Balancing exploration and exploitation in transferring research into practice: a comparison of five knowledge translation entity archetypes

[Orientations de facilitation pour soutenir l'application de l'Algo dans les services de soutien à domicile des personnes aînées]

Comment soutenir le déploiement de connaissances coconstruites par des personnes cliniciennes, gestionnaires ou chercheures? Ce thème est abordé à partir de l'étude de l'application de l'Algo, un algorithme clinique décisionnel conçu pour la sélection des aides techniques visant à faciliter l'hygiène corporelle des personnes aînées vivant à domicile. L'objectif de cette note sur les politiques et les pratiques est de présenter les orientations de facilitation dégagées à la suite d'un devis mixte multiphases (2015-2019) mis en œuvre dans les services de soutien à domicile au Québec (Canada). Les orientations de facilitation centrée sur la tâche et holistique sont présentées en fonction des stades d'utilisation de l'Algo, afin de soutenir les personnes cliniciennes, gestionnaires et chercheures dans la poursuite de son application auprès des personnes aînées. De plus, cette note illustre l'apport des devis mixtes à la conduite et à la compréhension de l'application des connaissances coconstruites.

Describing the acceptability and use of an opioid stewardship self-assessment tool in real-world settings

BACKGROUND

The Stewardship Framework (Framework) was developed by an expert clinician group and was designed to provide a mechanism for continuous monitoring of improvement in opioid prescribing in acute hospitals. The aim of this study was to modify the Framework into an Opioid Stewardship Self-Assessment Tool (Self-Assessment Tool), and pilot test the acceptability and its use in a variety of acute hospital settings.

METHODS

The Framework was converted into the Self-Assessment Tool to allow hospitals to undertake a gap analysis of their current opioid stewardship activities. To participate hospitals were required to establish a small team and complete the Self-Assessment Tool. Participating sites were recruited using purposive sampling. Responses were tabulated and coded to enable assessment. 'Acceptability' was defined as the completion of the Self-Assessment Tool (response rate, proportion of questions answered) and responder feedback relating to its content. The use of the Tool was categorised based on the level of detail of responses.

RESULTS

Nineteen of the 20 facilities approached, agreed to participate. The 16 sites which established a small team to facilitate survey completion are included in the final analysis. The overall response rate was 96 % (413/432) for the (27 survey questions across 16 participating sites), 4 % (19/432) of questions were left unanswered or were not interpretable by the study team. Opportunities were identified to enhance the use of the Self-Assessment Tool, particularly to support its potential to assist reflection and planning of local strategies.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that the Self-Assessment Tool was an acceptable method of assessing a facility's opioid stewardship capabilities in a real-world setting. The next iteration will be modified using the insights on how the Tool was used by study participants.

How alignment between health systems and their embedded research units contributes to system learning

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest in the contributions of embedded, learning health system (LHS), research within healthcare delivery systems. We examined the organization of LHS research units and conditions affecting their contributions to system improvement and learning.

METHODS

We conducted 12 key-informant and 44 semi-structured interviews in six delivery systems engaged in LHS research. Using rapid qualitative analysis, we identified themes and compared: successful versus challenging projects; LHS units and other research units in the same system; and LHS units in different systems.

RESULTS

LHS units operate both independently and as subunits within larger research centers. Contributions of LHS units to improvements and learning are influenced by alignment of facilitating factors within units, within the broader system, and between unit and host system. Key alignment factors were availability of internal (system) funding directing researchers' work toward system priorities; researchers' skills and experiences that fit a system's operational needs; LHS unit subculture supporting system improvement and collaboration with clinicians and other internal stakeholders; applications of external funding to system priorities; and executive leadership for system-wide learning. Mutual understanding and collaboration between researchers, clinicians, and leaders was fostered through direct consultation between LHS unit leaders and system executives and engagement of researchers in clinical and operational activities.

CONCLUSIONS

Embedded researchers face significant challenges to contributing to system improvement and learning. Nevertheless, when appropriately led, organized, and supported by internal funding, they may learn to collaborate effectively with clinicians and system leaders in advancing care delivery toward the learning health system ideal.

DORA-compliant measures of research quality and impact to assess the performance of researchers in biomedical institutions: Review of published research, international best practice and Delphi survey

OBJECTIVE

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) advocates for assessing biomedical research quality and impact, yet academic organizations continue to employ traditional measures such as Journal Impact Factor. We aimed to identify and prioritize measures for assessing research quality and impact.

METHODS

We conducted a review of published and grey literature to identify measures of research quality and impact, which we included in an online survey. We assembled a panel of researchers and research leaders, and conducted a two-round Delphi survey to prioritize measures rated as high (rated 6 or 7 by ≥ 80% of respondents) or moderate (rated 6 or 7 by ≥ 50% of respondents) importance.

RESULTS

We identified 50 measures organized in 8 domains: relevance of the research program, challenges to research program, or productivity, team/open science, funding, innovations, publications, other dissemination, and impact. Rating of measures by 44 panelists (60%) in Round One and 24 (55%) in Round Two of a Delphi survey resulted in consensus on the high importance of 5 measures: research advances existing knowledge, research plan is innovative, an independent body of research (or fundamental role) supported by peer-reviewed research funding, research outputs relevant to discipline, and quality of the content of publications. Five measures achieved consensus on moderate importance: challenges to research productivity, potential to improve health or healthcare, team science, collaboration, and recognition by professional societies or academic bodies. There was high congruence between researchers and research leaders across disciplines.

CONCLUSIONS

Our work contributes to the field by identifying 10 DORA-compliant measures of research quality and impact, a more comprehensive and explicit set of measures than prior efforts. Research is needed to identify strategies to overcome barriers of use of DORA-compliant measures, and to "de-implement" traditional measures that do not uphold DORA principles yet are still in use.

Use and exchange of knowledge in the introduction of hospital-based home rehabilitation after a stroke: barriers and facilitators in change management

Background

The purpose of the study was to contribute to research and practice on how the use and exchange of knowledge can facilitate change in health care, specifically methods supporting managers. The study also aimed to investigate barriers related to governance principles that may affect organizational ability to improve quality of care. To achieve the purpose, the study followed a project of hospital-based home rehabilitation after a stroke at a hospital in Norrbotten County, Sweden.

Methods

Seven individual interviews were performed to obtain information from the project members and the managers involved in the project. A group interview with the team and their immediate manager were conducted after the project ended. A thematic analysis was performed to identify and present patterns that formed the results of the study.

Results

The study shows how knowledge was identified, gathered, used, and disseminated in the project. The analysis pointed out how knowledge played an important role from two perspectives: in evidence-based practice in rehabilitation work and for change management. Knowledge exchange and learning across organizational boundaries increased the pace, efficiency, and effectiveness, but collaboration on knowledge, in the sense of joint activities based on a common purpose, only took place within the rehabilitation work. Furthermore, there were indications that governance principles, such as the distribution of financial responsibility and the requirements for official recommendations, influenced the pace of change.

Conclusions

It was shown that the exchange of knowledge and collaboration can facilitate change in health care, but that communication needs to be planned and prioritised. Readiness for change was the basis for the success of the project and for ensuring commitment among those involved. There is also a need for the management to understand how governance principles may affect the efficiency of change work.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07618-x.

Exploring clinicians' experiences and perceptions of end-user roles in knowledge development: a qualitative study

Background

End-user involvement in developing evidence-based tools for clinical practice may result in increased uptake and improved patient outcomes. Understanding end-user experiences and perceptions about the co-production of knowledge is useful to further the science of integrated knowledge translation (iKT) – a strategy for accelerating the uptake and impact of research. Our study had two main objectives: (1) explore end-user (clinician) experiences of co-producing an evidence-based practice tool; and (2) describe end-user perceptions in knowledge development.

Methods

We used a qualitative study design. We conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians and used a transcendental phenomenological approach to analyze themes/phenomena. In addition, we explored the interrelated themes between the thematic maps of each objective.

Results

Four themes emerged from clinicians’ experiences in co-producing the practice tool: ease/convenience of participating, need for support and encouragement, understanding the value of participating, and individual skillsets yield meaningful contributions. Stakeholder roles in knowledge tool development and improving dissemination of evidence and knowledge tools were themes that related to clinician perceptions in knowledge development. The review of interrelated thematic maps depicts an intertwined relationship between stakeholders and dissemination.

Conclusions

End-users provide invaluable insight and perspective into the development of evidence-based clinical tools. Exploring the experiences and perceptions of end-users may support future research endeavours involving iKT, such as the co-production of clinical resources, potentially improving uptake and patient health outcomes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06955-7.

Using an integrated knowledge translation approach to inform a pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial on peer support for individuals with traumatic brain injury: A qualitative descriptive study

Introduction

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is estimated to affect 10 million people annually, making it a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. One cost-effective intervention that has been shown to minimize some of the negative sequelae after TBI is peer support. However, the evidence supporting the benefits of peer support for individuals with TBI is sparse and of low quality. Integrated knowledge translation (iKT) may be one approach to optimizing the evaluation of peer support programs among individuals with TBI. Therefore, the objectives are: (1) To understand key informants’ perspectives of the barriers and facilitators of participating in peer support research and programs among individuals with TBI; (2) to understand key informants’ perspectives on the perceived impacts of peer support programs on individuals with TBI; and, (3) to demonstrate how an iKT approach can inform the development and implementation of a pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Methods

A qualitative descriptive approach using one-on-one semi-structured interviews was used. Purposive sampling of 22 key informants included 8 peer support mentors, 4 individuals with TBI who received peer support, 3 caregivers of individuals with TBI, 4 peer support program staff, and 3 academics in peer support and/or TBI.

Results

There were five main themes related to the barriers and facilitators to participating in peer support research and programs: knowledge, awareness, and communication; logistics of participating; readiness and motivation to participate; need for clear expectations; and matching. There were three main themes related to the perceived impact of peer support: acceptance, community, social experiences; vicarious experience/learning through others: shared experiences, role-modelling, encouragement; and “I feel better.” Discussions with our Research Partner led to several significant adaptations to our trial protocol, including removing the twice/week intervention arm, shortening of the length of trial, and changing the measure for the community integration outcome.

Discussion/Conclusion

This is the first study to use an iKT approach to inform a trial protocol and the first to assess the barriers and facilitators to participating in peer support research.

A Cultural and Environmental Assessment of a Landscape Archetype with Dispersed Settlements in Čadca Cadastral District, Slovakia

Special types of rural settlements in Slovakia, so-called dispersed settlements, are typical of several regions in the country. They are recognized as specific elements in a landscape and have a strong effect on local identity. They are a part of a historical landscape structure, constituting a unique natural and cultural heritage. For this reason, they deserve special attention in planning and management processes. Decision-making processes about the landscape that do not take into consideration that the inherent value of those structures could lead to their irreversible loss. This paper aims at the evaluation of specific landscape elements in the case study area and describes their effect in terms of the sociohistorical, environmental, and visual context and their influence on sustainability. Both cultural and environmental inventories were interpreted in relation to spatiotemporal land cover/use changes. The field inventory and geospatial analysis, using geographic information systems (GIS) tools, resulted in the categorization and evaluation of 63 dispersed settlement units in the study area of Čadca. We propose a management method, giving reasonable detail to proposed incentives, for each dispersed settlement unit category. The proposed methodology is intended to create a classification of the dispersed settlement units from the perspective of landscape archetypes. The cultural and environmental assessment of dispersed settlement units resulted in the definition of indicators signaling the presence of a particular archetype.

Implementing a research-based innovation to generate intra-familial involvement in type 2 diabetes self-management for use in diverse municipal settings: a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators

BACKGROUND

Involving family members in disease management is vital to people with type 2 diabetes. New innovations that support family members' involvement can help both the person with type 2 diabetes and the relatives to create the supportive environment they need. The objective of the present study is to examine what facilitates and obstructs implementation of an innovation that supports intra-familial involvement in life with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Of the 48 healthcare professionals trained in facilitating the innovation in municipal patient education courses, single, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 of them. The interviews were focused specifically on the implementation process. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using radical hermeneutics.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed three distinct themes affecting implementation of the innovation. 1) Focusing on creating family involvement in patient education for people with type 2 diabetes was relevant and important to the healthcare professionals. 2) The dynamics of group-based patient education sessions changed when family members were involved, which affects healthcare professionals' group facilitation methods. 3) Implementing new methods in patient education requires great commitment and support from the organization and management.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of an innovation to involve families and close relatives in patient education in Danish municipalities is feasible, but highly dependent on the commitment of healthcare professionals and managers as well as their openness to new ways of facilitating group processes.

What drives hospital wards' ambidexterity: Insights on the determinants of exploration and exploitation

OBJECTIVES

Hospital wards are required to exploit current knowledge and explore for new knowledge. Ambidexterity (i.e., the capability to combine both exploitation and exploration) is a major issue in healthcare as result of the growing expectations that hospitals wards have the capability to manage the trade-off between high-quality delivery of care and cost-containment. This study sheds novel light on the determinants of ambidextrous behaviours in hospital wards.

METHODS

A theoretical framework has been built on the extant literature. The main determinants of ambidexterity are opening/closing leadership, organisational support, organisational creativity and environmental dynamism. The model has been tested empirically through data collected via survey administered to head physicians in charge of hospital wards. After the quality check, 80 questionnaires were available for the statistical analysis based on a hierarchical sequential linear regression model (with enter methodology).

RESULTS

Results showed that opening (β = 0.389;p < 0.001) and closing (β = 0.288;p < 0.01) leadership, as well as organisational creativity (β = 0.499 p < 0.001) are necessary to materialize ambidextrous behaviours (Adj.R² = 0.529). Environmental dynamism does not moderate these relationships. While opening leadership (β = 0.375;p < 0.01), organisational creativity (β = 0.270;p < 0.05) and environmental dynamism (β = 0.224;p < 0.1) are determinants of exploration, closing leadership (β = 0.506;p < 0.001) and organisational creativity (β = 0.529;p < 0.001) are determinants of exploitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Head physicians' leadership style as well as organizational creativity play a pivotal role in materializing ambidextrous behaviours in wards.

The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?

Background

Coproduction, a collaborative model of research that includes stakeholders in the research process, has been widely advocated as a means of facilitating research use and impact. We summarise the arguments in favour of coproduction, the different approaches to establishing coproductive work and their costs, and offer some advice as to when and how to consider coproduction.

Debate

Despite the multiplicity of reasons and incentives to coproduce, there is little consensus about what coproduction is, why we do it, what effects we are trying to achieve, or the best coproduction techniques to achieve policy, practice or population health change. Furthermore, coproduction is not free risk or cost. Tensions can arise throughout coproduced research processes between the different interests involved. We identify five types of costs associated with coproduced research affecting the research itself, the research process, professional risks for researchers and stakeholders, personal risks for researchers and stakeholders, and risks to the wider cause of scholarship. Yet, these costs are rarely referred to in the literature, which generally calls for greater inclusion of stakeholders in research processes, focusing exclusively on potential positives. There are few tools to help researchers avoid or alleviate risks to themselves and their stakeholders.

Conclusions

First, we recommend identifying specific motivations for coproduction and clarifying exactly which outcomes are required for whom for any particular piece of research. Second, we suggest selecting strategies specifically designed to enable these outcomes to be achieved, and properly evaluated. Finally, in the absence of strong evidence about the impact and process of coproduction, we advise a cautious approach to coproduction. This would involve conscious and reflective research practice, evaluation of how coproduced research practices change outcomes, and exploration of the costs and benefits of coproduction. We propose some preliminary advice to help decide when coproduction is likely to be more or less useful.

Advancing the evaluation of integrated knowledge translation

Background

Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) flows from the premise that knowledge co-produced with decision-makers is more likely to inform subsequent decisions. However, evaluations of manager/policy-maker-focused IKT often concentrate on intermediate outcomes, stopping short of assessing whether research findings have contributed to identifiable organisational action. Such hesitancy may reflect the difficulty of tracing the causes of this distal, multifactorial outcome. This paper elucidates how an approach based on realistic evaluation could advance the field.

Main Text

Realistic evaluation views outcomes as a joint product of intervention mechanisms and context. Through identification of context–mechanism–outcome configurations, it enables the systematic testing and refinement of ‘mid-range theory’ applicable to diverse interventions that share a similar underlying logic of action. The ‘context-sensitive causal chain’ diagram, a tool adapted from the broader theory-based evaluation literature, offers a useful means of visualising the posited chain from activities to outcomes via mechanisms, and the context factors that facilitate or disrupt each linkage (e.g. activity–mechanism, mechanism–outcome).

Drawing on relevant literature, this paper proposes a context-sensitive causal chain by which IKT may generate instrumental use of research findings (i.e. direct use to make a concrete decision) and identifies an existing tool to assess this outcome, then adapts the chain to describe a more subtle, indirect pathway of influence. Key mechanisms include capacity- and relationship-building among researchers and decision-makers, changes in the (perceived) credibility and usability of findings, changes in decision-makers’ beliefs and attitudes, and incorporation of new knowledge in an actual decision. Project-specific context factors may impinge upon each linkage; equally important is the organisation’s absorptive capacity, namely its overall ability to acquire, assimilate and apply knowledge. Given a sufficiently poor decision-making environment, even well-implemented IKT that triggers important mechanisms may fall short of its desired outcomes. Further research may identify additional mechanisms and context factors.

Conclusion

By investigating ‘what it is about an intervention that works, for whom, under what conditions’, realistic evaluation addresses questions of causality head-on without sacrificing complexity. A realist approach could contribute greatly to our ability to assess – and, ultimately, to increase – the value of IKT.

Learning from the emergence of NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs): a systematic review of evaluations

Background

Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) were funded by NIHR in England in 2008 and 2014 as partnerships between universities and surrounding health service organisations, focused on improving the quality of healthcare through the conduct and application of applied health research. The aim of this review is to synthesise learning from evaluations of the CLAHRCs.

Methods

Fifteen databases including CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched to identify any evaluations of CLAHRCs. Current and archived CLAHRC websites and the reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify any additional evaluations. Searches were restricted to English language only. Any publications from evaluations of the CLAHRCs were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled at least one of three pre-specified inclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.

Results

Twenty-six evaluations (reported in 37 papers) were deemed eligible for inclusion. Evaluations focused on describing and exploring the formative partnerships, vision, values, structures and processes of CLAHRCs; the nature and role of boundaries; the deployment of knowledge brokers and hybrid roles to support knowledge mobilisation; patient and public involvement; and capacity building. The relative lack of data about the early impact of CLAHRCs on health care provision or outcomes is notable.

Conclusions

Much of the evaluative focus on CLAHRCs has been on how they have been organised and on the development of theory around their emergent properties. Evidence is lacking on the impact of CLAHRCs particularly in relation to the knowledge mobilisation processes and practices adopted. Further evaluation of CLAHRCs and other similar research and practice partnerships is warranted and should focus on which knowledge mobilisation approaches work where, how and why.

Trial registration

PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42016042945).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0805-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A research utilisation framework for informing global health and development policies and programmes

A shift in the culture and practice of health and development research is required to maximise the real-world use of evidence by non-academic or non-research-oriented audiences. Many frameworks have been developed to guide and measure the research utilisation process, yet none have been widely applied. Some frameworks are simplified to an unrealistic linear representation while others are rendered overly complex and unusable in an attempt to capture all aspects of the research utilisation process. Additionally, many research utilisation frameworks have focused on the policy development process or within a clinical setting, with less application of the translation process at the programme level. In response to this gap – and drawing from over a decade of experience implementing research utilisation strategies – we developed a simple, four-phase framework to guide global health and development efforts that seek to apply evidence to policies and programmes. We present a detailed description of each phase in our framework, with examples of its relevance and application illustrated through our own case study experiences in global health. We believe the utility of this framework extends beyond the health sector and is relevant for maximising use of evidence to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

Does engagement predict research use? An analysis of The Conversation Annual Survey 2016

The impact of research on the world beyond academia has increasingly become an area of focus in research performance assessments internationally. Impact assessment is expected to incentivise researchers to increase engagement with industry, government and the public more broadly. Increased engagement is in turn expected to increase translation of research so decision-makers can use research to inform development of policies, programs, practices, processes, products, and other mechanisms, through which impact can be realised. However, research has shown that various factors affect research use, and evidence on 'what works' to increase decision-makers' use of research is limited. The Conversation is an open access research communication platform, published under Creative Commons licence, which translates research into news articles to engage a general audience, aiming to improve understanding of current issues and complex social problems. To identify factors that predict use of academic research and expertise reported in The Conversation, regression analyses were performed using The Conversation Australia 2016 Annual Survey data. A broad range of factors predicted use, with engagement actions being the most common. Interestingly, different types of engagement actions predicted different types of use. This suggests that to achieve impact through increased engagement, a deeper understanding of how and why different engagement actions elicit different types of use is needed. Findings also indicate The Conversation is overcoming some of the most commonly identified barriers to the use of research: access, relevance, actionable outcomes, and timeliness. As such, The Conversation offers an effective model for providing access to and communicating research in a way that enables use, a necessary precursor to achieving research impact.

NHS top managers, knowledge exchange and leadership: the early development of Academic Health Science Networks – a mixed-methods study

Background

Academic Health Science Networks (AHSNs) were recently created in the NHS to accelerate the spread of innovations that could promote population-level health gain and also pursue novel goals of wealth creation. They are 15 regionally based networks. They reflect a continuing stream of national health policy on stimulating NHS knowledge mobilisation, which has now created a novel institutional architecture.

Objectives

The overall research aims were (1) to explore AHSNs’ strategies and practices of knowledge mobilisation in their formative phase, when they were building up health- and wealth-related networks; and (2) to investigate how knowledge leadership took place in these settings and the characteristics of people perceived as knowledge leaders (KLs). Specific research objectives operationalised these broad aims.

Design

It was a mixed-methods study with a large qualitative component but also social network analysis (SNA). It contained a sequence of work packages: (1) an initial literature review to inform interviews; (2) an analysis of the national policy stream in this field; (3) a SNA of the AHSNs’ health and wealth networks; (4) five case studies of different AHSNs with 10 innovation tracers; and (5) interviews with individuals nominated as KLs.

Setting

We studied a sample of five of the 15 English AHSNs, along with the development of the national policy stream.

Participants

We interviewed and surveyed AHSNs and other relevant staff, including national policy-level respondents.

Data sources

(1) A review of national- and AHSN-level documents, grey literature and relevant academic material; (2) semi-structured interviews with AHSN very senior managers, along with other staff, policy respondents and nominated ‘KLs’; and (3) a SNA (with two time points) using snowball survey methods.

Review methods

The literature review took a structured and narrative-based approach in what was a diffuse and multidisciplinary academic field.

Results

(1) We found that different networks were emerging around AHSNs’ health and wealth goals and, perhaps not surprisingly, the wealth networks were at an exploratory stage; (2) we found that these networks took different forms in different AHSNs; (3) we developed a general typology of the approaches AHSNs took towards spreading new ideas and innovations; and (4) we uncovered some characteristics of ‘KLs’.

Limitations

The study proceeded with the AHSNs still in a formative phase (early 2014 to early 2016). The SNA had two data points that were close together. We could not undertake a longer-term impact assessment. Future work should take a more longitudinal approach.

Conclusions

The study’s results have implications for (1) AHSN knowledge mobilisation strategies and networks, (2) the shape of AHSN regional knowledge networks and (3) the construction of knowledge leadership in these settings.

Future research

Our top priority recommendations were (1) a longer-term AHSN impact assessment and (2) greater exploration of the AHSNs’ novel wealth creating role.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy?

There is extensive health and public health literature on the ‘evidence-policy gap’, exploring the frustrating experiences of scientists trying to secure a response to the problems and solutions they raise and identifying the need for better evidence to reduce policymaker uncertainty. We offer a new perspective by using policy theory to propose research with greater impact, identifying the need to use persuasion to reduce ambiguity, and to adapt to multi-level policymaking systems.

We identify insights from secondary data, namely systematic reviews, critical analysis and policy theories relevant to evidence-based policymaking. The studies are drawn primarily from countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We combine empirical and normative elements to identify the ways in which scientists can, do and could influence policy.

We identify two important dilemmas, for scientists and researchers, that arise from our initial advice. First, effective actors combine evidence with manipulative emotional appeals to influence the policy agenda – should scientists do the same, or would the reputational costs outweigh the policy benefits? Second, when adapting to multi-level policymaking, should scientists prioritise ‘evidence-based’ policymaking above other factors? The latter includes governance principles such the ‘co-production’ of policy between local public bodies, interest groups and service users. This process may be based primarily on values and involve actors with no commitment to a hierarchy of evidence.

We conclude that successful engagement in ‘evidence-based policymaking’ requires pragmatism, combining scientific evidence with governance principles, and persuasion to translate complex evidence into simple stories. To maximise the use of scientific evidence in health and public health policy, researchers should recognise the tendency of policymakers to base judgements on their beliefs, and shortcuts based on their emotions and familiarity with information; learn ‘where the action is’, and be prepared to engage in long-term strategies to be able to influence policy; and, in both cases, decide how far you are willing to go to persuade policymakers to act and secure a hierarchy of evidence underpinning policy. These are value-driven and political, not just ‘evidence-based’, choices.

Barriers, facilitators, strategies and outcomes to engaging policymakers, healthcare managers and policy analysts in knowledge synthesis: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Engaging policymakers, healthcare managers and policy analysts in the conduct of knowledge synthesis can help increase its impact. This is particularly important for knowledge synthesis studies commissioned by decision-makers with limited timelines, as well as reviews of health policy and systems research. A scoping review will be conducted to assess barriers, facilitators, strategies and outcomes of engaging these individuals in the knowledge synthesis process.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews. Literature searches of electronic databases (eg, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ERIC, PsycINFO) will be conducted from inception onwards. The electronic search will be supplemented by searching for sources that index unpublished/difficult to locate studies (eg, GreyNet International database), as well as through scanning of reference lists of reviews on related topics. All study designs using either qualitative or quantitative methodologies will be eligible if there is a description of the strategies, barriers or facilitators, and outcomes of engaging policymakers, healthcare managers and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process. Screening and data abstraction will be conducted by 2 team members independently after a calibration exercise across the team. A third team member will resolve all discrepancies. We will conduct frequency analysis and thematic analysis to chart and characterise the literature, identifying data gaps and opportunities for future research, as well as implications for policy.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project was commissioned by the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, WHO. The results will be used by Alliance Review Centers of health policy and systems research in low-income and middle-income countries that are conducting knowledge synthesis to inform health policymaking and decision-making. Our results will also be disseminated through conference presentations, train-the-trainer events, peer-reviewed publication and a 1-page policy brief that will be posted on the authors' websites.

Getting the most out of knowledge and innovation transfer agents in health care: a qualitative study

Background

Knowledge and innovation transfer (KIT) is recognised internationally as a complex, dynamic process that is difficult to embed in organisations. There is growing use of health service–academic–industry collaborations in the UK, with knowledge brokers linking producers with the users of knowledge and innovation.

Aim

Focusing on KIT ‘agent’ roles within Academic Health Science Networks in England and Partnerships in Wales, we show how individual dispositions, processes and content contribute to desired outcomes.

Methods

We studied the KIT intentions of all Academic Health Science Networks in England, and the South East Wales Academic Health Science Partnership. Using a qualitative case study design, we studied the work of 13 KIT agents purposively sampled from five networks, by collecting data from observation of meetings, documentation, KIT agent audio-diaries, and semistructured interviews with KIT agents, their line managers and those they supported (‘Links’). We also used a consensus method in a meeting of experts (nominal group technique) to discuss the measurement of outcomes of KIT agent activity.

Findings

The case study KIT agents were predominantly from a clinical background with differing levels of experience and expertise, with the shared aim of improving services and patient care. Although outside of recognised career structures, the flexibility afforded to KIT agents to define their role was an enabler of success. Other helpful factors included (1) time and resources to devote to KIT activity; (2) line manager support and a team to assist in the work; and (3) access and the means to use data for improvement projects. The organisational and political context could be challenging. KIT agents not only tackled local barriers such as siloed working, but also navigated shifting regional and national policies. Board-level support for knowledge mobilisation together with a culture of reflection (listening to front-line staff), openness to challenges and receptivity to research all enabled KIT agents to achieve desired outcomes. Nominal group findings underscored the importance of relating measures to specific intended outcomes. However, the case studies highlighted that few measures were employed by KIT agents and their managers. Using social marketing theory helped to show linkages between processes, outcomes and impact, and drew attention to how KIT agents developed insight into their clients’ needs and tailored work accordingly.

Limitations

Level of KIT agent participation varied; line managers and Links were interviewed only once; and outcomes were self-reported.

Conclusions

Social marketing theory provided a framework for analysing KIT agent activity. The preparatory work KIT agents do in listening, understanding local context and building relationships enabled them to develop ‘insight’ and adapt their ‘offer’ to clients to achieve desired outcomes.

Future work

The complexity of the role and the environment in which it is played out justifies more research on KIT agents. Suggestions include (1) longitudinal study of career pathways; (2) how roles are negotiated within teams and how competing priorities are managed; (3) how success is measured; (4) the place of improvement methodologies within KIT work; (5) the application of social marketing theory to comparative study of similar roles; and (6) patients as KIT agents.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Exploring factors that influence the spread and sustainability of a dysphagia innovation: an instrumental case study

BACKGROUND

Swallowing difficulties challenge patient safety due to the increased risk of malnutrition, dehydration and aspiration pneumonia. A theoretically driven study was undertaken to examine the spread and sustainability of a locally developed innovation that involved using the Inter-Professional Dysphagia Framework to structure education for the workforce. A conceptual framework with 3 spread strategies (hierarchical control, participatory adaptation and facilitated evolution) was blended with a processual approach to sustaining organisational change. The aim was to understand the processes, mechanism and outcomes associated with the spread and sustainability of this safety initiative.

METHODS

An instrumental case study, prospectively tracked a dysphagia innovation for 34 months (April 2011 to January 2014) in a large health care organisation in England. A train-the-trainer intervention (as participatory adaptation) was deployed on care pathways for stroke and fractured neck of femur. Data were collected at the organisational and clinical level through interviews (n = 30) and document review. The coding frame combined the processual approach with the spread mechanisms. Pre-determined outcomes included the number of staff trained about dysphagia and impact related to changes in practice.

RESULTS

The features and processes associated with hierarchical control and participatory adaptation were identified. Leadership, critical junctures, temporality and making the innovation routine were aspects of hierarchical control. Participatory adaptation was evident on the care pathways through stakeholder responses, workload and resource pressures. Six of the 25 ward based trainers cascaded the dysphagia training. The expected outcomes were achieved when the top-down mandate (hierarchical control) was supplemented by local engagement and support (participatory adaptation).

CONCLUSIONS

Frameworks for spread and sustainability were combined to create a 'small theory' that described the interventions, the processes and desired outcomes a priori. This novel methodological approach confirmed what is known about spread and sustainability, highlighted the particularity of change and offered new insights into the factors associated with hierarchical control and participatory adaptation. The findings illustrate the dualities of organisational change as universal and context specific; as particular and amendable to theoretical generalisation. Appreciating these dualities may contribute to understanding why many innovations fail to become routine.

Identifying the conditions needed for integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care organizations: qualitative interviews with researchers and research users

Background

Collaboration among researchers and research users, or integrated knowledge translation (IKT), enhances the relevance and uptake of evidence into policy and practice. However, it is not widely practiced and, even when well-resourced, desired impacts may not be achieved. Given that large-scale investment is not the norm, further research is needed to identify how IKT can be optimized.

Methods

Interviews were conducted with researchers and research users (clinicians, managers) in a health care delivery (HCDO) and health care monitoring (HCMO) organization that differed in size and infrastructure, and were IKT-naïve. Basic qualitative description was used. Participants were asked about IKT activities and challenges, and recommendations for optimizing IKT. Data were analysed inductively using constant comparative technique.

Results

Forty-three interviews were conducted (28 HCDO, 15 HCMO) with 13 researchers, 8 clinicians, and 22 managers. Little to no IKT took place. Participants articulated similar challenges and recommendations revealing that a considerable number of changes were needed at the organizational, professional and individual levels. Given the IKT-absent state of participating organizations, this research identified a core set of conditions which must be addressed to prepare an environment conducive to IKT. These conditions were compiled into a framework by which organizations can plan for, or evaluate their capacity for IKT.

Conclusions

The IKT capacity framework is relevant for organizations in which there is no current IKT activity. Use of the IKT framework may result in more organizations that are ready to initiate and establish IKT, perhaps ultimately leading to more, and higher-quality collaboration for health system innovation. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in other organizations not yet resourced for, or undertaking IKT, and to explore the resource implications and mechanisms for establishing the conditions identified here as essential to preparing for IKT.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1533-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Digital health and citizen engagement: Changing the face of health service delivery

We highlight two contemporary trends that would benefit from more focused research as they have the capacity to significantly reshape health system delivery in the coming decade. The first is digital health and big data science. The second potential landslide is the growing phenomenon of patient and citizen engagement. This paper outlines the key features and rationale for how digital health and increased engagement can reshape health services, pointing to key areas that warrant careful research by healthcare management scholars. We further point to the relationship and overlap of these two areas and suggest that examining the synergy between these two related trends is a third area of priority in health research.

Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) refers to collaboration between researchers and decision-makers. While advocated as an approach for enhancing the relevance and use of research, IKT is challenging and inconsistently applied. This study sought to inform future IKT practice and research by synthesizing studies that empirically evaluated IKT and identifying knowledge gaps.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 2005 to 2014 for English language studies that evaluated IKT interventions involving researchers and organizational or policy-level decision-makers. Data were extracted on study characteristics, IKT intervention (theory, content, mode, duration, frequency, personnel, participants, timing from initiation, initiator, source of funding, decision-maker involvement), and enablers, barriers, and outcomes reported by studies. We performed content analysis and reported summary statistics.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were eligible after screening 14,754 titles and reviewing 106 full-text studies. Details about IKT activities were poorly reported, and none were formally based on theory. Studies varied in the number and type of interactions between researchers and decision-makers; meetings were the most common format. All studies reported barriers and facilitators. Studies reported a range of positive and sub-optimal outcomes. Outcomes did not appear to be associated with initiator of the partnership, dedicated funding, partnership maturity, nature of decision-maker involvement, presence or absence of enablers or barriers, or the number of different IKT activities.

CONCLUSIONS

The IKT strategies that achieve beneficial outcomes remain unknown. We generated a summary of IKT approaches, enablers, barriers, conditions, and outcomes that can serve as the basis for a future review or for planning ongoing primary research. Future research can contribute to three identified knowledge gaps by examining (1) how different IKT strategies influence outcomes, (2) the relationship between the logic or theory underlying IKT interventions and beneficial outcomes, and (3) when and how decision-makers should be involved in the research process. Future IKT initiatives should more systematically plan and document their design and implementation, and evaluations should report the findings with sufficient detail to reveal how IKT was associated with outcomes.

Collective action for implementation: a realist evaluation of organisational collaboration in healthcare

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, it is being suggested that translational gaps might be eradicated or narrowed by bringing research users and producers closer together, a theory that is largely untested. This paper reports a national study to fill a gap in the evidence about the conditions, processes and outcomes related to collaboration and implementation.

METHODS

A longitudinal realist evaluation using multiple qualitative methods case studies was conducted with three Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research in Care (England). Data were collected over four rounds of theory development, refinement and testing. Over 200 participants were involved in semi-structured interviews, non-participant observations of events and meetings, and stakeholder engagement. A combined inductive and deductive data analysis process was focused on proposition refinement and testing iteratively over data collection rounds.

RESULTS

The quality of existing relationships between higher education and local health service, and views about whether implementation was a collaborative act, created a path dependency. Where implementation was perceived to be removed from service and there was a lack of organisational connections, this resulted in a focus on knowledge production and transfer, rather than co-production. The collaborations' architectures were counterproductive because they did not facilitate connectivity and had emphasised professional and epistemic boundaries. More distributed leadership was associated with greater potential for engagement. The creation of boundary spanning roles was the most visible investment in implementation, and credible individuals in these roles resulted in cross-boundary work, in facilitation and in direct impacts. The academic-practice divide played out strongly as a context for motivation to engage, in that 'what's in it for me' resulted in variable levels of engagement along a co-operation-collaboration continuum. Learning within and across collaborations was patchy depending on attention to evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

These collaborations did not emerge from a vacuum, and they needed time to learn and develop. Their life cycle started with their position on collaboration, knowledge and implementation. More impactful attempts at collective action in implementation might be determined by the deliberate alignment of a number of features, including foundational relationships, vision, values, structures and processes and views about the nature of the collaboration and implementation.

Usefulness of a KT Event to Address Practice and Policy Gaps Related to Integrated Care

There are limited evaluations of the impact of knowledge translation (KT) activities aimed at addressing practice and policy gaps. We report on the impact of an interactive, end-of-grant KT event. Although action items were developed and key stakeholder support attained, minimal follow-through had occurred three months after the KT event. Several organizational obstacles to transitioning knowledge into action were identified: leadership, program policies, infrastructure, changing priorities, workload and physician engagement. Key messages include: (1) ensure ongoing and facilitated networking opportunities, (2) invest in building implementation capacity, (3) target multi-level implementation activities and (4) focus further research on KT evaluation.

Necessary but Not Sufficient… Comment on "Knowledge Mobilization in Healthcare Organizations: A View From the Resource-Based View of the Firm"

The challenge of mobilizing knowledge to improve patient care, population health and ensure effective use of resources is an enduring one in healthcare systems across the world. This commentary reflects on an earlier paper by Ferlie and colleagues that proposes the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm as a useful theoretical lens through which to study knowledge mobilization in healthcare. Specifically, the commentary considers 3 areas that need to be addressed in relation to the proposed application of RBV: the definition of competitive advantage in healthcare; the contribution of macro level theory to understanding knowledge mobilization in healthcare; and the need to embrace and align multiple theories at the micro, meso, and macro levels of implementation.

Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study

Background

The past two decades have seen rich conceptual development and a wide variety of practical initiatives around research use or ‘knowledge mobilisation’, but so far there has been little systematic effort to map, conceptualise and learn from these initiatives, or to investigate the degree to which they are underpinned by contemporary thinking as set out in the literature. This gap is particularly apparent when looking at knowledge mobilisation at the ‘macro’ level, that is the strategies and activities of major research funders, major research producers and key research ‘intermediaries’.

Aims and objectives

The study had three key objectives with associated research questions: to map the knowledge mobilisation landscape in health care (in the UK and internationally) and in social care and education within the UK; to understand the models, theories and frameworks that underpin the approaches to knowledge mobilisation; and to learn from the success or otherwise of the strategies and approaches in use.

Methods

The study was multimethod and multiphased, with considerable interactivity between the different strands. Data were collected through a review of 71 published reviews on knowledge mobilisation; website review of the knowledge mobilisation activities of 186 agencies; in-depth interviews (n = 52) with key individuals in agencies; a web survey (response rate 57%;n = 106); and two stakeholder workshops (at months 6 and 16).

Findings

We identified a wide range of models, theories and frameworks used to describe knowledge mobilisation and created a conceptual map that highlights six domains of thinking and debate in the literature. The interview and survey data showed three broad, overlapping roles undertaken by agencies: developing and sharing research-based products; emphasising brokering; and focusing on implementation. The knowledge mobilisation approaches in use had been shaped by many factors but there was only limited use of the models, theories and frameworks from the literature. Participants saw formal evaluation of knowledge mobilisation activities as important but highly challenging. Rich formative experience was described but formal evaluation was relatively rare. Few agencies involved service users or members of the public in knowledge mobilisation activities. Working inductively from the study data we derived eight key archetypes or ‘bundles of knowledge mobilisation activities’ that could be used by agencies to explore their knowledge mobilisation activities, future strategies and stakeholder perspectives.

Conclusions

Knowledge mobilisation could be enhanced by providing support to enable cross-sector and interagency learning, reflection on the conceptual basis of approaches and increased evaluation of knowledge mobilisation activities. Further research is needed to evaluate approaches to assessing research use and impact, on systems approaches to knowledge mobilisation, on sustaining and scaling-up approaches, and on applying a wider range of literatures to knowledge mobilisation. Further research would also be useful on the knowledge mobilisation archetypes and how they can work in complementary ways.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

How does context influence collaborative decision-making for health services planning, delivery and evaluation?

Background

Collaboration among researchers (clinician, non-clinician) and decision makers (managers, policy-makers, clinicians), referred to as integrated knowledge translation (IKT), enhances the relevance and use of research, leading to improved decision-making, policies, practice, and health care outcomes. However IKT is not widely practiced due to numerous challenges. This research explored how context influenced IKT as a means of identifying how IKT could be strengthened.

Methods

This research investigated IKT in three health services programs for colon cancer screening, prostate cancer diagnosis, and the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Qualitative methods were used to explore contextual factors that influenced how IKT occurred, and its impact. Data were collected between September 1, 2012 and May 15, 2013 from relevant documents, observation of meetings, and interviews with researchers and decision-makers, analyzed using qualitative methods, and integrated.

Results

Data were analyzed from 39 documents, observation of 6 meetings, and 36 interviews. IKT included interaction at meetings, joint undertaking of research, and development of guidelines. IKT was most prevalent in one program with leadership, clear goals, dedicated funding and other infrastructural resources, and an embedded researcher responsible for, and actively engaged in IKT. This program achieved a variety of social, research and health service outcomes despite mixed individual views about the value of IKT and the absence of a programmatic culture of IKT. Participants noted numerous challenges including lack of time and incentives, and recommendations to support IKT. A conceptual framework of factors that influence IKT and associated outcomes was generated, and can be used by others to plan or evaluate IKT.

Conclusions

The findings can be applied by researchers, clinicians, managers or policy-makers to plan or improve collaborative decision-making for health services planning, delivery, evaluation or quality improvement. Further research is needed to explore whether these findings are widespread, and further understand how IKT can be optimized.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0545-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A formative evaluation of Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC): institutional entrepreneurship for service innovation

Background

Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) are a time-limited funded initiative to form new service and research collaboratives in the English health system. Their aim is to bring together NHS organisations and universities to accelerate the translation of evidence-based innovation into clinical practice. In doing so, CLAHRCs are positioned to help close the second translation gap (T2), which is described as the problem of introducing and implementing new research and products into clinical practice.

Objectives

In this study, we draw on ideas from institutional theory and institutional entrepreneurship to examine how actors may engage in reshaping existing institutional practices in order to support, and help sustain efforts to close the T2. Our objective was to understand how the institutional context shapes actors’ attempts to close the T2 by focusing on the CLAHRC initiative.

Methods

The study employed a longitudinal mixed-methods approach. Qualitative case studies combined interview data (174 in total across all nine CLAHRCs and the four in-depth sites), archival data and field notes from observations, over a 4-year period (2009–13). Staff central to the initiatives were interviewed, including CLAHRC senior managers; theme leads; and other higher education institution and NHS staff involved in CLAHRCs. Quantitative social network analysis (SNA) employed a web-based sociometric approach to capture actors’ own individual (i.e. ego) networks of interaction across two points in time (2011 and 2013) in the four in-depth sites, and their personal characteristics and roles.

Results

We developed a process-based model of institutional entrepreneurship that encompassed the different types of work undertaken. First, ‘envisaging’ was the work undertaken by actors in developing an ‘embryonic’ vision of change, based on the interplay between themselves and the context in which they were situated. Second, ‘engaging’ was the work through which actors signed up key stakeholders to the CLAHRC. Third, ‘embedding’ was the work through which actors sought to reshape existing institutional practices so that they were more aligned with the ideals of CLAHRC. ‘Reflecting’ involved actors reconsidering their initial decisions, and learning from the process of establishing CLAHRCs. Furthermore, we employed the qualitative data to develop five different archetype models for organising knowledge translation, and considered under what founding conditions they are more or less likely to emerge. The quantitative SNA results suggested that actors’ networks changed over time, but that important institutional influences continued to constrain patterns of interactions of actors across different groups.

Conclusion

The development of CLAHRCs holds important lessons for policy-makers. Policy-makers need to consider whether or not they set out a defined template for such translational initiatives, since the existence of institutional antecedents and the social position of actors acted to ‘lock in’ many CLAHRCs. Although antecedent conditions and the presence of pre-existing organisational relationships are important for the mobilisation of CLAHRCs, these same conditions may constrain radical change, innovation and the translation of research into practice. Future research needs to take account of the effects of institutional context, which helps explain why many initiatives may not fully achieve their desired aims.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Promoting state health department evidence-based cancer and chronic disease prevention: a multi-phase dissemination study with a cluster randomized trial component

Background

Cancer and other chronic diseases reduce quality and length of life and productivity, and represent a significant financial burden to society. Evidence-based public health approaches to prevent cancer and other chronic diseases have been identified in recent decades and have the potential for high impact. Yet, barriers to implement prevention approaches persist as a result of multiple factors including lack of organizational support, limited resources, competing emerging priorities and crises, and limited skill among the public health workforce. The purpose of this study is to learn how best to promote the adoption of evidence based public health practice related to chronic disease prevention.

Methods/design

This paper describes the methods for a multi-phase dissemination study with a cluster randomized trial component that will evaluate the dissemination of public health knowledge about evidence-based prevention of cancer and other chronic diseases. Phase one involves development of measures of practitioner views on and organizational supports for evidence-based public health and data collection using a national online survey involving state health department chronic disease practitioners. In phase two, a cluster randomized trial design will be conducted to test receptivity and usefulness of dissemination strategies directed toward state health department chronic disease practitioners to enhance capacity and organizational support for evidence-based chronic disease prevention. Twelve state health department chronic disease units will be randomly selected and assigned to intervention or control. State health department staff and the university-based study team will jointly identify, refine, and select dissemination strategies within intervention units. Intervention (dissemination) strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, and remote technical assistance. Evaluation methods include pre-post surveys, structured qualitative phone interviews, and abstraction of state-level chronic disease prevention program plans and progress reports.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01978054.