Exploring conceptualizations of knowledge translation, transfer and exchange across public health in one UK region: a qualitative mapping study

Abstract

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. ABSTRACTObjectives: Knowledge translation (KT) is becoming common vocabulary, but as a concept it is not clearly defined. Many related terms exist; these are often used interchangeably and given multiple interpretations. While there is a growing body of literature exploring these concepts, using it to inform public health practice, strategy, research and education is challenging given the range of sources and need for local 'contextual fit'. This study explores how various public health stakeholders make sense of, and experience, KT and related concepts. Study design:A qualitative mapping study using a phenomenographic approach.Methods: Thirty-four academics, students and practitioners working in public health across the north east of England participated in six focus groups and five one-to-one interviews.Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using a thematic framework approach. The framework drew on findings from reviews of the existing literature, whilst allowing unanticipated issues to emerge.Results: Three main themes were identified from the stakeholder discussions: Conclusions: This study has enabled further development of theoretical understandings of the KT discourses at play in public health, and identified the ways in which these may be bound by discipline and context. Ironically, the findings suggest that terms such as knowledge translation, transfer and exchange are seen as themselves requiring translation, or at least debate and discussion.

A descriptive qualitative examination of knowledge translation practice among health researchers in Manitoba, Canada

“…The examination of barriers and facilitators to practicing KT is critical for tailoring any future interventions to specifically address these factors [ 4 ]. Many of the barriers identified in this study have been previously expressed by research participants (both researchers and end-users) in studies throughout Canada [ 11 , 12 ] and globally [ 22 , 27 – 29 ]. The persistence of reported barriers over time is important, and suggests there is still opportunity to improve.…”

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

“…16,35,135,164 Against this, flexibility is also seen as important; 66 brokerage roles may differ for different individuals 127 or at different times. 165,166 Ross et al 152 conclude that individual partnerships need to be flexible; one size does not fit all and finding the right person for a particular role is key.…”

Untitled

“…Graham et al (Graham et al, 2006) clarified common shared concepts of KT. Knowledge transfer exclusively describes a linear top-down approach (Visram, Goodall & Steven, 2014), and one-way (or impliedly can be two-way) process of getting knowledge with no actual application. This reflects a mere sending of information to a user (Majdzadeh et al, 2008), though Froese & Montgomery (Froese & Montgomery, 2014) have viewed knowledge transfer synonymously with knowledge translation.…”

“…These views concur with Choi & Johanson's (Choi & Johanson, 2012) comparison of the (a) static, (b) dynamic and (c) knowledge translation perspectives of knowledge transfer, respectively. In the same way, knowledge exchange as a twoway process (Visram, Goodall & Steven, 2014) has been conceived to release some restrictions of transfer. Knowledge exchange expands the transfer concept by giving emphasis to the collaborative roles between the researchers, leaders and stakeholders.…”

“…This ensures relevant knowledge is available, though involvement may vary throughout the process. Several studies have compounded these terms as knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) to further strengthen the involved interactive mechanisms (Légaré et al, 2011;Wolfe et al, 2012;Visram, Goodall & Steven, 2014). On the contrary, research utilization (or implementation) directs its effort on the use of research evidences only.…”