Collaborative Translation of Knowledge to Protect Infants During Sleep: A Synergy of Discovery and Practice

Abstract

The impact of discoveries from scientific research is manifested in its timely application to real‐world conditions, with a goal of improving life. This is the desired research‐to‐practice transition for new knowledge, yet it is not always achieved. Where knowledge is simply transferred in its discovered form, there can be unintended consequences and harmful delays in achieving desired changes if there is not also a cultural and contextual fit with targeted populations. This has been the case, for example, in the failure of the “don't bedshare” message in protecting African American infants, a message derived from the discovery of heightened risk of death for infants who sleep in the same bed as others. Knowledge transfer implies movement in one direction: from researchers to end‐users. Family scientists, who work with families, understand that knowledge in its discovered form needs to be translated, and not just transferred, if it is to be useful to families and fit with their values, preferences, and circumstances. Unlike knowledge transfer, knowledge translation is bidirectional, with multiple informants, including but not limited to the new discoveries themselves. In this article, we examine the history of discovery and practice as it relates to preventing sudden infant death. Using safer infant sleep as an example, this review demonstrates the importance of collaborative translation between discovery and practice for developing health policies, interventions and messaging that are enabling for all families.

Adapting the Ideas of Translational Science for Translational Family Science

“…There is little or no room in these discussions for whether that knowledge should be transferred or whether that knowledge is consistent with the knowledge, values, or preferences for the ultimate end target, in this case the individual receiving the prescription advocated by research. The assumption that basic knowledge obtained from research is universally accepted is a matter of epistemology, and as Middlemiss, Cowan, Kildare, and Seddio () make clear elsewhere in this issue, oftentimes transferred knowledge needs to be translated (and perhaps revised) into the epistemologies of others to achieve the desired outcome. Thus, the distinction between the transfer of knowledge and the translation of that knowledge is a salient but often overlooked feature of translational science.…”

“…Westfall et al () highlighted this problem by surfacing the important perspective of frontline health care personnel—practicing physicians and other healthcare delivery professionals—to translational science and the value of building practice‐based research networks that reflect real‐world delivery strategies for care. Likewise, research‐based solutions for families that are not mindful of the constraints imposed by the usual delivery system for possible solutions, or cultural or contextual realities of the target population, will likely fail (e.g., see Middlemiss et al, ). So the typical progression of translational science is instructive because it suggests family scientists need to remain attentive to both the accumulation and the progression of a coherent body of evidence from discovery studies, but the active voice and cumulative experience of practice scientists is needed throughout the accumulation and progression of that evidence.…”

“…Rather, individual units (be they individual humans, families, or clusters of families) can be understood only holistically and as active creators of their reality. We, and others (see Middlemiss et al, 2017), see this perspective as a fundamental shift away from a focus primarily on knowledge transfer from one group to another (e.g., researchers to clinicians) to one that emphasizes both the transfer of knowledge from one group to another and the corresponding translation of the relative importance of the knowledge for the targeted group. Importantly, it is the scientists of practice who are often critical for transferring and translating the knowledge of families' everyday lives into the language used by discovery scientists.…”

“…The influence that practice scientists have on families is illustrated by the line arrows from the two ends of the “Science of Practice” continuum at the bottom of Figure to the “Family Processes” element in the figure. Practically, for discovery scientists motivated to resolve real‐world problems affecting families or that occur from compromised family well‐being, practice scientists often hold essential information needed to understand those problems and devise potential solutions (see Cox, ; Middlemiss, ).…”

“…Whereas the focus of implementation science is the study of the methods to promote the adoption and integration of evidence‐based activities, interventions, and policies into routine professional practice (National Library of Medicine [NLM], ), dissemination science is the study of purposeful delivery of information and materials, which are based on evidence‐based research, for the purpose of action by a targeted constituent (NLM, ). Two essential activities in dissemination and implementation science are the transfer and the transformation of knowledge and practice from discovery science to practice science (see Middlemiss et al, ). The model purposefully illustrates implementation and dissemination with two arrows to the left and right ends of the science‐of‐practice continuum to remain vigilant to the reality that the form, content, and delivery mechanism of these feedback loops are contingent on both the substance of the knowledge or topic of communication and the intended audience.…”