Key characteristics of knowledge transfer and exchange in healthcare: integrative literature review

Abstract

Aim: This paper presents the results of a review of literature relating to knowledge transfer and exchange in healthcare. Background: Treatment, planning and policy decisions in contemporary nursing and healthcare should be based on sound evidence wherever possible, but research knowledge remains generally underused. Knowledge transfer and exchange initiatives aim to facilitate the accessibility, application and production of evidence and may provide solutions to this challenge. This review was conducted to help inform the design and implementation of knowledge transfer and exchange activities for a large healthcare organization. Data sources: Databases: ASSIA, Business Source Premier, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Review methods: An integrative literature review was carried out including an extensive literature search. English language systematic reviews, literature reviews, primary quantitative and qualitative papers and grey literature of high relevance evaluating, describing or discussing knowledge transfer or exchange activities in healthcare were included for review (January 1990-September 2009). Findings: Thirty-three papers were reviewed (four systematic reviews, nine literature reviews, one environmental scan, nine empirical studies and ten case studies). Conclusion: Robust research into knowledge transfer and exchange in healthcare is limited. Analysis of a wide range of evidence indicates a number of commonly featured characteristics but further evaluation of these activities would benefit their application in facilitating evidence-based practice in nursing

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

“…Other authors have reached similar conclusions. [35][36][37] However, the act of researching, collating and exchanging knowledge is a way of gaining or preserving power by different groups. The present study found that the ability of some stakeholders to engage in KT/E is constrained by a range of factors, particularly conflicting priorities, lack of funding and a limited culture of knowledge-sharing.…”

Knowledge and training in paediatric medical traumatic stress and trauma-informed care among emergency medical professionals in low- and middle-income countries

“…This is an important finding in conjunction with the finding that the overwhelming majority of respondents expressed a desire for training in this area, as positive attitudes have been identified as a key determinant in the successful implementation of evidence based interventions (Pentland et al, 2011; Varnell, Haas, Duke, & Hudson, 2008), such as trauma-informed care.…”

Introduction—Knowledge Translation and Urban Health Equity: Advancing the Agenda

“…These strategies obviously do not guarantee that research will have an influence on policy or practice, nonetheless KT has been broadly viewed as a major advance toward this goal because it encourages greater intentionality on the part of the research community in establishing appropriate preconditions (e.g., relevance, accessibility, actionability, and stakeholder capacity to use research) to support research uptake. 8 At least on the surface, therefore, KT appears to offer very promising strategies for accelerating the uptake of research evidence to practically reduce urban health inequities. However, most KT models and best practices have been generated primarily for clinical and single-sector health care decision-making contexts and are rooted in evidence-based medicine.…”