What do we know about health-related knowledge translation in the Circumpolar North? Results from a scoping review

Abstract

BackgroundHealth research knowledge translation (KT) is important to improve population health outcomes. Considering social, geographical and cultural contexts, KT in Inuit communities often requires different methods than those commonly used in non-Inuit populations.ObjectivesTo examine the extent, range and nature of literature about health-related KT in Inuit communities.DesignA scoping review was conducted. A search string was used to search 2 English aggregator databases, ProQuest and EBSCOhost, on 12 March 2015. Study selection was conducted by 2 independent reviewers using inclusion and exclusion criteria. To be included, studies had to explicitly state that KT approaches were used to share human health research results in Inuit communities in the Circumpolar North. Articles that evaluated or assessed KT approaches were thematically analysed to identify and characterize elements that contributed to KT success or challenges.ResultsFrom 680 unique records identified in the initial search, 39 met the inclusion criteria and were retained for analysis. Of these 39 articles, 17 evaluated the KT approach used; thematic analysis identified 3 themes within these 17 articles: the value of community stakeholders as active members in the research process; the importance of local context in tailoring KT strategies and messaging; and the challenges with varying and contradictory health messaging in KT. A crosscutting gap in the literature, however, included a lack of critical assessment of community involvement in research. The review also identified a gap in assessments of KT in the literature. Research primarily focused on whether KT methods reflected the local culture and needs of the community. Assessments rarely focused on whether KT had successfully elicited its intended action.ConclusionsThis review synthesized a small but burgeoning area of research. Community engagement was important for successful KT; however, more discussion and discourse on the tensions, challenges and opportunities for improvement are necessary.

Climate change and Canada’s north coast: research trends, progress, and future directions

“…Second, while impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability studies increasingly note the importance of producing usable science that incorporates local/traditional knowledge, promotes stakeholder engagement, and seeks to inform decision making, basic/fundamental science approaches continue to dominate northern research (Brunet et al 2014). This is evident in how northern stakeholders (i.e., communities, decision makers, civil society organizations) have been engaged in research, which is largely informative, concerned with informing stakeholders on research processes, results sharing, and (or) through scientific training; or consultative, whereby stakeholders contribute their expertise to research as sources of local/traditional knowledge, as local field guides, and (or) as research assistants; but rarely decisional, where objectives and research approaches are co-designed, and stakeholders are actively engaged in data analysis, judgement on data quality, and write-up (Brunet et al 2014;Ford et al 2013a;Gearheard and Shirley, 2007;McDonald et al 2016;Pearce et al 2009). Further, where traditional knowledge is "incorporated" into research, it is typically treated as one source of data contributing to Western scientific understanding, through the documentation of factual observations (e.g., observations on how the climate is changing).…”

“…Finally, there is a need for enhanced communication of results of impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability research. While knowledge mobilization is increasingly being stressed and required by funders, little attention has been given to how to effectively com-municate research to raise awareness and encourage behavioral change Gearheard and Shirley 2007;McDonald et al 2016). Decision makers involved in northern adaptation work interviewed in both Champalle et al (2013) and Labbé et al (2017), for instance, consistently noted poor communication of research results.…”

Disseminating the Results of a Depression Management Study in an Urban Alaska Native Health Care System

“…In one research project that examined disseminating results in an Inuit community, community members suggested integrating dissemination strategies with existing information sources, which included elder’s advice (McShane et al, 2006). Incorporating research information dissemination into pre-existing local approaches can help ensure that results are shared in a way that reaches more community members (McDonald et al, 2016). …”

Untitled

“…While the language was degrading and stigmatizing, the results were also questionable because measures had not been validated in AN people, and the statistical methods had marked limitations (Guilmet, 1989;Trimble, 1989). After this study, many AN people hesitated to participate in community presentations, and other media (i.e., visual, radio, advertisements); and engaging community members in developing and sharing information (McDonald et al, 2016;McShane, Smylie, Hastings, & Martin, 2006;Pufall et al, 2011). Moreover, dissemination efforts that lean toward useful translation of research for planning and decision-making, rather than simply making information comprehensible to a lay audience are more beneficial to community participants (Bowen & Martens, 2005).…”

“…Effective CER dissemination considers the importance of "multidirectional" information exchange, which includes establishing trusting alliances and a setting that allows for comfortable communication, so that research information is relevant to the community (Bowen & Martens, 2005;Elsabbagh et al, 2014). Relevancy to AN/AI communities includes disseminating results that take into consideration local context (Legaspi & Orr, 2007;McDonald et al, 2016;Timmons et al, 2007), appropriate language, information that is both practical to researchers and community members (MacKenzie et al, 2015), and information that considers local values with incorporation of AN/AI knowledge and expertise as integral parts of the process (Legaspi & Orr, 2007;Rivkin et al, 2013). Direct communication can strengthen community trust in research, while concurrently enhancing researchers' understanding of community concerns and perceptions of research (Legaspi & Orr, 2007;McDavitt et al, 2016).…”