Bridging science to service: Using Rehabilitation Research and Training Center program to ensure that research-based knowledge makes a difference

Abstract

Abstract-The challenge of bridging science to service is increasingly visible in the healthcare field, with emphasis on the influence of evidence-based knowledge on both policy and practice. Since its inception more than 40 years ago, the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC) program has provided grants for both research and training activities designed to ensure that research knowledge is translated into practice. The RRTC program is unique in that its mission and funding have always required that both time and money be invested in the translation and dissemination of researchgenerated knowledge to users in the field, i.e., decision makers and practitioners. Boston University's Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation has been an RRTC for more than 25 years and provides an example of the effect of the RRTC program in bridging science to service. The Center's mission as an RRTC has been to develop and transfer research knowledge to decision makers and practitioners who can then inform change and promote progress in mental health disability policy and practice. This article reviews five basic dissemination and utilization principles for overcoming the most common barriers to effective dissemination of evidence-based knowledge and provides examples of the Center's activities related to each principle. In addition, a knowledge-transfer framework developed by the Center to organize dissemination and utilization efforts is described.

Knowledge exchange and knowledge translation in physical therapy and manual therapy fields: barriers, facilitators and issues

“…29,30 Another barrier that has been described in the literature is the inability of clinicians to apply research to patients seen in practice. 5,10,13,21,31,32 It has been reported that clinicians perceive a significant barrier in applying research findings from a group of subjects to an individual patient with specific characteristics since research implications for practice in the original research report may not be stated clearly. 10,13 According to Grimmer-Somers et al 10 , physical therapists feel that research results may not be applicable to their particular setting.…”

“…1,2 Transfering scientific evidence to clinicians has been identified as a challenge among rehabilitation professions and a gap between the scientific evidence and its application in clinical practice has been described. [3][4][5] The failure to translate scientific evidence into clinical practice contributes to the gap between what is known and what is done, leading to the underuse of efficacious treatments, erroneous use of treatments and overuse of inefficacious or unevaluated treatments. 1,6 The identification of this gap has led to the development of a special interest and further investigation in KE and knowledge translation (KT).…”

Measuring the success of facilitated engagement between knowledge producers and users: a validated scale

“…While the enviable economic context of this arrangement is unusual it is not unique (Farkas and Anthony, 2007) and it could be reproduced elsewhere. Nevertheless, the regular presentation of research findings directly to knowledge users is a common strategy for influencing decision makers (Bogenschneider et al, 2000), and we have demonstrated that its success can be measured.…”

Advancing the Recovery Orientation of Hospital Care Through Staff Engagement With Former Clients of Inpatient Units

“…The speaker series served as an exposure strategy that had an impact on staff attitudes and knowledge, which is the first step toward substantively changing practice. It also demonstrated that skills and implementation cannot be derived through exposure alone, and a more substantive investment is needed to fundamentally change the way that inpatient care is provided (31,32). To effectively have an impact on practice, this training would likely need to be considered as a component of a larger intervention that would more explicitly address skill development through mentorship and organizational structures that embed new practices as routine care (32).…”