A study protocol for applying the co-creating knowledge translation framework to a population health study

Implementation Science

Justin Beilby⁴  Anne Wilson⁵  Jonathan Newbury³  Elizabeth Hoon¹  Alison Kitson²  Kathryn Powell¹ 

[1] School of Population Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005, Australia;School of Nursing, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005, Australia;School of Population Health, The University of Adelaide, c/ PO Box 3200, Port Lincoln, South Australia 5606, Australia;The University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005, Australia;School of Medicine, University of New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia

关键词: Community health;    Knowledge framework;    Action research;    Knowledge translation model;    Knowledge creation;    Population health;    Knowledge translation;   

Others  :  813383
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-8-98

 received in 2013-06-20, accepted in 2013-08-23,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

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.

Design

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.

Discussion

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.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Powell et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kindig DA: Understanding population health terminology. Milbank Q 2007, 85:139-161.
• [2]Labonte R, Polanyi M, Muhajarine N, McIntosh T, Williams A: Beyond the divides: towards critical population health research. Crit Publ Health 2005, 15:5-17.
• [3]Dagenais C, Ridde V, Laurendeau M-C, Souffez K: Knowledge translation research in population health: establishing a collaborative research agenda. Health Res Pol Syst 2009, 7:28. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Young D, Borland R: Conceptual challenges in the translation of research into practice: it’s not just a matter of “communication”. Trans Behav Med 2011, 1:256-269.
• [5]Horowitz CR, Robinson M, Seifer S: Community-based participatory research from the margin to the mainstream. Circulation 2009, 119:2633-2642.
• [6]Woolf SH: The meaning of translational research and why it matters. J Am Med Assoc 2008, 299:211-213.
• [7]Craig P, Griffin S, Macintyre S, Wareham NJ: A translational framework for public health research. BMC Publ Health 2009, 9:10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Waters E, Armstrong R, Swinburn B, Moore L, Dobbins M, Anderson L, Petticrew M, Clark R, Conning R, Moodie M, Carter R: An exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial of knowledge translation strategies to support evidence-informed decision-making in local governments (The KT4LG study). BMC Publ Health 2011, 11:34. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Lightfoot N, Strasser R, Maar M, Jacklin K: Challenges and rewards of health research in northern, rural, and remote communities. Ann Epidemiol 2008, 18:8p.
• [10]Ogilvie D, Craig P, Griffin S, Macintyre S, Wareham N: A translational framework for public health research. BMC Publ Health 2009, 9:116. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Dobbins M, Edwards N, Kothari A, Rouse M, Rudman D, Sibbald S: The use of tacit and explicit knowledge in public health: a qualitative study. Implement Sci 2012, 7:20. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Hoon-Leahy C-E, Newbury JL, Kitson AL, Whitford DJ, Wilson A, Karnon J, Baker J, Beilby JJ: The LINKIN Health Census process: design and implementation. BMC Health Serv Res 2012, 12:321. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Graham ID, Tetroe J, Group KTTR: Some theoretical underpinnings of knowledge translation. Acad Emerg Med 2007, 14:936-941.
• [14]Stetler CB, Damschroder LJ, Helfrich CD, Hagedorn HJ: A guide for applying a revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation. Implement Sci 2011, 6:99. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Kitson A: The knowledge-to-action cycle: identifying the gaps. CMAJ: Can Med Assoc J 2010, 182:E73-E77.
• [16]Draper AK, Hewitt G, Rifkin S: Chasing the dragon: Developing indicators for the assessment of community participation in health programmes. Soc Sci Med 2010, 71:8.
• [17]Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L, Whitty P, Eccles MP, Matowe L, Shirran L, et al.: Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess 2004, 8(iii-iv):1-72.
• [18]Francis J, Perlin JB: Improving performance through knowledge translation in the Veterans Health Administration. J Contin Educ Heal Prof 2006, 26:9p.
• [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.(Research)(Report). Implement Sci 2011, 6:102. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Ory MG, Cox DM: Linking Health and Behaviour. In Improving the Quality of Life: Recommendations for People with and without Disabilities. Edited by Romney DM, Brown R, Fry PS. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1995:89-121.
• [21]Kitson A: Knowledge translation and guidelines: a transfer, translation or transformation process? Int J Evid Base Healthc 2009, 7:124-139.
• [22]Kiefer L, Frank J, Di Ruggiero E, Dobbins M, Manuel D, Gully PR, Mowat D: Fostering evidence-based decision-making in Canada: examining the need for a Canadian population and public health evidence centre and research network. Can J Public Health 2005, 96:I1-I40. following 200
• [23]Gagnon ML: Moving knowledge to action through dissemination and exchange. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:25-31.
• [24]Trickett EJ, Beehler S, Deutsch C, Green LW, Hawe P, McLeroy K, Miller RL, Rapkin BD, Schensul JJ, Schulz AJ: Advancing the science of community-level interventions. J Inform 2011., 101
• [25]Greenhalgh T, Wieringa S: Is it time to drop the ‘knowledge translation’ metaphor? A critical literature review. JRSM 2011, 104:501-509.
• [26]Davies H, Nutley S, Walter I: Why ‘knowledge transfer’ is misconceived for applied social research. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008, 13:188-190.
• [27]Van De Ven AH, Johnson PE: Knowledge for theory and practice. Acad Manage Rev 2006, 31:802-821.
• [28]Van de Ven AH: Engaged scholarship: a guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: OUP; 2007.
• [29]Lencucha R, Kothari A, Hamel N: Extending collaborations for knowledge translation: lessons from the community-based participatory research literature. Evid Policy 2010, 6:61-75.
• [30]Small SA, Uttal L: Action-oriented research: strategies for engaged scholarship. J Marriage Fam 2005, 67:936-948.
• [31]Clavier C, Sénéchal Y, Vibert S, Potvin L: A theory-based model of translation practices in public health participatory research. Sociol Health Illn 2012, 34:791-805.
• [32]Australian Bureau of Statistics: 3218.0 Regional Population Growth Australia. Canberra; 2013. [Catalogue Number: 3218.0]
• [33]Public Health Information Development Unit: The University of Adelaide: Population Health Profile of the Eyre Peninsula Division of General Practice: a supplement. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. South Australia: The University of Adelaide; 2007.
• [34]Nutley S, Walter I, Davies HTO: From knowing to doing. Evaluation 2003, 9:125-148.
• [35]Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M: Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. 2007 edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Polity; 2001.
• [36]Kitson AL, Powell K, Hoon E, Newbury J, Wilson A, Beilby JJ: Knowledge translation within a population health study: how do you do it? Implement Sci 2013, 8:54. BioMed Central Full Text
• [37]Freire J: Universities and web 2.0: Institutional challenges. 2008. Elearning Papers Disponible en: http://www.elearningpapers webcite eu Fecha de cosulta
• [38]Buykx P, Humphreys J, Wakerman J, Perkins D, Lyle D, McGrail M, Kinsman L: ‘Making evidence count’: a framework to monitor the impact of health services research. Aust J Rural Heal 2012, 20:51-58.
• [39]Kitson AL, Rycroft-Malone J, Harvey G, McCormack B, Seers K, Titchen A: Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework: theoretical and practical challenges. Implement Sci 2008, 3:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [40]Vingilis E, Hartford K, Schrecker T, Mitchell B, Lent B, Bishop J: Integrating knowledge generation with knowledge diffusion and utilization: a case study analysis of the consortium for applied research and ecvaluation in mental health. Can J Public Health 2003, 94:468-471.
• [41]Contandriopoulos D, Brousselle A, Kedote NM: Evaluating interventions aimed at promoting information utilization in organizations and systems. Healthc Policy 2008, 4:89-107.
• [42]Contandriopoulos D, Lemire M, Denis JL, Tremblay E: Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q 2010, 88:444-483.
• [43]Walton RE, Gaffney ME: Research, action, and participation: "The merchant shipping case". Am Behav Sci 1989, 32(5):582-611.
• [44]Hartling L, Scott-Findlay S, Johnson D, Osmond M, Plint A, Grimshaw J, Klassen TP: Bridging the gap between clinical research and knowledge translation in pediatric emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med 2007, 14:968-977.
• [45]Murphy K, Fafard P: Taking power, politics, and policy problems seriously. J Urban Health 2012, 89:10p.
• [46]Kontos PC, Poland BD: Mapping new theoretical and methodological terrain for knowledge translation: contributions from critical realism and the arts. Implement Sci 2009, 4:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [47]Kothari A, Armstrong R: Community-based knowledge translation: unexplored opportunities. Implement Sci 2011, 6:59. BioMed Central Full Text
• [48]Jacobson N, Butterill D, Goering P: Consulting as a strategy for knowledge transfer. Milbank Q 2005, 83:23p.
• [49]Estabrooks CA: Modeling the individual determinants of research utilization. West J Nurs Res 1999, 21:758-772.
• [50]Bowen S, Martens P, Team TNtK: Demystifying knowledge translation: learning from the community. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005, 10:203-211.