From the hiatus in the theory - practice discourse to the clinic based on the uniqueness of knowledge

Abstract

From the hiatus in the theory -practice discourse to the clinic based on the uniqueness of knowledge Do hiato no discurso teoria -prática à clinica baseada na unicidade do conhecimentoDel hiato en el discurso teoría -práctica a la clínica basada en la unicidad del conocimiento

A Credibilidade Científica do Investigador e a Transferência do Conhecimento

“…1 However, it takes time for the obtained gains, that is, for research results to be introduced in clinical practice, and authors advocate the emergence of a new paradigm that promotes the fast and safe use of these results in decision-making. 2 Knowledge transfer to clinical practice is not exactly a recent subject in public and academic discussion about the topic. In the past years, researchers have been faced with complex challenges, from study design to results application, that do not allow appropriation by praxis.…”

“…The obstacles to the introduction of evidence are heterogeneous and related to methodological and ethical issues, scientific rigor, capacity to carry out projects, funding difficulties, pertinence and utility in the face of needs and health policies, efficacy in communication and dissemination, and lack of a scientific culture oriented toward collaborative work to develop products that promote the insertion of results in the appropriate contexts. [1][2][3] There is consensus that advocating a scientific culture based on good practices implies the need to coordinate the principles of honesty, reliability, impartiality, independence, rigorous communication, diligence, and justice with production and communication in science, 3 but urgency in using the results for the common good can be noticed, breaking the relative social isolation that characterizes scientific undertakings. 4 Proliferation of research activities by both expert researchers and beginners who are at the graduate training level leads to consideration of two central aspects: 1) Do the study design and execution predict, in a timely and rigorous fashion, the benefits for clinical practice and their transfer to it?…”

“…In an attempt to find an answer to these questions, we agree that encouragement to publish favors the dialogue between knowledge producers and their peers, 4 leaving the introduction of the results into praxis, at best, for a second phase. 1,2,4 These ideas lead to the inevitable conclusion that science dissemination activities face unusual challenges 4 in making it possible to materialize the ideal of evidence-based practice, with decision-making grounded in knowledge. Production cannot be locked up in databases or limited by the impact factor of specialized journals.…”

Da investigação para a clínica: (des)evidências

“…The use of knowledge in health care is not a recent concern in research; 1 authors have argued that this challenge is associated with methodological and ethical issues, 2 scientific rigor, capacity to execute projects, difficulties in funding research, relevance and usefulness in the face of health needs and policies, effectiveness in communication and dissemination, and lack of a scientific culture of collaborative work for the development of products that promote the introduction of results into contexts. 1,2 These difficulties have been aggravated in healthcare contexts especially in health-illness transitions not associated with the SARS-CoV-2 infection, with probable effects in clinical decision making. Deciding care based on knowledge is a complex process that involves identifying the available evidence for decision making and taking into account the participation of those with care needs and their caregivers.…”

“…3 We corroborate the opinion of authors who advocate the presence of research teams in the field and collaborative work to design studies and to assist in the transfer of knowledge to users (health professionals) and beneficiaries (clients and caregivers) of such research. 1,4 However, we have found that policymakers and managers of health units have not weighed the impact of removing researchers from their settings during the pandemic, nor have they considered the effect on the much desired evidence-based practice, maybe because they prioritize unidirectional models of knowledge transfer.…”