Leadership for Knowledge Translation

Spyridonidis, Dimitrios; Hendy, Jane; Barlow, James

doi:10.1177/1049732315583268

Cited by 22 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The four elements were (1) organisational emphasis on non-hierarchical, multidisciplinary collaboration; (2) organisational staff ability to model desired behaviours of recognition and respect; (3) commitment to rapid action, including quick translation of research into practice; and (4) the constant data collection and reflection process facilitated by improvement methods. Spyridonidis, 2015 [ 46 ] To explore the relationship between knowledge translation and leadership in a CLAHRC aiming to bridge the gap between research and practice. Undertaken as part of a longitudinal 5-year exploration of the development of a CLAHRC.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCollaborations 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.MethodsFifteen 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.ResultsTwenty-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.ConclusionsMuch 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 registrationPROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42016042945).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0805-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings align with other studies, including a systematic review which concluded that knowledge exchange in policy-making depends on the establishment of a viable cost-sharing equilibrium and institutionalised communication networks [ 43 ]. Evaluations of the CLARHC partnerships concur and draw attention to the benefits of leveraging existing relationships when starting partnerships [ 30 , 169 , 170 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What can we learn from interventions that aim to increase policy-makers’ capacity to use research? A realist scoping review

Haynes

Rowbotham

Redman

et al. 2018

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHealth policy-making can benefit from more effective use of research. In many policy settings there is scope to increase capacity for using research individually and organisationally, but little is known about what strategies work best in which circumstances. This review addresses the question: What causal mechanisms can best explain the observed outcomes of interventions that aim to increase policy-makers’ capacity to use research in their work?MethodsArticles were identified from three available reviews and two databases (PAIS and WoS; 1999–2016). Using a realist approach, articles were reviewed for information about contexts, outcomes (including process effects) and possible causal mechanisms. Strategy + Context + Mechanism = Outcomes (SCMO) configurations were developed, drawing on theory and findings from other studies to develop tentative hypotheses that might be applicable across a range of intervention sites.ResultsWe found 22 studies that spanned 18 countries. There were two dominant design strategies (needs-based tailoring and multi-component design) and 18 intervention strategies targeting four domains of capacity, namely access to research, skills improvement, systems improvement and interaction. Many potential mechanisms were identified as well as some enduring contextual characteristics that all interventions should consider. The evidence was variable, but the SCMO analysis suggested that tailored interactive workshops supported by goal-focused mentoring, and genuine collaboration, seem particularly promising. Systems supports and platforms for cross-sector collaboration are likely to play crucial roles. Gaps in the literature are discussed.ConclusionThis exploratory review tentatively posits causal mechanisms that might explain how intervention strategies work in different contexts to build capacity for using research in policy-making.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0277-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Thus, translation of research has progressed from managed and controlled dissemination initiatives with pre-defined targets [ 63 ]. For knowledge mobilisation, the social, relational and contested nature of true deliberative dialogue or ‘exchange’ relies on negotiated meanings and less predictable outcomes [ 62 , 64 , 65 ].…”

Section: Participatory Dynamic Simulation Modelling Draws On Many Elementioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge mobilisation for policy development: implementing systems approaches through participatory dynamic simulation modelling

Freebairn

Rychetnik

Atkinson

et al. 2017

Health Res Policy Sys

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEvidence-based decision-making is an important foundation for health policy and service planning decisions, yet there remain challenges in ensuring that the many forms of available evidence are considered when decisions are being made. Mobilising knowledge for policy and practice is an emergent process, and one that is highly relational, often messy and profoundly context dependent. Systems approaches, such as dynamic simulation modelling can be used to examine both complex health issues and the context in which they are embedded, and to develop decision support tools.ObjectiveThis paper reports on the novel use of participatory simulation modelling as a knowledge mobilisation tool in Australian real-world policy settings. We describe how this approach combined systems science methodology and some of the core elements of knowledge mobilisation best practice. We describe the strategies adopted in three case studies to address both technical and socio-political issues, and compile the experiential lessons derived. Finally, we consider the implications of these knowledge mobilisation case studies and provide evidence for the feasibility of this approach in policy development settings.ConclusionParticipatory dynamic simulation modelling builds on contemporary knowledge mobilisation approaches for health stakeholders to collaborate and explore policy and health service scenarios for priority public health topics. The participatory methods place the decision-maker at the centre of the process and embed deliberative methods and co-production of knowledge. The simulation models function as health policy and programme dynamic decision support tools that integrate diverse forms of evidence, including research evidence, expert knowledge and localised contextual information. Further research is underway to determine the impact of these methods on health service decision-making.

show abstract

Leadership for Knowledge Translation

Cited by 22 publications

References 35 publications

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

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

What can we learn from interventions that aim to increase policy-makers’ capacity to use research? A realist scoping review

Knowledge mobilisation for policy development: implementing systems approaches through participatory dynamic simulation modelling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About