Pursuing common agendas: A collaborative model for knowledge translation between research and practice in clinical settings

Abstract

There is an emerging discourse of knowledge translation that advocates a shift away from unidirectional research utilization and evidence-based practice models toward more interactive models of knowledge transfer. In this paper, we describe how our participatory approach to knowledge translation developed during an ongoing program of research concerning equitable care for diverse populations. At the core of our approach is a collaborative relationship between researchers and practitioners, which underpins the knowledge translation cycle, and occurs simultaneously with data collection/analysis/synthesis. We discuss lessons learned including: the complexities of translating knowledge within the political landscape of healthcare delivery, the need to negotiate the agendas of researchers and practitioners in a collaborative approach, and the kinds of resources needed to support this process.

Networked innovation in the health sector: comparative qualitative study of the role of Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care in translating research into practice

“…Among the mechanisms highlighted in the existing literature is the creation of boundary-spanning or 'knowledge broker' roles for individuals to link discrete communities; [47][48][49] organisational-level activities (such as using forums and meetings) as places for the exchange of ideas between groups; 50,51 and integrated KT processes and end-of-grant activities in which findings are translated for other audiences. 52 Considerable attention has been placed on understanding the process of 'boundary spanning' across organisational and epistemic groups within health care.…”

Increasing the influence of one’s research on policy

“…By pointing out the pros and cons of a range of policy options you will provide departmental officers with alternatives rather than dogma, and enhance your credibility. 9,11,12 Options accompanied by some loose costings are particularly welcome. 12 Understanding the mechanics of government departments and respecting the constraints imposed on departmental officers will also help secure a receptive audience.…”

“…We have chosen this approach because of its roots in the 'two communities' theory, because it embraces the social realities of the policy process, and because it offers an ideal framework to develop solutions that complement and support the interactional agenda currently promoted by key government policy documents on innovation. Additionally, it is widely discussed in the academic literature, [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] promoted by practitioners who work at the research-policy interface, 18,19 and we have direct experience of operationalising this approach. The challenge for knowledge producers is to package one's research for easy policy consumption and to manage the frequent turnover of people within positions.…”

A structured approach to knowledge exchange: Understanding the implementation of a cancer survivor program

“…This conceptualization does not accurately depict the dynamic and complex set of relationships between knowledge producers and users (Baumbusch et al, 2008;Graham et al, 2006). In order for researchers to translate data and evidence into a meaningful product for knowledge users, and for knowledge users to inform the research agenda so that meaningful questions and issues are investigated, dialog and interaction at all stages of the research process is key (Lavis, 2006;Ross et al, 2003).…”

“…The KE-DS Model is an iterative model that positions the processes involved in bringing evidence to the development and implementation of an intervention as central to program success. The focus on process aims to be inclusive of different types of knowledge, such as experiential, tacit as well as scientific, recognizing that both producers and end users of knowledge draw from a diversity of knowledge forms acquired over a period of time (Baumbusch et al, 2008;Bartunek et al, 2003;Goldenberg, 2006;Lambert, 2006). By engaging program managers in the initial planning stages of a program, it is assumed that they will share their knowledge as well as their knowledge needs through explicit seeking of information and health interventions.…”