How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers?

McMaster University.
Milbank Quarterly (Impact Factor: 5.06). 02/2003; 81(2):221-48, 171-2. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00052
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Five questions--What should be transferred to decision makers? To whom should it be transferred? By whom? How? With what effect?--provide an organizing framework for a knowledge transfer strategy. Opportunities for improving how research organizations transfer research knowledge can be found in the differences between the answers suggested by our understanding of the research literature and those provided by research-organization directors asked to describe what they do. In Canada, these opportunities include developing actionable messages for decision makers (only 30 percent of research organizations frequently or always do this), developing knowledge-uptake skills in target audiences and knowledge-transfer skills in research organizations (only 20 to 22 percent frequently or always do this), and evaluating the impact of knowledge-transfer activities (only 8 to 12 percent frequently or always conduct an evaluation). Research funders can help research organizations take advantage of these opportunities.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article investigates the impact of knowledge transfer (Goh 2002) from founder firms to the corporate foundations (CFs) on the CFs’ effectiveness. Starting from a typology of CFs’ effectiveness (Ostrower 2006a), we conducted a survey addressed to a sample of Italian CFs to address the impact of different knowledge transfer methods (KTMs) on three dimensions of CFs’ orientation to effectiveness: proactive orientation, social advocacy, and capacity building. The research identified four different KTMs and, using a linear regression, pointed out that the methods adopted by founder firms have a significant influence on proactivity, competences, and on social advocacy of CFs.
    Nonprofit Management and Leadership 02/2015; DOI:10.1002/nml.21125 · 0.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Implementation science and knowledge translation have developed across multiple disciplines with the common aim of bringing innovations to practice. Numerous implementation frameworks, models, and theories have been developed to target a diverse array of innovations. As such, it is plausible that not all frameworks include the full range of concepts now thought to be involved in implementation. Users face the decision of selecting a single or combining multiple implementation frameworks. To aid this decision, the aim of this review was to assess the comprehensiveness of existing frameworks. Methods: A systematic search was undertaken in PubMed to identify implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare published from 2004 to May 2013. Additionally, titles and abstracts from Implementation Science journal and references from identified papers were reviewed. The orientation, type, and presence of stages and domains, along with the degree of inclusion and depth of analysis of factors, strategies, and evaluations of implementation of included frameworks were analysed. Results: Frameworks were assessed individually and grouped according to their targeted innovation. Frameworks for particular innovations had similar settings, end-users, and ‘type’ (descriptive, prescriptive, explanatory, or predictive). On the whole, frameworks were descriptive and explanatory more often than prescriptive and predictive. A small number of the reviewed frameworks covered an implementation concept(s) in detail, however, overall, there was limited degree and depth of analysis of implementation concepts. The core implementation concepts across the frameworks were collated to form a Generic Implementation Framework, which includes the process of implementation (often portrayed as a series of stages and/or steps), the innovation to be implemented, the context in which the implementation is to occur (divided into a range of domains), and influencing factors, strategies, and evaluations. Conclusions: The selection of implementation framework(s) should be based not solely on the healthcare innovation to be implemented, but include other aspects of the framework’s orientation, e.g., the setting and end-user, as well as the degree of inclusion and depth of analysis of the implementation concepts. The resulting generic structure provides researchers, policy-makers, health administrators, and practitioners a base that can be used as guidance for their implementation efforts.
    Health Research Policy and Systems 03/2015; 13(16). DOI:10.1186/s12961-015-0005-z · 1.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background There is a growing demand for researchers to document the impact of research to demonstrate how it contributes to community outcomes. In the area of public health it is expected that increases in the use of research to inform policy and program development will lead to improved public health outcomes. To determine whether research has an impact on public health outcomes, we first need to assess to what extent research has been used and how it has been used. However, there are relatively few studies to date that have quantitatively measured the extent and purpose of use of research in public health policy environments. This study sought to quantitatively measure the frequency and purpose of use of research evidence in comparison to use of other information types in a specific public health policy environment, workplace and transport injury prevention and rehabilitation compensation. Methods A survey was developed to measure the type, frequency and purpose of information used to inform policy and program decision-making. Results Research evidence was the type of information used least frequently and internal data and reports was the information type used most frequently. Findings also revealed differences in use of research between and within the two government public health agencies studied. In particular the main focus of participants’ day-to-day role was associated with the type of information used. Research was used mostly for conceptual purposes. Interestingly, research was used for instrumental purposes more often than it was used for symbolic purposes, which is contrary to findings of previous research. Conclusions These results have implications for the design and implementation of research translation interventions in the context within which the study was undertaken. In particular, they suggest that intervention will need to be targeted to the information needs of the different role groups within an organisation. The results can also be utilised as a baseline measure for intervention evaluations and assessments of research impact in this context.
    BMC Public Health 04/2015; 15. DOI:10.1186/s12889-015-1581-0 · 2.32 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Available from
Jan 2, 2015