Integrating Knowledge Generation with Knowledge Diffusion and Utilization—A Case Study Analysis of the Consortium for Applied Research and Evaluation in Mental Health

Population & Community Health Unit, Family Medicine, The University of Western Ontario, 100 Collip Circle, Suite 245, London, ON.
Canadian journal of public health. Revue canadienne de santé publique (Impact Factor: 1.02). 11/2003; 94(6):468-71.
Source: PubMed


Knowledge diffusion and utilization (KDU) have become a key focus in the health research community because of the limited success to date of research findings to inform health policies, programs and services. Yet, evidence indicates that successful KDU is often predicated on the early involvement of potential knowledge users in the conceptualization and conduct of the research and on the development of a "partnership culture". This study describes the integration of KDU theory with practice via a case study analysis of the Consortium for Applied Research and Evaluation in Mental Health (CAREMH).
This qualitative study, using a single-case design, included a number of data sources: proposals, meeting minutes, presentations, publications, reports and curricula vitae of CAREMH members.
CAREMH has adopted the following operational strategies to increase KDU capacity: 1) viewing research as a means and not as an end; 2) bringing the university and researcher to the community; 3) using participatory research methods; 4) embracing transdisciplinary research and interactions; and 5) using connectors. Examples of the iterative process between researchers and potential knowledge users in their contribution to knowledge generation, diffusion and utilization are provided.
This case study supports the importance of early and ongoing involvement of relevant potential knowledge users in research to enhance its utilization potential. It also highlights the need for re-thinking research funding approaches.


Available from: Barbara Lent
  • Source
    • "A large new theoretical strand within health policy focuses on knowledge brokerage/translation as a framework for understanding use of evidence [42-46]. This model can be seen as an extension of Weiss’s ‘instrumental use’ model, or ‘enlightening’ and ‘strategic use’ of evidence, describing the influence of research on policy, and is linked to ideas about ‘coproduction’ and ‘user involvement’ [47]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite 40 years of research into evidence-based policy (EBP) and a continued drive from both policymakers and researchers to increase research uptake in policy, barriers to the use of evidence are persistently identified in the literature. However, it is not clear what explains this persistence - whether they represent real factors, or if they are artefacts of approaches used to study EBP. Based on an updated review, this paper analyses this literature to explain persistent barriers and facilitators. We critically describe the literature in terms of its theoretical underpinnings, definitions of 'evidence', methods, and underlying assumptions of research in the field, and aim to illuminate the EBP discourse by comparison with approaches from other fields. Much of the research in this area is theoretically naive, focusing primarily on the uptake of research evidence as opposed to evidence defined more broadly, and privileging academics' research priorities over those of policymakers. Little empirical data analysing the processes or impact of evidence use in policy is available to inform researchers or decision-makers. EBP research often assumes that policymakers do not use evidence and that more evidence - meaning research evidence - use would benefit policymakers and populations. We argue that these assumptions are unsupported, biasing much of EBP research. The agenda of 'getting evidence into policy' has side-lined the empirical description and analysis of how research and policy actually interact in vivo. Rather than asking how research evidence can be made more influential, academics should aim to understand what influences and constitutes policy, and produce more critically and theoretically informed studies of decision-making. We question the main assumptions made by EBP researchers, explore the implications of doing so, and propose new directions for EBP research, and health policy.
    Health Research Policy and Systems 07/2014; 12(1):34. DOI:10.1186/1478-4505-12-34 · 1.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The transference of knowledge between the two contexts (researcher and study) requires mechanisms to form bridges and connect the contexts. We see this as a two-way flow, to link university and research users [40]. People may be assigned roles as bridge builders in varying capacities, or as linkage personnel who are able move between the research context and the study context [5,41,42]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Population health research can generate significant outcomes for communities, while Knowledge Translation (KT) aims to expressly maximize the outcomes of knowledge producing activity. Yet the two approaches are seldom explicitly combined as part of the research process. A population health study in Port Lincoln, South Australia offered the opportunity to develop and apply the co-KT Framework to the entire research process. This is a new framework to facilitate knowledge formation collaboratively between researchers and communities throughout a research to intervention implementation process. This study employs a five step framework (the co-KT Framework) that is formulated from engaged scholarship and action research principles. By following the steps a knowledge base will be cumulatively co-created with the study population that is useful to the research aims. Step 1 is the initiating of contact between the researcher and the study contexts, and the framing of the research issue, achieved through a systematic data collection tool. Step 2 refines the research issue and the knowledge base by building into it context specific details and conducting knowledge exchange events. Step 3 involves interpreting and analysing the knowledge base, and integrating evidence to inform intervention development. In Step 4 the intervention will be piloted and evaluated. Step 5 is the completion of the research process where outcomes for improvement will be instituted as regular practice with the facilitation of the community.In summary, the model uses an iterative knowledge construction mechanism that is complemented by external evidence to design interventions to address health priorities within the community. This is a systematic approach that operationalises the translational cycle using a framework for KT practice. It begins with the local context as its foundation for knowledge creation and ends with the development of contextually applicable interventions. It will be of interest to those involved in KT research, participatory action research, population health research and health care systems studies. The co-KT Framework is a method for embedding the principles of KT into all stages of a community-based research process, in which research questions are framed by emergent data from each previous stage.
    Implementation Science 08/2013; 8(1):98. DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-8-98 · 4.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "inical and organizational practice . Several papers note the potential benefits of including a knowledge broker , including the promotion of collaborative relationships , knowledge sharing activities and network building within and between research producers , users and managers and organizations ( Crosswaite & Curtice 1994 , Philip et al . 2003 , Vingilis et al . 2003 , Best et al . 2008 ) . Farkas and Anthony ( 2007 ) demonstrate that the perceived value of research evidence is directly affected by the credi - bility of the person who shares it with knowledge users . They suggest that knowledge brokers are integral to earning credibility as they assist in creating action from knowledge , build recip"
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper presents the results of a review of literature relating to knowledge transfer and exchange in healthcare. Treatment, planning and policy decisions in contemporary nursing and healthcare should be based on sound evidence wherever possible, but research knowledge remains generally underused. Knowledge transfer and exchange initiatives aim to facilitate the accessibility, application and production of evidence and may provide solutions to this challenge. This review was conducted to help inform the design and implementation of knowledge transfer and exchange activities for a large healthcare organization. Databases: ASSIA, Business Source Premier, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. An integrative literature review was carried out including an extensive literature search. English language systematic reviews, literature reviews, primary quantitative and qualitative papers and grey literature of high relevance evaluating, describing or discussing knowledge transfer or exchange activities in healthcare were included for review (January 1990-September 2009). Thirty-three papers were reviewed (four systematic reviews, nine literature reviews, one environmental scan, nine empirical studies and ten case studies). Robust research into knowledge transfer and exchange in healthcare is limited. Analysis of a wide range of evidence indicates a number of commonly featured characteristics but further evaluation of these activities would benefit their application in facilitating evidence-based practice in nursing.
    Journal of Advanced Nursing 04/2011; 67(7):1408-25. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05631.x · 1.74 Impact Factor
Show more