Article

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). 94(6):468-71.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
110 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Unravelling the complex relationship between ideas and innovations, their dissemination and their recontextualisation within and between the different levels of society, government or the higher education system as a whole, individual universities, and the students and teachers in universities has been a central task of this project in order to identify and devise strategies to engage these multiple levels in systematic and strategic change. Ideas about educational policy and reforms and innovations supporting educational change are received and interpreted differently within and between each of the levels and the various contexts in which institutions operate (Ball, 1998). Most current models of dissemination of good teaching practice and innovations focus on sponsored workshops, seminars and courses, upgrading infrastructure, showcases of good practice and some form of ‘teaching excellence’ awards. While these are useful and constitute a degree of dissemination, they are not suffi cient to lead widespread changes in practice or implementation across an institution or discipline. The question faced by the Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education as it considers developing a grant scheme is ‘How can large-scale educational reform in Australian universities be developed and sustained by grant schemes and other centrally funded projects?’ The aim of this project was to systematically investigate Australian and international learning and teaching grant schemes and their outcomes to determine strategies the Carrick Institute might employ to maximise the likelihood of achieving large-scale change in teaching and learning across the Australian higher education sector, especially through its grants program. The project has identified a number of conditions that have been shown to be effective in achieving dissemination of project outcomes and that engage the multiple levels of the higher education sector. It has recommended strategies for the Carrick Institute and leaders of institutions to manage multiple innovative strategies that impact on the culture and practices of universities and their departments as well as on the practices of individual academics.
    01/2005;
  • Source
    [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. · 1.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Knowledge transfer and exchange is the process of increasing the awareness and use of research evidence in policy or practice decision making by nonresearch audiences or stakeholders. One way to accomplish this end is through ongoing interaction between researchers and interested nonresearch audiences, which provides an opportunity for the two groups to learn more about one another. The purpose of this article is to describe and discuss various stakeholder engagement opportunities that we employ throughout the stages of conducting a systematic review, to increase knowledge utilization within these audiences. Systematic reviews of the literature on a particular topic can provide an unbiased overview of the state of the literature. The engagement opportunities we have identified are topic consultation, feedback meetings during the review, member of review team, and involvement in dissemination. The potential benefits of including stakeholders in the process of a systematic review include increased relevance, clarity, and awareness of systematic review findings. A further benefit is the potential for increased dissemination of the findings. Challenges that researchers face are that stakeholder interactions can be time- and resource-intensive, it can be difficult balancing stakeholder desires with scientific rigor, and stakeholders may have difficulties accepting findings with which they do not agree. Despite these challenges we have included stakeholder involvement as a permanent step in the procedure of conducting a systematic review.
    Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 01/2008; 28(2):67-72. · 1.32 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
142 Downloads
Available from
May 27, 2014