.

Limitations: Single case study; Risk of loss of objectivity by the embedded researcher; Small purposive interview sample and risk of socially desirable responses; Some gaps in evidence for modelling.