Knowledge Exchange Intervention Research Articles

Knowledge exchange sessions on primary health care research findings in public libraries: A qualitative study with citizens in Quebec.

Little is known about knowledge transfer with the public. We explored how citizens, physicians, and communication specialists understand knowledge transfer in public spaces such as libraries. The initial study aimed at evaluating the scaling up of a program on disseminating research findings on potentially inappropriate medication. Twenty-two citizen workshops were offered by 16 physicians and facilitated by 6 communication specialists to 322 citizens in libraries during spring 2019. We did secondary analysis using the recorded workshop discussions to explore the type of knowledge participants used. Participants described four kinds of knowledge: biomedical, sociocultural beliefs, value-based reasoning, and institutional knowledge. Biomedical knowledge included scientific evidence, research methods, clinical guidelines, and access to research outcomes. Participants discussed beliefs in scientific progress, innovative clinical practices, and doctors' behaviours. Participants discussed values related to reliability, transparency, respect for patient autonomy and participation in decision-making. All categories of participants used these four kinds of knowledge. However, their descriptions varied particularly for biomedical knowledge which was described by physician-speakers and communication specialists-facilitators as scientific evidence, epidemiological and clinical practice guidelines, and pathophysiological theories. Communication specialists-facilitators also described scientific journalistic sources and scientific journalistic reports as proxies of scientific evidence. Citizens described biomedical knowledge in terms of knowledge to make informed decisions. These findings offer insights for future scientific knowledge exchange interventions with the public.

Why Is It So Hard to Evaluate Knowledge Exchange? Comment on "Sustaining Knowledge Translation Practices: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis".

Despite a growth in knowledge translation (KT) or exchange activities, and a smaller growth in their evaluations, it remains challenging to identify evidence of efficacy. This could be due to well-documented political and logistical difficulties involved in evaluating knowledge exchange interventions. By bringing in theory from science and technology studies (STS), Borst et al1 offer a new way of thinking about this problem. Most KT evaluations draw on health research traditions; centralising comparability, efficacy, and so on. Borst et al propose focusing on the work it takes to move knowledge over boundaries between these communities, seeing relationships as interactions, not just conduits for evidence. They show how 'context' can be understood as a mutual creation, not a static environment; and that institutions shape behaviours, rather than merely being sites or platforms for evidence mobilisation. Seeing KT as a creative, active practice opens new ways to design and evaluate KT mechanisms.

Creating discursive channels: generating and disseminating impactful research insights into the strategic sales enablement of retail technology

PurposeTo meet the complex technology needs of retail clients, technology providers must work in a close partnership with their clients and co-envisage a strategic vision for the role that technology should play in the client’s value chain. However, many providers lack the sales capabilities needed to do this. This study aims to examine the need for providers to transition from transaction-oriented to solution selling-oriented approaches. To do so, this study explores the impact outcomes of a knowledge-exchange intervention co-designed with a partner from industry.Design/methodology/approachBuilding on empirical insights from an ongoing research programme that examines retail technology implementations, this study developed a knowledge exchange intervention consisting of planning discursive channels, co-defining the scope, co-developing knowledge, executing the intervention and assessing impact outcomes. Discursive channels – multi-lateral communication channels that allow researchers to work collaboratively with the research partner and other stakeholders – emerge as a critical knowledge-exchange mechanism to generate impact outcomes.FindingsThe knowledge-exchange intervention provides impact by enabling the industry partner to establish cross-functional solutions teams, assess retail clients’ technological needs, aid decision-making, define barriers to implementation and develop a coaching approach to support clients’ technological investments. Impact outcomes vary in magnitude, intensity, scope and duration and can also be unintentional where unplanned changes are embedded into practice.Originality/valueThis impact framework offers a roadmap to orchestrate impact outcomes that emerge from academic enquiries.

Research and the real world: Analyzing the short- and long-term impact of knowledge transfer

Abstract Knowledge exchange interventions are an important driver of research impact. This study examines 5 years of intensive knowledge-exchange ‘reform labs’ in the field of education policy. Using qualitative analysis and a regression analysis approach applied to rich case data and quantitative results, we find that the reform labs have a significant impact on both participants and their reform projects in the short-term immediately after the event and in the medium term up to 5 years later. We also find evidence that the impact on individuals and projects drives broader social impact. We take a holistic approach to the knowledge brokerage of designing the reform labs and find that across contexts and project phases, but highly costly. In comparing the reform labs to best practices identified in the literature, we find evidence that knowledge exchange interventions of longer duration, with case-focused teamwork, and involving intensive researcher–participant interaction are more impactful. Additionally, we observe that diverse participants can drive impact and their needs must be considered.

Knowledge exchange and adoption to enable safer post-disaster self-recovery

Despite extensive knowledge on disaster risk reduction and knowledge transfer studies since the 1970s in management and classroom situations,, the adoption of knowledge to reconstruct more hazard-resistant housing after a natural disaster is still rare in self-recovery processes. Approximately 85% of the disaster affected populations recover without humanitarian or governmental shelter assistance. Hazard-resistant construction guidelines are infrequently applied, and new insights from scientific research rarely lead to changes in policy and practice. As a result, disaster affected populations remain vulnerable in case of recurring disasters. The focus of this study is where and why the exchange of knowledge and adoption of knowledge fails in the self-recovery process. The literature presents causes for the rejection of knowledge as the lack of institutional structures and communicating science, and proposes to engage both ends of the producer-user spectrum in a dialogue to negotiate a consensual view of what is feasible and desirable. Currently, governmental and humanitarian organisations involved in recovery aid have difficulty designing communicative interactions effectively in communities using and diffusing hazard-resistant construction guidelines. To reach and support the 85% in self-recovery processes, there is a need to develop an adequate understanding of how knowledge exchange and adoption in such interactions can be more effective. To address this challenge we propose an analytical framework to evaluate knowledge transfer interventions in self-recovery processes as they. Current knowledge interactions in post-disaster recovery are examined and critically analysed using existing knowledge exchange literature. The framework intends to highlight barriers and failure mechanisms that may hamper the knowledge adoption. This analysis provides proposals based on logic to overcome these obstacles; lifting barriers, strengthening trust, matching need and knowledge and reducing risk of adoption failure. The value of these proposals need to be verified in field research. In line with the proposals a second framework is proposed, that enables the analysis of knowledge exchange interventions, as knowledge exchange is essential for adoption.

Street Smarts ↔ Book Smarts

This article describes the development, implementation, and evaluation of an interdisciplinary undergraduate course embedded within a campus–community partnership initiative involving McMaster University School of Nursing, and three urban priority neighborhoods in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Students worked together with community residents and faculty to address selected priority community issues identified by neighborhood members. Using the qualitative interpretive description method, the evaluation explored different partners’ (students, community residents, and faculty) perceptions of the course (SWOT analysis: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, as well as outcomes) as a community engagement and knowledge exchange intervention. Results provide lessons learned and recommendations for future campus–community engaged courses that can be transferred to similar contexts.

Developing definitions for a knowledge exchange intervention in health policy and program agencies: reflections on process and value

The development of definitions is an integral part of the research process but is often poorly described. This paper details the iterative development of five definitions: Policy, Health policy-maker, Health policy agency, Policy documents, and Research findings. We describe the challenges of developing definitions in a large multidisciplinary team and the important methodological repercussions. We identify four factors that were most helpful in this process: (1) An emphasis on fit-for-purpose functionality, (2) Consultation with in-context experts, (3) Our willingness to amend terms as well as definitions, and to revisit some methods and goals as a consequence, and (4) Agreement that we would satisfice: accept ‘good enough’ solutions rather than struggle for optimality and consensus.

Factors influencing rural and urban emergency clinicians' participation in an online knowledge exchange intervention

Rural emergency departments (EDs) generally have limited access to continuing education and are typically staffed by clinicians without pediatric emergency specialty training. Emergency care of children is complex and the majority of children receive emergency care in non-pediatric tertiary care centers. In recent decades, there has been a call to action to improve quality and safety in the emergency care of children. Of the one million ED visits by children in Ontario in 2005-2006, one in three visited more than once in a year and one in 15 returned to the ED within 72 hours of the index visit. This study explored factors influencing rural and urban ED clinicians' participation in a Web-based knowledge exchange intervention that focused on best practice knowledge about pediatric emergency care. The following questions guided the study: (i) What are the individual, context of practice or knowledge factors which impact a clinician's decision to participate in a Web-based knowledge exchange intervention?; (ii) What are clinicians' perceptions of organizational expectations regarding knowledge and information sources to be used in practice?; and (iii) What are the preferred knowledge sources of rural and urban emergency clinicians? A Web-based knowledge exchange intervention, the Pediatric Emergency Care Web Based Knowledge Exchange Project, for rural and urban ED clinicians was developed. The website contained 12 pediatric emergency practice learning modules with linked asynchronous discussion forums. The topics for the modules were determined through a needs assessment and the module content was developed by known experts in the field. A follow-up survey was sent to a convenience sample of 187 clinicians from nine rural and two urban Canadian EDs participating in the pediatric emergency Web-based knowledge exchange intervention study. The survey response rate was 56% (105/187). Participation in the knowledge exchange intervention was related to individual involvement in research activities (χ(2)=5.23, p=0.019), consultation with colleagues from other EDs (χ(2)=6.37, p=0.01) and perception of organizational expectations to use research evidence to guide practice (χ(2)=5.52, p=0.015). Most clinicians (95/105 or 92%) reported relying on colleagues from their own ED as a primary knowledge source. Urban clinicians were more likely than their rural counterparts to perceive that use of research evidence to guide practice was an expectation. Rural clinicians were more likely to rely on physicians from their own ED as a preferred knowledge source. The decision made by emergency clinicians to participate in a Web-based knowledge exchange intervention was influenced by a number of individual and contextual factors. Differences in these factors and preferences for knowledge sources require further characterization to enhance engagement of rural ED clinicians in online knowledge exchange interventions.

Evaluating a knowledge exchange intervention in cancer survivorship care: a workshop to foster implementation of Online Support Groups

PurposeThe purpose of the research described here is to assess the overall effectiveness of the workshop format as a Knowledge Exchange (KE) strategy in (1) disseminating scientific evidence, clinical experience, and systems information related to professionally led Online Support Groups (OSG) for cancer survivors and (2) facilitating the implementation of this intervention by a select group of end users—decision makers and clinical leads in psychosocial supportive care.MethodsThe KE–Decision Support (KE-DS) Model, operationalizing the Health Technology Approach, guided the development of pre- and postworkshop questionnaires, and a follow-up questionnaire administered 5 months after the workshop. Questionnaire results were categorized according to participants’ responses to these elements: methods of engagement, evidence (scientific, experiential, systems) and the delivery of this evidence, and external factors at the institutional level, such as administrative support, budgetary issues, etc., that influence decision-maker abilities and strategies.ResultsTraditional KE strategies such as peer-reviewed journal articles are optimal for disseminating scientific evidence, while face-to-face interactions, such as in a workshop, are best used to disseminate systems-level implementation information, such as fiscal implications, budgetary requirements, and policy relevance, which is not found in journal articles or conferences. An apparent shift in workplace culture signifies the availability of institutional support for high-level staff to engage in KE.ConclusionsAs a KE strategy with identified end users, the workshop format is effective in facilitating the implementation of this intervention in participants’ institutions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00520-012-1686-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Knowledge Exchange Processes in Organizations and Policy Arenas: A Narrative Systematic Review of the Literature

This article presents the main results from a large-scale analytical systematic review on knowledge exchange interventions at the organizational and policymaking levels. The review integrated two broad traditions, one roughly focused on the use of social science research results and the other focused on policymaking and lobbying processes. Data collection was done using systematic snowball sampling. First, we used prospective snowballing to identify all documents citing any of a set of thirty-three seminal papers. This process identified 4,102 documents, 102 of which were retained for in-depth analysis. The bibliographies of these 102 documents were merged and used to identify retrospectively all articles cited five times or more and all books cited seven times or more. All together, 205 documents were analyzed. To develop an integrated model, the data were synthesized using an analytical approach. This article developed integrated conceptualizations of the forms of collective knowledge exchange systems, the nature of the knowledge exchanged, and the definition of collective-level use. This literature synthesis is organized around three dimensions of context: level of polarization (politics), cost-sharing equilibrium (economics), and institutionalized structures of communication (social structuring). The model developed here suggests that research is unlikely to provide context-independent evidence for the intrinsic efficacy of knowledge exchange strategies. To design a knowledge exchange intervention to maximize knowledge use, a detailed analysis of the context could use the kind of framework developed here.