The development and application of audit criteria for assessing knowledge exchange plans in health research grant applications

Implementation Science

Robbie Foy²  Alicia Ridout¹  Vicky Ward²  Alexa I Ruppertsberg¹ 

[1] Health Services Innovation Hub, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK;Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

关键词: Research proposals;    Impact plans;    Knowledge exchange;   

Others  :  1146872
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-014-0093-0

 received in 2014-02-07, accepted in 2014-07-04,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Research funders expect evidence of end user engagement and impact plans in research proposals. Drawing upon existing frameworks, we developed audit criteria to help researchers and their institutions assess the knowledge exchange plans of health research proposals.

Findings

Criteria clustered around five themes: problem definition; involvement of research users; public and patient engagement; dissemination and implementation; and planning, management and evaluation of knowledge exchange. We applied these to a sample of grant applications from one research institution in the United Kingdom to demonstrate feasibility.

Conclusion

Our criteria may be useful as a tool for researcher self-assessment and for research institutions to assess the quality of knowledge exchange plans and identify areas for systematic improvement.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Ruppertsberg et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Tetroe JM, Graham ID, Foy R, Robinson N, Eccles MP, Wensing M, Durieux P, Legare F, Nielson CP, Adily A, Ward JE, Porter C, Shea B, Grimshaw JM: Health research funding agencies’ support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study. Milbank Q 2008, 86:125-155.
• [2]Goering P, Ross S, Jacobson N, Butterill D: Developing a guide to support the knowledge translation component of the grant application process. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract 2010, 6:91-102.
• [3]Holmes B, Scarrow G, Schellenberg M: Translating evidence into practice: the role of health research funders. Implement Sci 2012, 7:39. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Smith S, Ward V, House A: “Impact” in the proposals for the UK’s research excellence framework: shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy. Res Policy 2011, 40:1369-1379.
• [5]Ward V, Smith S, Foy R, House A, Hamer S: Planning for knowledge translation: a researcher’s guide. Evid Policy 2010, 6:527-541.
• [6][http:/ / www.invo.org.uk/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2012/ 04/ INVOLVEBriefingNotesApr2012.pdf] webcite ᅟ: Briefing notes for researchers: involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research.ᅟ ᅟ, ᅟ:ᅟ []
• [7][http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/impacts/RCUKImpactFAQ.pdf] webcite ᅟ: RCUK impact requirements.ᅟ ᅟ, ᅟ:ᅟ []
• [8][http:/ / www.rcuk.ac.uk/ RCUK-prod/ assets/ documents/ impacts/ TypologyofResearchImpacts.pdf] webcite ᅟ: Typology of research impact.ᅟ ᅟ, ᅟ:ᅟ []
• [9]Ward V, Smith S, House A, Hamer S: Exploring knowledge exchange: a useful framework for practice and policy. Soc Sci Med 2012, 74:297-304.
• [10]Foy R, Eccles MP: Audit and Feedback Interventions. In Knowledge Translation in Healthcare: Moving From Evidence To Practice. Second edition. Edited by Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham ID. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Oxford; 2013:183.
• [11]Ward V, House A, Hamer S: Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature. J Health Serv Res Policy 2009, 14:156-164.
• [12]Solberg L, Mosser G, McDonald S: The three faces of performance measurement: improvement, accountability, and research. J Qual Improv 1997, 23:135-147.
• [13]Gollwitzer PM: Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. Am Psychol 1999, 54:493-503.
• [14][http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/kt_lm_ktplan-en.pdf] webcite ᅟ: Guide to knowledge translation planning at CIHR: integrated and end-of-grant approaches.ᅟ ᅟ, ᅟ:ᅟ []
• [15][http:/ / www.ccf.nihr.ac.uk/ PPI/ Documents/ PPI%20A5%20booklet%20low%20res%20FI NAL.pdf] webcite ᅟ: Patient and public involvement - getting going as a research reviewer.ᅟ ᅟ, ᅟ:ᅟ []