Health researchers in Alberta: an exploratory comparison of defining characteristics and knowledge translation activities

Abstract

Background: Canadian funding agencies are no longer content to support research that solely advances scientific knowledge, and key directives are now in place to promote research transfer to policy-and decision-makers. Therefore, it is necessary to improve our understanding of how researchers are trained and supported to facilitate knowledge translation activities. In this study, we investigated differences in health researcher characteristics and knowledge translation activities.

Fostering knowledge exchange between researchers and decision-makers: Exploring the effectiveness of a mixed-methods approach

“…Decision-maker disinterest in active engagement could be due in part to the fact that many acknowledged lack of experience with knowledge exchange for research planning, which was also noted in another study [16]. However, the impetus for suggesting primarily technical, rather than interpretive knowledge exchange activities could also be a lack of incentives for taking part in research planning.…”

“…A survey of 907 medical school faculty found that greater number of research staff and less time spent on research partially contributed to the likelihood of interactions with decision-makers, highlighting that resources are required to enable knowledge exchange [15]. Another survey of health services researchers found that only 15% of applied researchers participated in interactive forms of research transfer [16]. The authors attributed low rates of knowledge exchange to the continuing academic emphasis on traditional research dissemination through publications.…”

What Predicts Dissemination Efforts among Public Health Researchers in the United States?

“…2,17,24,28 Although models and frameworks for dissemination exist, 29 it is Application of these models is likely to be enhanced via partnerships that focus on dissemination. For example, Newton et al 30 queried basic and applied researchers about modes of dissemination. Among applied scientists, there was a greater focus on research that incorporates external validity (e.g., social and political factors) and the needs of research end users.…”

Building Scientist Capacity in Knowledge Translation: Development of the Knowledge Translation Planning Template

“…A study conducted with health researchers from three Alberta universities reported that applied researchers reported engaging in significantly more Mode II activities than basic researchers (i.e., activities that share research with decision makers and policy makers, to promote research knowledge creation and transfer based on the needs of knowledge users in the health care system) (Newton et al, 2007). Applied researchers also placed more importance on Mode II activities than their basic researcher counterparts.…”

“…The first step in achieving this aim is to consciously plan their knowledge translation activities. Few studies have explored the knowledge translation activities of researchers (e.g., Barwick et al, in preparation;Nedjat et al, 2014;Newton et al, 2007;Wilson et al, 2010), and we know of no other tools focused on supporting this important activity other than several that have been based on the Knowledge Translation The last fifteen years have seen a fundamental shift in the importance of knowledge translation in health research and clinical care. Health research funders have incorporated knowledge translation into their missions, strategic directions, and funding opportunities, encouraging knowledge translation and implementation science and requiring knowledge translation practice from researchers working across the health research pillars -basic, clinical, health services, and population health.…”