Identifying competencies for integrated knowledge translation: a Delphi study

Background

Considerable progress has been made to advance the field of knowledge translation to address the knowledge-to-action gap in health care; however, there remains a growing concern that misalignments persist between research being conducted and the issues faced by knowledge users, such as clinicians and health policy makers, who make decisions in the health care context. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a collaborative research model that has shown promise in addressing these concerns. It takes advantage of the unique and shared competencies amongst researchers and knowledge users to ensure relevance of the research process and its outcomes. To date, core competencies have already been identified to facilitate training in knowledge translation more generally but they have yet to be prioritized for IKT more specifically. The primary aim of this study was to recruit a group of researchers and knowledge users to identify and prioritize core competencies for researchers and knowledge users to engage with IKT.

Methods

We recruited health care knowledge users (KUs) and researchers with experience and knowledge of IKT for a quantitative, cross-sectional study. We employed a modified Delphi approach consisting of three e-survey rounds to establish consensus on competencies important to IKT for KUs and researchers based on mean rating of importance and agreement between participants.

Results

Nineteen (73%) of the initial 26 participants were researchers (response rate = 41% in the first round; retention in subsequent rounds > 80%). Participants identified a total of 46 competencies important for IKT (18 competencies for KUs, 28 competencies for researchers) under 3 broad domains. Technical research skills were deemed extremely important for researchers, while both groups require teamwork and knowledge translation skills.

Conclusions

This study provides important insight into distinct and overlapping IKT competencies for KUs and researchers. Future work could focus on how these can be further negotiated and contextualized for a wide range of IKT contexts, projects and teams. Greater attention could also be paid to establishing competencies of the entire team to support the research co-production process.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07107-7.

Changing Health-Related Behaviors 4: Realizing Impact of Health Research Through Knowledge Translation

Knowledge translation (KT) is critical to realizing real-world impacts from health research by reducing the amount of time it takes for evidence to inform practice. One way this is achieved is by engaging with knowledge users throughout the process to ensure that research responds to their needs. It is also important to share the study results in a way that is useful, accessible, and relevant to knowledge user groups. KT planning involves multiple categories described in templates that are available online and referenced in the text. Common knowledge translation challenges and suggested solutions, as well as real-world KT examples, are also provided.

Where is critical analysis of power and positionality in knowledge translation?

In Canada, the Eurocentric epistemological foundations of knowledge translation (KT) approaches and practices have been significantly influenced by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) KT definition. More recently, integrated knowledge translation (IKT) has emerged in part as epistemic resistance to Eurocentric discourse to critically analyse power relations between researcher and participants. Yet, despite the proliferation of IKT literature, issues of power in research relationships and strategies to equalize relationships remain largely unaddressed. In this paper, we analyse the gaps in current IKT theorizing against the backdrop of the CIHR KT definition by drawing on critical scholars, specifically those writing about standpoint theory and critical reflexivity, to advance IKT practice that worked to surface and change research-based power dynamics within the context of health research systems and policy.

Engaging knowledge users in a systematic review on the comparative effectiveness of geriatrician-led models of care is possible: A cross-sectional survey using the Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool

BACKGROUND

A systematic review (SR) was conducted to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of geriatrician-led models of care, and an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) approach facilitated SR relevance. Activities to engage knowledge users (KUs) in the SR were evaluated for perceived level of engagement.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

KUs included patients, caregivers, geriatricians, and policymakers from three Canadian provinces. Activities included 1) modified Delphi to select outcomes; 2) cross-sectional survey to select outcome measures, and 3) in-person meeting to discuss SR findings. KU engagement was assessed using the Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PEET) after the second and third activities. KUs rated the extent of successful engagement using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "no extent" to "very large extent."

RESULTS

In total, 15 KUs completed the PEET: eight geriatricians, four policymakers, two patients, and one caregiver. Median engagement scores across all activities (median range: 6.00-6.50) indicated that KUs felt engaged. Differences were observed for activity type; perceived engagement at in-person meeting resulted in higher meta-criteria scores for trust (P = 0.005), legitimacy (P = 0.003), fairness (P = 0.013), and competency (P = 0.035) compared with online activities.

CONCLUSIONS

KUs can be engaged meaningfully in SR processes. Their perceived engagement was higher for in-person than for online activities.

Engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review

Background

It is unclear how to engage a wide range of knowledge users in research. We aimed to map the evidence on engaging knowledge users with an emphasis on policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process through a scoping review.

Methods

We used the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews. Nine electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE), two grey literature sources (e.g., OpenSIGLE), and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were searched from 1996 to August 2016. We included any type of study describing strategies, barriers and facilitators, or assessing the impact of engaging policy-makers, health system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process. Screening and data abstraction were conducted by two reviewers independently with a third reviewer resolving discrepancies. Frequency and thematic analyses were conducted.

Results

After screening 8395 titles and abstracts followed by 394 full-texts, 84 unique documents and 7 companion reports fulfilled our eligibility criteria. All 84 documents were published in the last 10 years, and half were prepared in North America. The most common type of knowledge synthesis with knowledge user engagement was a systematic review (36%). The knowledge synthesis most commonly addressed an issue at the level of national healthcare system (48%) and focused on health services delivery (17%) in high-income countries (86%).

Policy-makers were the most common (64%) knowledge users, followed by healthcare professionals (49%) and government agencies as well as patients and caregivers (34%). Knowledge users were engaged in conceptualization and design (49%), literature search and data collection (52%), data synthesis and interpretation (71%), and knowledge dissemination and application (44%). Knowledge users were most commonly engaged as key informants through meetings and workshops as well as surveys, focus groups, and interviews either in-person or by telephone and emails. Knowledge user content expertise/awareness was a common facilitator (18%), while lack of time or opportunity to participate was a common barrier (12%).

Conclusions

Knowledge users were most commonly engaged during the data synthesis and interpretation phases of the knowledge synthesis conduct. Researchers should document and evaluate knowledge user engagement in knowledge synthesis.

Registration details

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/4dy53/).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0717-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Expediting evidence synthesis for healthcare decision-making: exploring attitudes and perceptions towards rapid reviews using Q methodology

Background

Rapid reviews expedite the knowledge synthesis process with the goal of providing timely information to healthcare decision-makers who want to use evidence-informed policy and practice approaches. A range of opinions and viewpoints on rapid reviews is thought to exist; however, no research to date has formally captured these views. This paper aims to explore evidence producer and knowledge user attitudes and perceptions towards rapid reviews.

Methods

A Q methodology study was conducted to identify central viewpoints about rapid reviews based on a broad topic discourse. Participants rank-ordered 50 text statements and explained their Q-sort in free-text comments. Individual Q-sorts were analysed using Q-Assessor (statistical method: factor analysis with varimax rotation). Factors, or salient viewpoints on rapid reviews, were identified, interpreted and described.

Results

Analysis of the 11 individual Q sorts identified three prominent viewpoints: Factor A cautions against the use of study design labels to make judgements. Factor B maintains that rapid reviews should be the exception and not the rule. Factor C focuses on the practical needs of the end-user over the review process.

Conclusion

Results show that there are opposing viewpoints on rapid reviews, yet some unity exists. The three factors described offer insight into how and why various stakeholders act as they do and what issues may need to be resolved before increase uptake of the evidence from rapid reviews can be realized in healthcare decision-making environments.