From knowing to doing-from the academy to practice Comment on "The many meanings of evidence: implications for the translational science agenda in healthcare"

Bridging the gap between research evidence and its implementation in public health practice: case studies of embedded research model

AIM

To investigate the potential of embedded research in bridging the gap between research evidence and its implementation in public health practice.

METHODS

Using a case study methodology, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 4 embedded researchers, 9 public health practitioners, and 4 other stakeholders (2 teachers and 2 students) across four case study sites. Sites and individuals were purposively selected. Sites included two local authorities, one secondary school, and one sports organisation. Thematic data analysis was adopted to analyse the qualitative data.

RESULTS

Four themes were identified: (1) building and maintaining relationships, (2) working with stakeholders, (3) informing practice, and (4) critical reflection.

CONCLUSIONS

Embedded researchers build and maintain relationships with practitioners and other stakeholders to produce research. Evidence from the co-produced research informs future practice and research to improve service and delivery rendered to the public. Thus, embedded researchers use their role to bridge the research evidence - implementation gap in public health practice.

Optimising the implementation of evidence-based osteoarthritis guidelines in primary care: Development of a Knowledge Mobilisation Toolkit

OBJECTIVE

Implementing clinical guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care is complex. Whilst international guidelines detail what best practice for OA looks like, little is known about how this is best implemented. Limited resources are available to guideline developers, practitioners, researchers, or the public to facilitate implementation. Set in the context of a larger research project which sought to understand the factors that influence knowledge mobilisation (KM) in implementation for OA guidelines, this study reports the development of a toolkit to optimise KM for the implementation of evidence-based OA guidelines in primary care.

DESIGN

Triangulation of three qualitative data sets was conducted, followed by a stakeholder consensus exercise. Public contributors were involved in dedicated meetings (n = 3) to inform the content, design, and KM plans for the toolkit.

RESULTS

From data triangulation, 53 key findings were identified, which were refined into 30 draft recommendation statements, within six domains: approaches to KM; the knowledge mobiliser role; understanding context; implementation planning; the nature of the intervention; and appealing to a range of priorities. Stakeholder voting (n = 27) demonstrated consensus with the recommendations and informed the wording of the final toolkit.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors that optimise KM for OA guideline implementation in primary care were identified. Empirical data, practice-based evidence, implementation practice, and stakeholder (including patient and public) engagement have informed a toolkit comprising several overarching principles of KM, which are suitable for use in primary care. Consideration of equitable access when implementing evidence-based OA care among diverse populations is recommended when using the toolkit. Further research is needed to evaluate the toolkit's utility and transferability.

Optimising the process of knowledge mobilisation in Communities of Practice: recommendations from a (multi-method) qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Communities of Practice (CoPs) offer a strategy for mobilising knowledge and integrating evidence-based interventions into musculoskeletal practice, yet little is known about their practical application in this context. This study aimed to (i) explore the process of knowledge mobilisation in the context of a CoP to implement evidence-based interventions in musculoskeletal care and (ii) co-develop recommendations to optimise the process of knowledge mobilisation in CoPs.

METHODS

A qualitative study comprising observation of a CoP and related planning meetings (n = 5), and interviews with CoP stakeholders (including clinicians, lay members, managers, commissioners, academics) (n = 15) was undertaken. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and interpreted considering the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services theory. Public contributors were collaboratively involved at key stages of the study.

RESULTS

Four themes were identified: identifying and interpreting knowledge, practical implementation of a CoP, culture and relationship building, and responding to the external context. Resource and infrastructure enabled the set-up, delivery and running of the CoP. Support for lay members is recommended to ensure effective participation and equity of power. CoP aims and purpose can develop iteratively, and this may enhance the ability to respond to contextual changes. Several recommendations for the practical application of CoPs are suggested to create the best environment for knowledge exchange and creation, support an equitable platform for participation, and help members to navigate and make sense of the CoP in a flexible way.

CONCLUSION

This study identified how a CoP with diverse membership can promote partnership working at the intersection between knowledge and practice. Several important considerations for preparing for and operationalising the approach in implementation have been identified. Evaluation of the costs, effectiveness and impact of CoPs is needed to better understand the value added by the approach. More broadly, research is needed to explore the practical application of online CoPs and the role of international CoPs in optimising the uptake of innovations and best practice.

Health system foundations for Sláintecare implementation in 2020 and beyond - co-producing a Sláintecare Living Implementation Framework with Evaluation: Learning from the Irish health system's response to COVID-19. A mixed-methods study protocol

All over the world, health systems are responding to the major shock of the COVID-19 pandemic. The virus is causing urgent and fast-paced change in the delivery of health and social care as well as highlighting pre-existing deficiencies and inequalities in the health system and broader society. In Ireland, COVID-19 is occurring during the second full year of Sláintecare’s implementation – Ireland’s 10-year plan for health reform to deliver universal access to timely, integrated care.

This research will coproduce a Living Implementation Framework with Evaluation (LIFE) linking evidence, policy and practice that feeds into real-world Sláintecare implementation. In partnership with senior leadership in the Sláintecare Programme Implementation Office, the Department of Health and the HSE, the researchers will scope, document, measure and analyse the Sláintecare relevant COVID-19 responses using qualitative and quantitative methods.

The LIFE will initially take the form of a live spreadsheet which contains the COVID-19 responses most relevant to Sláintecare. For each response, 3-4 indicators will be collected which enables monitoring overtime. The spreadsheet will be accompanied by a series of rapid reviews, narrative descriptions of multiple case studies, research papers, stakeholder engagement and formative feedback. These collectively make up the ‘LIFE’, informing dialogue with the project partners, which is happening in real time (living), influencing health policy and system decision-making and implementation as the project progresses. The LIFE will inform health system reform in Ireland in the months and years after the emergence of COVID-19 as well as contributing to international health systems and policy research.

Implementation of discharge recommendations in type 1 diabetes depends on specialist nurse follow-up

AIM

This paper presents an implementation study following previous research including a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of hospital-based home care (HBHC), referring to specialist care in a home-based setting. The aim was to evaluate whether the effects sustained when rolled out into wider practice.

METHODS

In 2013-2014, 42 children newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were included in the study at a university hospital in Sweden and followed for two years. Measurements of child safety, effects of services, resource use and service quality were included. Descriptive statistics were used to present the results and then discussed in relation to the same intervention of HBHC previously evaluated in an RCT.

RESULTS

Shorter in-hospital stay was partially implemented but increased support after discharge by the diabetes nurse was not. The results indicated that the implemented HBHC was equally effective in terms of child outcomes two years from diagnosis but less effective in terms of parents' outcome. The results furthermore indicated that the quality of services decreased.

CONCLUSION

The suggested overall conclusion was that the implemented HBHC services were safe but had become less effective, at least in relation to the HBHC provided under controlled circumstances.

Moving knowledge into action for more effective practice, programmes and policy: protocol for a research programme on integrated knowledge translation

BACKGROUND

Health research is conducted with the expectation that it advances knowledge and eventually translates into improved health systems and population health. However, research findings are often caught in the know-do gap: they are not acted upon in a timely way or not applied at all. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is advanced as a way to increase the relevance, applicability and impact of research. With IKT, knowledge users work with researchers throughout the research process, starting with identification of the research question. Knowledge users represent those who would be able to use research results to inform their decisions (e.g. clinicians, managers, policy makers, patients/families and others). Stakeholders are increasingly interested in the idea that IKT generates greater and faster societal impact. Stakeholders are all those who are interested in the use of research results but may not necessarily use them for their own decision-making (e.g. governments, funders, researchers, health system managers and policy makers, patients and clinicians). Although IKT is broadly accepted, the actual research supporting it is limited and there is uncertainty about how best to conduct and support IKT. This paper presents a protocol for a programme of research testing the assumption that engaging the users of research in phases of its production leads to (a) greater appreciation of and capacity to use research; (b) the production of more relevant, useful and applicable research that results in greater impact; and (c) conditions under which it is more likely that research results will influence policy, managerial and clinical decision-making.

METHODS

The research programme will adopt an interdisciplinary, international, cross-sector approach, using multiple and mixed methods to reflect the complex and social nature of research partnerships. We will use ongoing and future natural IKT experiments as multiple cases to study IKT in depth, and we will take advantage of the team's existing relationships with provincial, national and international organizations. Case studies will be retrospective and prospective, and the 7-year grant period will enable longitudinal studies. The initiation of partnerships, funding processes, the research lifecycle and then outcomes/impacts post project will be studied in real time. These living laboratories will also allow testing of strategies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the IKT approach.

DISCUSSION

This is the first interdisciplinary, systematic and programmatic research study on IKT. The research will provide scientific evidence on how to reliably and validly measure collaborative research partnerships and their impacts. The proposed research will build the science base for IKT, assess its relationship with research use and identify best practices and appropriate conditions for conducting IKT to achieve the greatest impact. It will also train and mentor the next generation of IKT researchers.

The Gaps between Knowing and Doing in Hearing Aid Fitting Management

Evidence based practice has become an important aspect in many healthcare provisions to improve patient outcomes. Investigating the gaps between knowing and doing in audiology practice will provide future directions for successful service delivery. The purpose of this study was to explore "know-do" gaps related to professional awareness and attitude in hearing aid fitting management (HAFM) by analyzing data of a questionnaire. It consisted of 22 questions focusing on 11 HAFM components. Each component had two sub-questions involving levels of the importance and practice for HAFM. Respondents answered each question based on subjective judgments for their own hearing aid fitting services with a Visual Analogue Scale. A total of 51 responses from hearing care professionals were collected and the scores for knowing and doing were compared. The results showed overall high scores in doing and knowing responses; however, there were significant "know-do" gaps demonstrating higher knowing scores than doing scores across all HAFM components. The largest "know-do" gaps were observed in three components mostly implemented during follow-up sessions which indicate the need to improve their corresponding services and practical guidelines emphasizing the follow-up services.

Evidence for Health II: Overcoming barriers to using evidence in policy and practice

Even the highest quality evidence will have little impact unless it is incorporated into decision-making for health. It is therefore critical to overcome the many barriers to using evidence in decision-making, including (1) missing the window of opportunity, (2) knowledge gaps and uncertainty, (3) controversy, irrelevant and conflicting evidence, as well as (4) vested interests and conflicts of interest. While this is certainly not a comprehensive list, it covers a number of main themes discussed in the knowledge translation literature on this topic, and better understanding these barriers can help readers of the evidence to be more savvy knowledge users and help researchers overcome challenges to getting their evidence into practice. Thus, the first step in being able to use research evidence for improving population health is ensuring that the evidence is available at the right time and in the right format and language so that knowledge users can take the evidence into consideration alongside a multitude of other factors that also influence decision-making. The sheer volume of scientific publications makes it difficult to find the evidence that can actually help inform decisions for health. Policymakers, especially in low- and middle-income countries, require context-specific evidence to ensure local relevance. Knowledge synthesis and dissemination of policy-relevant local evidence is important, but it is still not enough. There are times when the interpretation of the evidence leads to various controversies and disagreements, which act as barriers to the uptake of evidence. Research evidence can also be influenced and misused for various aims and agendas. It is therefore important to ensure that any new evidence comes from reliable sources and is interpreted in light of the overall body of scientific literature. It is not enough to simply produce evidence, nor even to synthesize and package evidence into a more user-friendly format. Particularly at the policy level, political savvy is also needed to ensure that vested interests do not undermine decisions that can impact the health of individuals and populations.

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.

Collaboration and Co-Production of Knowledge in Healthcare: Opportunities and Challenges

Over time there has been a shift, at least in the rhetoric, from a pipeline conceptualisation of knowledge implementation, to one that recognises the potential of more collaboration, co-productive approaches to knowledge production and use. In this editorial, which is grounded in our research and collective experience, we highlight both the potential and challenge with collaboration and co-production. This includes issues about stakeholder engagement, governance arrangements, and capacity and capability for working in a co-productive way. Finally, we reflect on the fact that this approach is not a panacea, but is accompanied by some philosophical and practical challenges.

Collective action for knowledge mobilisation: a realist evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care

Background

The establishment of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) was the culmination of a number of policy initiatives to bridge the gap between evidence and practice. CLAHRCs were created and funded to facilitate development of partnerships and connect the worlds of academia and practice in an effort to improve patient outcomes through the conduct and application of applied health research.

Objectives

Our starting point was to test the theory that bringing higher education institutions and health-care organisations closer together catalyses knowledge mobilisation. The overall purpose was to develop explanatory theory regarding implementation through CLAHRCs and answer the question ‘what works, for whom, why and in what circumstances?’. The study objectives focused on identifying and tracking implementation mechanisms and processes over time; determining what influences whether or not and how research is used in CLAHRCs; investigating the role played by boundary objects in the success or failure of implementation; and determining whether or not and how CLAHRCs develop and sustain interactions and communities of practice.

Methods

This study was a longitudinal realist evaluation using multiple qualitative case studies, incorporating stakeholder engagement and formative feedback. Three CLAHRCs were studied in depth over four rounds of data collection through a process of hypothesis generation, refining, testing and programme theory specification. Data collection included interviews, observation, documents, feedback sessions and an interpretive forum.

Findings

Knowledge mobilisation in CLAHRCs was a function of a number of interconnected issues that provided more or less conducive conditions for collective action. The potential of CLAHRCs to close the metaphorical ‘know–do’ gap was dependent on historical regional relationships, their approach to engaging different communities, their architectures, what priorities were set and how, and providing additional resources for implementation, including investment in roles and activities to bridge and broker boundaries. Additionally, we observed a balance towards conducting research rather than implementing it. Key mechanisms of interpretations of collaborative action, opportunities for connectivity, facilitation, motivation, review and reflection, and unlocking barriers/releasing potential were important to the processes and outcomes of CLAHRCs. These mechanisms operated in different contexts including stakeholders’ positioning, or ‘where they were coming from’, governance arrangements, availability of resources, competing drivers, receptiveness to learning and evaluation, and alignment of structures, positions and resources. Preceding conditions influenced the course and journey of the CLAHRCs in a path-dependent way. We observed them evolving over time and their development led to the accumulation of different types of impacts, from those that were conceptual to, later in their life cycle, those that were more direct.

Conclusions

Most studies of implementation focus on researching one-off projects, so a strength of this study was in researching a systems approach to knowledge mobilisation over time. Although CLAHRC-like approaches show promise, realising their full potential will require a longer and more sustained focus on relationship building, resource allocation and, in some cases, culture change. This reinforces the point that research implementation within a CLAHRC model is a long-term investment and one that is set within a life cycle of organisational collaboration.

Funding

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

An Untapped Resource: Patient and Public Involvement in Implementation Comment on "Knowledge Mobilization in Healthcare Organizations: A View From the Resource-Based View of the Firm"

This commentary considers the potential role of patient and public involvement in implementation. Developing an analytical thread from the resource-based view of the Firm, we argue that this involvement may create unique resources that have the capacity to enhance the impact of implementation activity for healthcare organisations.

Improving the performance of interorganizational networks for preventing chronic disease: identifying and acting on research needs

This article describes the role of interorganizational networks in chronic disease prevention and an action research agenda for promoting understanding and improvement. Through a model of engaged scholarship, leaders with expertise and experience in chronic disease prevention networks helped shape research directions focused on network value, governance, and evolution. The guiding principles for facilitating this research include applying existing knowledge, developing network-appropriate methods and measures, creating structural change, promoting an impact orientation, and fostering cultural change.