Toward a Comprehensive Interdisciplinary Model of Health Care Research Use

Logan, Jo; Graham, Ian

doi:10.1177/1075547098020002004

Cited by 271 publications

(238 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

235

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…80 In addition, with a few notable exceptions, the models have received only limited empirical testing. We briefly discuss here five of the frameworks from Box 1 that have been tested empirically to some degree: the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) Framework; 52 the Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework; 1 the Ottawa Model of Research Use (OMRU); 51 the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 65 and the conceptual framework of the knowledge transfer process developed by Ward et al…”

Section: Major Models and The Testing Of Thesementioning

confidence: 99%

Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study

Davies

Powell

Nutley

2015

Health Services and Delivery Research

114

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Major Models and The Testing Of Thesementioning

confidence: 99%

Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study

Davies

Powell

Nutley

2015

Health Services and Delivery Research

114

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…19 Classical models of change (sometimes referred to as descriptive or normative theories) are passive; they explain or describe how change occurs. An example of a classical theory of change is Rogers' diffusion theory 16,22 or Kuhn's 23 conceptualization of scientific revolutions. These theories describe change but were not specifically designed to be used to cause change.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[15][16][17] Given the complexity of behavior change and the multiple factors that can influence it in positive and negative ways, there is growing recognition that implementation efforts could and should be guided by conceptual models or frameworks 18 to understand the process of change and the critical elements that determine why a particular intervention might work in one setting and not another. A number of these implementation frameworks have been developed in health care as well as other settings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Some Theoretical Underpinnings of Knowledge Translation

Graham

Tetroe

2007

Academic Emergency Medicine

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A careful analysis of the definition of knowledge translation highlights the importance of the judicious translation of research into practice and policy. There is, however, a considerable gap between research and practice. Closing the research-to-practice gap involves changing clinical practice, a complex and challenging endeavor. There is increasing recognition that efforts to change practice should be guided by conceptual models or frameworks to better understand the process of change. The authors conducted a focused literature search, developed inclusion criteria to identify planned action theories, and then extracted data from each theory to determine the origins, examine the meaning, judge the logical consistency, and define the degree of generalizability, parsimony, and testability. An analysis was conducted of the concepts found in each theory, and a set of action categories was developed that form the phases of planned action. Thirty-one planned action theories were identified that formed the basis of the analyses. An Access database was created, as well as a KT Theories User's Guide that synthesizes all the planned change models and theories, identifies common elements of each, and provides information on their use. There are many planned change models and frameworks with many common elements and action categories. Whenever any planned change model is used, change agents should consider documenting their experiences with the model so as to advance understanding of how useful the model is and to provide information to others who are attempting a similar project.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2007; 14:936-941 ª

show abstract

“…As a KE tool, the KE-DS Model shares many common features with other models, such as the Ottawa Model for Research Use (OMRU) (Logan and Graham, 1998) or the University of Leeds Knowledge Brokering Model (Ward et al, 2010a,b). All three models share a multi-disciplinary approach.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A structured approach to knowledge exchange: Understanding the implementation of a cancer survivor program

Kazanjian

Smillie

Howard

et al. 2012

European Journal of Oncology Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-The purpose of this research was to describe the application of a model of knowledge exchange, the Knowledge Exchange-Decision Support (KE-DS) Model, to the Canadian pilot of Cancer Transitions, a psychosocial program for cancer survivors.Method-We compared and contrasted the program planning and implementation processes across three diverse sites offering Cancer Transitions. The KE-DS Model guided the collection and analysis of observations and written data according to specific model components.Results-The use of the KE-DS Model highlighted four pertinent factors that influenced knowledge exchange during planning and implementation processes of this psychosocial program. First, the geographic diversity of where these programs were offered affected strategies for program promotion, recruitment and means of access. Second, the variation of the professional and organizational capacity of the three sites was critical to program planning and delivery. Third, cultural values and norms shaped each site's approach. Fourth, the KE-DS Model identified populations who were included and excluded from participation.Conclusions-The KE-DS Model was useful in elucidating the processes of knowledge exchange during the planning and implementing of an intervention for survivor care. This process information will inform future offerings of Cancer Transitions.

show abstract

Toward a Comprehensive Interdisciplinary Model of Health Care Research Use

Cited by 271 publications

References 40 publications

Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study

Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: learning from other countries and other sectors – a multimethod mapping study

Some Theoretical Underpinnings of Knowledge Translation

A structured approach to knowledge exchange: Understanding the implementation of a cancer survivor program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About