Evaluation of partnerships in a transnational family violence prevention network using an integrated knowledge translation and exchange model: a mixed methods study

Health Research Policy and Systems

C Nadine Wathen²  Shannon L Sibbald¹  Anita Kothari¹ 

[1]Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, N6A 5B9 London, ON, Canada

[2]Faculty of Information and Media Studies, Western University, N6A 5B7 London, ON, Canada

关键词: Public health;    Partnerships;    Networks;    Integrated knowledge translation;    Family violence;   

Others  :  802408
DOI  :  10.1186/1478-4505-12-25

 received in 2014-01-31, accepted in 2014-05-14,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Family violence is a significant and complex public health problem that demands collaboration between researchers, practitioners, and policymakers for systemic, sustainable solutions. An integrated knowledge translation network was developed to support joint research production and application in the area. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which the international Preventing Violence Across the Lifespan (PreVAiL) Research Network built effective partnerships among its members, with a focus on the knowledge user partner perspective.

Methods

This mixed-methods study employed a combination of questionnaire and semi-structured interviews to understand partnerships two years after PreVAiL’s inception. The questionnaire examined communication, collaborative research, dissemination of research, research findings, negotiation, partnership enhancement, information needs, rapport, and commitment. The interviews elicited feedback about partners’ experiences with being part of the network.

Results

Five main findings were highlighted: i) knowledge user partner involvement varied across activities, ranging from 11% to 79% participation rates; ii) partners and researchers generally converged on their assessment of communication indicators; iii) partners valued the network at both an individual level and to fulfill their organizations’ mandates; iv) being part of PreVAiL allowed partners to readily contact researchers, and partners felt comfortable acting as an intermediary between PreVAiL and the rest of their own organization; v) application of research was just emerging; partners needed more actionable insights to determine ways to move forward given the research at that point in time.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrate the importance of developing and nurturing strong partnerships for integrated knowledge translation. Our findings are applicable to other network-oriented partnerships where a diversity of stakeholders work to address complex, multi-faceted public health problems.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Kothari et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N: Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006, 26(1):13-24.
• [2]Caplan N: The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. Am Behav Sci 1979, 22(3):459-470.
• [3]Lomas J: Improving Research Dissemination and Uptake in the Health Sector: Beyond the Sound of one Hand Clapping. Hamilton, Canada: McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Policy Commentary; 1997:C97-1.
• [4]Lomas J: Using research to inform healthcare managers’ and policy makers’ questions: from summative to interpretive synthesis. Healthc Policy 2005, 1(1):55-71.
• [5]Kothari A, Wathen CN: A critical second look at integrated knowledge translation. Health Policy 2013, 109(2):187-191.
• [6]Kothari A, Birch S, Charles C: “Interaction” and research utilisation in health policies and programs: does it work? Health Policy 2005, 71(1):117-125.
• [7]Canadian Institutes of Health Research: More about Knowledge Translation at CIHR; Knowledge Translation – Definition. [http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39033.html webcite]
• [8]Lapaige V: “Integrated knowledge translation” for globally oriented public health practitioners and scientists: framing together a sustainable transfrontier knowledge translation vision. J Multidiscip Healthc 2010, 3:33-47.
• [9]Jansson SM, Benoit C, Casey L, Phillips R, Burns D: In for the long haul: knowledge translation between academic and non-profit organizations. Qual Health Res 2010, 20:131.
• [10]Pan-Canadian Public Health Network: About the Network. [http://www.phn-rsp.ca/index-eng.php webcite]
• [11]Wright J, Walley J, Philip A, Petros H, Ford H: Research into practice: 10 years of international public health partnership between the UK and Swaziland. J Public Health 2010, 32(2):277-282.
• [12]Mitchell P, Pirkis J, Hall J, Haas M: Partnerships for knowledge translation in health services research, policy and practice. J Health Serv Res Policy 2009, 14(2):104-111.
• [13]Clavier C, Sénéchal Y, Vibert S, Potvin L: A theory-based model of translation practices in public health participatory research. Sociol Health Ill 2012, 34(5):791-805.
• [14]Goldman KD, Schmalz KJ: Being well-connected: starting and maintaining successful partnerships. Health Promot Pract 2008, 9(1):5-8.
• [15]Lavis J, Davies H, Oxman A, Denis J, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E: Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005, 10(Suppl 1):35-48.
• [16]Fleury M: Integrated service networks: the Quebec case. Health Serv Manage Res 2006, 19(3):153-165.
• [17]Provan KG, Kenis P: Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness. J Public Admin Res Theory 2008, 18(2):229-252.
• [18]Brass DJ, Galaskiewicz J, Greve HR, Tsai W: Taking stock of networks and organizations: a multilevel perspective. Acad Manage J 2004, 47(6):795.
• [19]Wathen CN, Sibbald SL, Jack SM, Macmillan HL: Talk, trust and time: a longitudinal study evaluating knowledge translation and exchange processes for research on violence against women. Implement Sci 2011, 6:102.
• [20]Bowen S, Martens P: Demystifying knowledge translation: learning from the community. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005, 10:203-211.
• [21]Provan KG, Fish A, Sydow J: Interorganizational networks at the network level: a review of the empirical literature on whole networks. J Manage 2007, 33(3):479-516.
• [22]Weiss ES, Taber SK, Breslau ES, Lillie SE, Li Y: The role of leadership and management in six southern public health partnerships: a study of member involvement and satisfaction. Health Educ Behav 2010, 37(5):737-752.
• [23]Pablos-Mendez A, Shademani R: Knowledge translation in global health. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006, 26(1):81-86.
• [24]Netshandama V: Quality partnerships: the community stakeholders’ view. Int J of Comm Res Engag 2010, 3:70-87.
• [25]Rycroft-Malone J, Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B, Seers K, Titchen A, Estabrooks C: Ingredients for change: revisiting a conceptual framework. Qual Saf Health Care 2002, 11:174-180.
• [26]Martens PJ, Roos N: When health services researchers and policy makers interact: tales from the tectonic plates. Healthc Policy 2005, 1(1):72-84.
• [27]Smith KE, Bambra C, Joyce KE, Perkins N, Hunter DJ, Blenkinsopp EA: Partners in health? A systematic review of the impact of organizational partnerships on public health outcomes in England between 1997 and 2008. J Public Health 2009, 31(2):210-221.
• [28]Hayes SL, Mann MK, Morgan FM, Kitcher H, Kelly MJ, Weightman AL: Collaboration between local health and local government agencies for health improvement. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011, 6:CD007825.
• [29]Thomson AM, Perry JL: Collaboration processes: inside the black box. Public Admin Rev 2006, 66(1):20-32.
• [30]Ansari WE, Weiss ES: Quality of research on community partnerships: developing the evidence base. Health Educ Res 2006, 21(2):175-180.
• [31]Martiniuk ALC, Secco M, Speechley KN: Knowledge translation strategies using the think about epilepsy program as a case study. Health Promot Pract 2011, 12(3):361-369.
• [32]Preventing Violence Across the Lifespan Research Network: Welcome to the PreVAiL Research Network. [http://www.prevailresearch.ca/ webcite]
• [33]World Health Organization: Violence Prevention Alliance – The Public Health Approach. [http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/public_health/en/index.html webcite]
• [34]American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs: Violence against women: relevance for medical practitioners. JAMA 1992, 267(23):3184-3189.
• [35]Kothari A, MacLean L, Edwards N, Hobbs A: Indicators at the interface: managing policymaker-researcher collaboration. Knowledge Manage Res Pract 2011, 9:203-214.
• [36]Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psych 2006, 3(2):77-101.
• [37]Wathen CN, MacGregor JCD, Hammerton J, Coben JH, Herrman H, Stewart DE, MacMillan HL: Priorities for research in child maltreatment, intimate partner violence and resilience to violence exposure: results of an international Delphi consensus development process. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:684.
• [38]Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J, The Knowledge Transfer Study Group: How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q 2003, 81(2):221-248.
• [39]Wilkinson H, Gallagher M, Smith M: A collaborative approach to defining the usefulness of impact: lessons from a knowledge exchange project involving academics and social work practitioners. Evidence Policy 2012, 8(3):311-327.
• [40]Huerta T: Maintaining relationships is critical in network’s success. Healthc Papers 2006, 7(2):28-31.
• [41]Allender S, Nichols M, Foulkes C, Reynolds R, Waters E, King L, Gill T, Armstrong R, Swinburn B: The development of a network for community-based obesity prevention: the CO-OPS Collaboration. BMC Public Health 2011, 11:132.
• [42]Wathen CN, Macgregor JC, Sibbald SL, Macmillan HL: Exploring the uptake and framing of research evidence on universal screening for intimate partner violence against women: a knowledge translation case study. Health Res Policy Syst 2013, 11:13.
• [43]Grant AM, Altman DG, Babiker AB, Campbell MK, Clemens FJ, Darbyshire JH, Elbourne DR, McLeer SK, Parmar MK, Pocock SJ, Spiegelhalter DJ, Syndes MR, Walker AE, Wallace SA, DAMOCLES study group: Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials. Health Technol Assess 2005, 9(7):1-238.
• [44]Shelly JJ: Addressing the policy cacophony does not require more evidence: an argument for reframing obesity as caloric overconsumption. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:1042.
• [45]International Institute for Sustainable Development: Knowledge Networks: Guidelines for Assessment. Winnipeg; 2004. [http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2004/networks_guidelines_for_assessment.pdf webcite]