Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study

Abstract

BackgroundThe past two decades have seen rich conceptual development and a wide variety of practical initiatives around research use or ‘knowledge mobilisation’, but so far there has been little systematic effort to map, conceptualise and learn from these initiatives, or to investigate the degree to which they are underpinned by contemporary thinking as set out in the literature. This gap is particularly apparent when looking at knowledge mobilisation at the ‘macro’ level, that is the strategies and activities of major research funders, major research producers and key research ‘intermediaries’.Aims and objectivesThe study had three key objectives with associated research questions: to map the knowledge mobilisation landscape in health care (in the UK and internationally) and in social care and education within the UK; to understand the models, theories and frameworks that underpin the approaches to knowledge mobilisation; and to learn from the success or otherwise of the strategies and approaches in use.MethodsThe study was multimethod and multiphased, with considerable interactivity between the different strands. Data were collected through a review of 71 published reviews on knowledge mobilisation; website review of the knowledge mobilisation activities of 186 agencies; in-depth interviews (n = 52) with key individuals in agencies; a web survey (response rate 57%;n = 106); and two stakeholder workshops (at months 6 and 16).FindingsWe identified a wide range of models, theories and frameworks used to describe knowledge mobilisation and created a conceptual map that highlights six domains of thinking and debate in the literature. The interview and survey data showed three broad, overlapping roles undertaken by agencies: developing and sharing research-based products; emphasising brokering; and focusing on implementation. The knowledge mobilisation approaches in use had been shaped by many factors but there was only limited use of the models, theories and frameworks from the literature. Participants saw formal evaluation of knowledge mobilisation activities as important but highly challenging. Rich formative experience was described but formal evaluation was relatively rare. Few agencies involved service users or members of the public in knowledge mobilisation activities. Working inductively from the study data we derived eight key archetypes or ‘bundles of knowledge mobilisation activities’ that could be used by agencies to explore their knowledge mobilisation activities, future strategies and stakeholder perspectives.ConclusionsKnowledge mobilisation could be enhanced by providing support to enable cross-sector and interagency learning, reflection on the conceptual basis of approaches and increased evaluation of knowledge mobilisation activities. Further research is needed to evaluate approaches to assessing research use and impact, on systems approaches to knowledge mobilisation, on sustaining and scaling-up approaches, and on applying a wider range of literatures to knowledge mobilisation. Further research would also be useful on the knowledge mobilisation archetypes and how they can work in complementary ways.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Increasing the impact of health services research on service improvement: the researcher-in-residence model

“…In contrast, advocates of co-production have enthusiastically developed theories and frameworks but have been less successful to date in developing workable models which can be used by practitioners. 4 Underlying this problem is the deeply embedded distinction between the academic and practitioner communities. For this reason, a possible solution lies in the application of a research paradigm which brings the two communities together.…”

“…[2][3][4][5] Here, for research to have impact, both knowledge producers and users need to be involved in its creation and its application. A strong emphasis is placed on co-production, the development of positive relationships, effective systems and a conducive organisational context.…”

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

“…13 There is both confusion of terms and confusion in the meaning of terms. 90 Knowledge translation, for example, can refer to the job of 'translating' lengthy and complex research reports into digests more suitable for busy practitioners; the translation of knowledge into action or practice arising from collaboration between researchers and practitioners; 82,91 or the 'transfer' of research from one group to another with little interpretation or amendment. 7 Transfer needs to be understood in relation to definitions of knowledge and different models of KIT will prescribe the role for people and organisations responsible for enabling it.…”

“…94,99,100 Davies et al 90 suggested six archetypes of knowledge mobiliser: knowledge product pushers; brokers and intermediaries of their own research; brokers and intermediaries of wider research; evidence advocates (champions for evidence-informed practice); network fosterers (developing new ones and enhancing existing ones); and advancers of knowledge mobilisation (enhancing knowledge about KIT work). Within these archetypes, agents carry out three broad overlapping roles: developing and sharing research-based products, brokering and implementation.…”

Whose evidence is it anyway?

“…The St Andrews team recently hosted another workshop, reviewing what we now know about Knowledge Mobilisation and how it is being approached by research agencies such as funders, think tanks, and evidence centres (Davies et al 2014). We were all in attendance and one thing we were struck by, both in the presentation of the research and the discussion that followed, was that in some ways little has changed.…”