Abstract:Although administrators were philosophically supportive of knowledge brokering, they identified funding and resource constraints and the absence of evidence of the effectiveness of knowledge brokering as major barriers to the continuation of a KB role in their facility.
“…found that knowledge brokers stimulated a peer‐to‐peer learning environment, facilitated cross‐disciplinary learning opportunities and were efficient and effective in transferring knowledge.‘It was apparent from the interviews that the KB process was perceived by administrators as an efficient and effective way of providing professional development for staff; they considered it relevant to therapists’ day‐to‐day work, time efficient, and a means for integrating new ideas and practices into therapists’ core work responsibilities. The KB brought value by culling through the research and highlighting important and relevant information specific to each facility.’…”
Although this review shows that knowledge brokering has been an effective strategy for KT, it advocates for more empirical studies to compare the effectiveness of specific knowledge brokering approaches with others. It also calls for empirical studies to explicate the role of library and information science professionals in knowledge brokering.
“…found that knowledge brokers stimulated a peer‐to‐peer learning environment, facilitated cross‐disciplinary learning opportunities and were efficient and effective in transferring knowledge.‘It was apparent from the interviews that the KB process was perceived by administrators as an efficient and effective way of providing professional development for staff; they considered it relevant to therapists’ day‐to‐day work, time efficient, and a means for integrating new ideas and practices into therapists’ core work responsibilities. The KB brought value by culling through the research and highlighting important and relevant information specific to each facility.’…”
Although this review shows that knowledge brokering has been an effective strategy for KT, it advocates for more empirical studies to compare the effectiveness of specific knowledge brokering approaches with others. It also calls for empirical studies to explicate the role of library and information science professionals in knowledge brokering.
“…11 There is, however, a strong focus in the literature on 'knowledge brokers' and other 'mediator' roles, and a growing number of empirical studies [136][137][138][139][140] have investigated these roles. A range of functions has been suggested, including problem definition; research synthesis; facilitating access to research knowledge; developing outputs that are more accessible to users; and developing and brokering networks and other connections.…”
BackgroundThe past two decades have seen rich conceptual development and a wide variety of practical initiatives around research use or ‘knowledge mobilisation’, but so far there has been little systematic effort to map, conceptualise and learn from these initiatives, or to investigate the degree to which they are underpinned by contemporary thinking as set out in the literature. This gap is particularly apparent when looking at knowledge mobilisation at the ‘macro’ level, that is the strategies and activities of major research funders, major research producers and key research ‘intermediaries’.Aims and objectivesThe study had three key objectives with associated research questions: to map the knowledge mobilisation landscape in health care (in the UK and internationally) and in social care and education within the UK; to understand the models, theories and frameworks that underpin the approaches to knowledge mobilisation; and to learn from the success or otherwise of the strategies and approaches in use.MethodsThe study was multimethod and multiphased, with considerable interactivity between the different strands. Data were collected through a review of 71 published reviews on knowledge mobilisation; website review of the knowledge mobilisation activities of 186 agencies; in-depth interviews (n = 52) with key individuals in agencies; a web survey (response rate 57%;n = 106); and two stakeholder workshops (at months 6 and 16).FindingsWe identified a wide range of models, theories and frameworks used to describe knowledge mobilisation and created a conceptual map that highlights six domains of thinking and debate in the literature. The interview and survey data showed three broad, overlapping roles undertaken by agencies: developing and sharing research-based products; emphasising brokering; and focusing on implementation. The knowledge mobilisation approaches in use had been shaped by many factors but there was only limited use of the models, theories and frameworks from the literature. Participants saw formal evaluation of knowledge mobilisation activities as important but highly challenging. Rich formative experience was described but formal evaluation was relatively rare. Few agencies involved service users or members of the public in knowledge mobilisation activities. Working inductively from the study data we derived eight key archetypes or ‘bundles of knowledge mobilisation activities’ that could be used by agencies to explore their knowledge mobilisation activities, future strategies and stakeholder perspectives.ConclusionsKnowledge mobilisation could be enhanced by providing support to enable cross-sector and interagency learning, reflection on the conceptual basis of approaches and increased evaluation of knowledge mobilisation activities. Further research is needed to evaluate approaches to assessing research use and impact, on systems approaches to knowledge mobilisation, on sustaining and scaling-up approaches, and on applying a wider range of literatures to knowledge mobilisation. Further research would also be useful on the knowledge mobilisation archetypes and how they can work in complementary ways.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
“…Review of abstracts and/ or titles disqualified a further 1,496 papers that were deemed not potentially relevant to the review objective. We then obtained the remaining 17 papers for detailed review, which resulted in a total of four studies [37][38][39][40] meeting the eligibility criteria (see Figure 1). Two of these studies used mixed methods, one used qualitative methodology, and one used case presentation.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cameron and colleagues 40 found that paediatric rehabilitation administrators need not only evidence of client and program outcomes but also cost-effectiveness data to build a business case in support of implementing knowledge broker roles. The need for evidence of the benefit of knowledge broker roles is to be expected in a health system with ever increasing fiscal constraints.…”
Purpose: To conduct a systematic review of the literature related to the use of knowledge brokers within paediatric rehabilitation, and specifically to determine (1) how knowledge brokers are defined and used in paediatric rehabilitation and (2) whether knowledge brokers in paediatric rehabilitation have demonstrably improved the performance of health care providers or organizations. Methods: The MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and AMED databases were systematically searched to identify studies relating to knowledge brokers or knowledge brokering within paediatric rehabilitation, with no restriction on the study design or primary aim. Following review of titles and abstracts, those studies identified as potentially relevant were assessed based on the inclusion criteria that they: (1) examined some aspect of knowledge brokers/brokering in paediatric rehabilitation; (2) included sufficient descriptive detail on how knowledge brokers/brokering were used; and(3) were peer-reviewed and published in English. Results: Of 1513 articles retrieved, 4 met the inclusion criteria, 3 of which referenced the same knowledge broker initiative. Two papers used mixed methods, one qualitative methodology, and one case presentation. Because of the different methods used in the included studies, the findings are presented in a narrative summary. Conclusions: This study provides an overview of the limited understanding of knowledge brokers within paediatric rehabilitation. Knowledge broker initiatives introduced within paediatric rehabilitation have been anchored in different theoretical frameworks, and no conclusions can be drawn as to the optimum combination of knowledge brokering activities and methods, nor about optimal duration, for sustained results.Key Words: evidence-based practice; knowledge translation; pediatrics.
RÉ SUMÉObjectif : Procé der à une critique systé matique des publications portant sur l'utilisation des courtiers en connaissances dans le domaine de la ré adaptation pé diatrique et dé terminer plus pré cisé ment (1) comment les courtiers du savoir sont dé finis et utilisé s en ré adaptation pé diatrique et (2) s'ils ont amé lioré de fac¸on dé montrable le rendement de fournisseurs ou d'organisations de soins de santé . Mé thodes : On a effectué une recherche systé matique dans les bases de donné es MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE et AMED pour y trouver des é tudes portant sur les courtiers ou le courtage en connaissances en ré adaptation pé diatrique, sans restriction quant à la conception ou à l'objectif principal de l'é tude. Aprè s une revue des titres et des ré sumé s, les é tudes jugé es é ventuellement pertinentes ont é té é valué es en fonction des critè res d'inclusion suivants: (1) elles portaient sur certains aspects des courtiers ou du courtage en connaissances dans le domaine de la ré adaptation pé diatrique; (2) elles incluaient des dé tails suffisamment descriptifs de la fac¸on d'utiliser les courtiers ou le courtage en connaissances; (3) elles ont é té critiqué es par des pairs et publié es en anglais. R...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
