What Do the People Who Use the Research Results Think? Attempting Integrated Knowledge Translation in the 'Knowledge Creation' Phase

Abstract

Collaboration among researchers and knowledge users, referred to as integrated knowledge translation (iKT), (potentially) enhances the relevance and use of research, leading to improved policies and practice. However, iKT is often applied in idiosyncratic ways, limiting integration of both knowledge creation and action. Further, iKT is rarely used at the stage of knowledge creation. Rather, it is typically used at the stage of knowledge synthesis or dissemination. This paper reports results of one part of a larger research program undertaking iKT through the integration of knowledge users and scientists in the process of knowledge creation around food allergies in Canada. A focus group discussion with 14 knowledge users involved in an ongoing biomedical research project was conducted with the purpose to: (1) share results of recent national survey data describing the prevalence and determinants of food allergy in Canada; and (2) elicit input into the next wave of survey activity in order to ensure the relevance of the next round of data collection. Stakeholders reported a lack of relevant, credible data sources to establish accurate understandings of food allergy for constituents. Confusion and doubt around information resources underline issues of insufficient knowledge translation, hindering knowledge user's credibility as providers of important public health messages. Integrating knowledge users in the process of knowledge creation is essential to facilitate stronger communication between researchers and knowledge users, help modify approaches, and improve population health outcomes; in short, iKT makes science useful.

Towards an understanding of the biopsychosocial determinants of CVD in SLE: a scoping review

“…Our research team includes a trained patient partner (CS) with lived experience with SLE. A previously validated integrated knowledge translation (iKT) approach 30 31 was used in which our patient partner and other members of our multidisciplinary research team provided input and feedback on all stages of design, measurement and evaluation of this research, including the interpretation of results and manuscript preparation.…”