Measuring the impact of health research

Lavis, John N.; Ross, Suzanne; McLeod, Chris; Gildiner, Alina

doi:10.1258/135581903322029520

Cited by 193 publications

(182 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

175

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to the nature of KTT outcomes (e.g., policy changes), clear and measurable indicators of success might not emerge for several years (Head, 2010). Researchers and end-users should consider a range of short-and long-term indicators during evaluation; several examples are noted by Lavis et al (2003b).…”

Section: Challenges and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the Utilization of Research Knowledge in Agri-food Public Health: A Mixed-Method Review of Knowledge Translation and Transfer

Rajić

Young

McEwen

2013

Foodborne Pathogens and Disease

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge translation and transfer (KTT) aims to increase research utilization and ensure that the best available knowledge is used to inform policy and practice. Many frameworks, methods, and terms are used to describe KTT, and the field has largely developed in the health sector over the past decade. There is a need to review key KTT principles and methods in different sectors and evaluate their potential application in agri-food public health. We conducted a structured mixed-method review of the KTT literature. From 827 citations identified in a comprehensive search, we characterized 160 relevant review articles, case studies, and reports. A thematic analysis was conducted on a prioritized and representative subset of 33 articles to identify key principles and characteristics for ensuring effective KTT. The review steps were conducted by two or more independent reviewers using structured and pretested forms. We identified five key principles for effective KTT that were described within two contexts: to improve research utilization in general and to inform policy-making. To ensure general research uptake, there is a need for the following: (1) relevant and credible research; (2) ongoing interactions between researchers and end-users; (3) organizational support and culture; and (4) monitoring and evaluation. To inform policy-making, (5) researchers must also address the multiple and competing contextual factors of the policy-making process. We also describe 23 recommended and promising KTT methods, including six synthesis (e.g., systematic reviews, mixed-method reviews, and rapid reviews); nine dissemination (e.g., evidence summaries, social media, and policy briefs); and eight exchange methods (e.g., communities of practice, knowledge brokering, and policy dialogues). A brief description, contextual example, and key references are provided for each method. We recommend a wider endorsement of KTT principles and methods in agri-food public health, but there are also important gaps and challenges that should be addressed in the future.

show abstract

Section: Challenges and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the Utilization of Research Knowledge in Agri-food Public Health: A Mixed-Method Review of Knowledge Translation and Transfer

Rajić

Young

McEwen

2013

Foodborne Pathogens and Disease

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lavis has aptly framed such strategies as "researcher push" and "user pull," respectively. 8 Alongside these initiatives, complementary work has also been pursued, particularly in Canada, to advance a more robust account of social interaction in KT. In particular, Jonathan Lomas and the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation have made a major contribution by emphasizing the importance of effective communication and mutual understanding between researcher and decision-maker in order to promote better alignment between evidence that is needed and evidence that is made available.…”

Section: Making Research Relevant: the Emergence Of Knowledge Translamentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking Power, Politics, and Policy Problems Seriously

Murphy

Fafard

2012

J Urban Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge Translation (KT) is a growing movement in clinical and health services research, aimed to help make research more relevant and to move research into practice and policy. This paper examines the conventional model of policy change presented in KT and assesses its applicability for increasing the impact of urban health research on urban health policy. In general, KT conceptualizes research utilization in terms of the technical implementation of scientific findings, on the part of individual decision-makers who can be "targeted" for a KT intervention, in a context that is absent of political interests. However, complex urban health problems and interventions infrequently resemble this single decision, single decision-maker model posited by KT. In order to clarify the conditions under which urban health research is more likely or not to have an influence on public policy development, we propose to supplement the conventional model with three concepts drawn from the social science: policy stages, policy networks, and a discourse analysis approach for theorizing power in policy-making.

show abstract

“…Further review of the knowledge translation literature reveals three knowledge transfer and exchange models that attempt to address the knowledge-action gap [19][20][21]. The producer-push model describes the traditional unidirectional flow of research or evaluation knowledge, which is pushed outward to the practice field [22][23][24][25].…”

Section: Knowledge-action Gapmentioning

confidence: 99%

Putting program evaluation to work: a framework for creating actionable knowledge for suicide prevention practice

Wilkins

Thigpen

Lockman

et al. 2012

Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The economic and human cost of suicidal behavior to individuals, families, communities, and society makes suicide a serious public health concern, both in the US and around the world. As research and evaluation continue to identify strategies that have the potential to reduce or ultimately prevent suicidal behavior, the need for translating these findings into practice grows. The development of actionable knowledge is an emerging process for translating important research and evaluation findings into action to benefit practice settings. In an effort to apply evaluation findings to strengthen suicide prevention practice, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) supported the development of three actionable knowledge products that make key findings and lessons learned from youth suicide prevention program evaluations accessible and useable for action. This paper describes the actionable knowledge framework (adapted from the knowledge transfer literature), the three products that resulted, and recommendations for further research into this emerging method for translating research and evaluation findings and bridging the knowledge-action gap. KEYWORDSSuicide prevention, Youth, Actionable knowledge, Knowledge to action, Knowledge-action, Researchto-practice, Implementation, Knowledge transfer, Public healthThe economic and human cost of suicidal behavior to individuals, families, communities, and society makes suicide a serious public health concern, both in the United States and around the world. In the US, it is estimated that deaths resulting from suicide create a financial burden of over 26 billion dollars a year in medical costs and work loss [1]. Suicide is also one of the most common causes of death among young people in the US. It is the second leading cause of death among 25-34-year-olds and the third leading cause of death among 15-24-year-olds [2]. In 2011, nearly 16 % of high school students (typical age range 14-18 years old) reported that they had seriously considered suicide in the past year [3], that is, about three students out of a typical classroom of 20 [4].The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines suicidal behavior as including (1) suicidal ideation (thoughts of harming or killing oneself), (2) suicide attempt (a nonfatal, self-directed potentially injurious behavior with any intent to die as a result of the behavior), and/or (3) suicide (death caused by self-directed injurious behavior with any intent to die as a result of the behavior) [5]. Historically in the US, suicide has almost exclusively been addressed by providing mental health services to people already experiencing suicidal thoughts or behavior. While

show abstract

Measuring the impact of health research

Cited by 193 publications

References 20 publications

Improving the Utilization of Research Knowledge in Agri-food Public Health: A Mixed-Method Review of Knowledge Translation and Transfer

Improving the Utilization of Research Knowledge in Agri-food Public Health: A Mixed-Method Review of Knowledge Translation and Transfer

Taking Power, Politics, and Policy Problems Seriously

Putting program evaluation to work: a framework for creating actionable knowledge for suicide prevention practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About