A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of knowledge translation and exchange strategies

Abstract

ContextSignificant resources and time are invested in the production of research knowledge. The primary objective of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of three knowledge translation and exchange strategies in the incorporation of research evidence into public health policies and programs.MethodsThis trial was conducted with a national sample of public health departments in Canada from 2004 to 2006. The three interventions, implemented over one year in 2005, included access to an online registry of research evidence; tailored messaging; and a knowledge broker. The primary outcome assessed the extent to which research evidence was used in a recent program decision, and the secondary outcome measured the change in the sum of evidence-informed healthy body weight promotion policies or programs being delivered at health departments. Mixed-effects models were used to test the hypotheses.FindingsOne hundred and eight of 141 (77%) health departments participated in this study. No significant effect of the intervention was observed for primary outcome (p < 0.45). However, for public health policies and programs (HPPs), a significant effect of the intervention was observed only for tailored, targeted messages (p < 0.01). The treatment effect was moderated by organizational research culture (e.g., value placed on research evidence in decision making).ConclusionThe results of this study suggest that under certain conditions tailored, targeted messages are more effective than knowledge brokering and access to an online registry of research evidence. Greater emphasis on the identification of organizational factors is needed in order to implement strategies that best meet the needs of individual organizations.Trial RegistrationThe trial registration number and title are as follows: ISRCTN35240937 -- Is a knowledge broker more effective than other strategies in promoting evidence-based physical activity and healthy body weight programming?

Exploring conceptualizations of knowledge translation, transfer and exchange across public health in one UK region: a qualitative mapping study

“…9,34,38 In addition, the language and terms used to talk about KT/E processes are often referred to as confusing, blurred and overlapping, and a lack of consensus remains on their meanings and properties. [38][39][40][41][42] A focus on language widens the discussion of these concepts beyond a simple dichotomisation of academic and non-academic understandings to encompass underlying issues of discourse and power. 43 Questions are raised regarding what is meant by 'knowledge' and who creates or owns 'it'.…”

The development of guideline implementation tools: a qualitative study

“…[16][17][18] We interviewed 30 guideline developers from 7 countries who said that their target users had requested GItools, but they required direction for developing GItools. 19 Existing guideline development instructional manuals lack details on how to develop GItools.…”

“…Target users require support to adopt and apply guideline recommendations. [15][16][17][18] Implementation is not considered the responsibility of guideline developers but of target users. 2 Most guideline developers are already challenged by resources and time-to-issue guidelines without the additional burden of concurrently having to work with partners and stakeholders to generate GItools that support user implementation of guidelines.…”

A critical second look at integrated knowledge translation

“…Brokering is ultimately about supporting evidence-based decision-making in the organization, management, and delivery of health services" [29, p.2]. A recent randomized trial found that the utility and effectiveness of KBs will depend on the knowledge production and use context, and in some cases less costly, but still tailored, approaches to knowledge-sharing may be equally or more effective [30]. Besides type/content of knowledge, and specific user needs, contextual factors can include such things as organizational structures and communication patterns, or how the KB or other knowledge "mediator" is brought into the team or setting [31].…”