Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: Disseminating Canadian Child Maltreatment Surveillance Findings to Decision Makers

2007 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Jack ◽  
Lil Tonmyr
Keyword(s):  
Child Maltreatment ◽  
Knowledge Transfer ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Canadian Child ◽  
Knowledge Transfer And Exchange

scholarly journals Injury data in British Columbia: policy maker perspectives on knowledge transfer

2009 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 70-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Mitton ◽  
Y.C. MacNab ◽  
N. Smith ◽  
L. Foster
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Knowledge Transfer ◽  
Injury Prevention ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Additional Insight ◽  
Complete Chain ◽  
Knowledge Transfer And Exchange ◽  
Comprehensive Picture ◽  
Health Promotion Interventions ◽  
Insight Into

Provincial and regional decision makers in the injury prevention field were interviewed in British Columbia (B.C.) to obtain their views about best processes for the transfer or dissemination of relevant data. These decision makers (n = 13) indicated that data should provide them with a holistic and comprehensive picture to support their decision processes. In addition, they felt information about injury types and rates should be linked backward to determinants or causes and forward to consequences or outcomes. This complete chain of data is needed for planning and evaluating health promotion interventions. It was also felt that data providers needed to devote more effort to fostering effective receptor capacity, so that injury prevention professionals will be better able to understand, interpret and apply the data. These findings can likely be generalized to other jurisdictions and policy areas, and offer additional insight into the practicalities of knowledge transfer and exchange in researcher/decision maker partnerships.

scholarly journals Research use at the Ministry of Health in Burkina Faso: the decision-makers’ perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Dagenais
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Knowledge Transfer ◽  
Burkina Faso ◽  
Informed Decision ◽  
Communication Strategy ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Research Use ◽  
Informed Decision Making ◽  
Ministry Of Health ◽  
Policy Makers

Abstract Background Despite the increased emphasis placed on the use of evidence for policy development, relatively few initiatives have been developed to support evidence-informed decision-making, especially in West Africa. Moreover, studies examining the conditions under which policy-makers use research-based evidence are still scarce, but they show that their attitudes and opinions about research are one of the main determinants of such use. In February 2017, Burkina Faso’s Minister of Health planned to create a unit to promote evidence-informed decision-making within the ministry. Before the unit was set up, documenting the attitudes towards research at the highest levels of his Ministry appeared profitable to the unit’s planning. Method Individual interviews were conducted by the author with 14 actors positioned to consider evidence during decision-making from the Burkina Faso’s Minister of health cabinet. An interview grid was used to explore several themes such as attitudes towards research, obstacles and facilitators to research use, example of research use in decision-making and finally, ways to increase decision-makers’ participation in knowledge transfer activities. Interviews were partially transcribed and analysed by the author. Results The results show a mixed attitude towards research and relatively little indication of research use reported by respondents. Important obstacles were identified: evidence inaccessibility, lack of implementation guidelines, absence of clear communication strategy and studies’ lack of relevance for decision-making. Many suggestions were proposed such as raising awareness, improving access and research communication and prioritizing interactions with researchers. Respondents agree with the low participation of decision-makers in knowledge transfer activities: more leadership from the senior officials was suggested and greater awareness of the importance of their presence. Conclusions The conclusion presents avenues for reflection and action to increase the potential impact of the knowledge transfer unit planned within the Ministry of Health of Burkina Faso. This innovative initiative will be impactful if the obstacles identified in this study and policy-makers’ preferences and needs are taken into account during its development and implementation.

scholarly journals Integrated Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: An Organizational Approach for Stakeholder Engagement and Communications

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dwayne Van Eerd ◽  
Ron Saunders
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Transfer ◽  
Research Process ◽  
User Engagement ◽  
Research Information ◽  
Relevant Research ◽  
Fully Integrated ◽  
The Past ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Knowledge Transfer And Exchange ◽  
Key Concepts

Knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) is a process of making relevant research information available and accessible for use in practice or policy. Integrated KTE, where knowledge users are engaged in the research process, is considered to better facilitate uptake and use. The objective of this paper is to describe a fully integrated KTE approach developed over the past 20 years. Key concepts related to knowledge user engagement as well as the integration of communications within KTE are described. The organizational KTE approach is flexible and can be adapted to a variety of research areas.

scholarly journals Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS): a knowledge transfer partnership

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mala Mann ◽  
Amanda Woodward ◽  
Annmarie Nelson ◽  
Anthony Byrne
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Knowledge Transfer ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Support Service ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Systematic Review Methods ◽  
Skill Sets ◽  
Service Redesign ◽  
Evidence Review

AbstractThe importance of linking evidence into practice and policy is recognised as a key pillar of a prudent approach to healthcare; it is of importance to healthcare professionals and decision-makers across the world in every speciality. However, rapid access to evidence to support service redesign, or to change practice at pace, is challenging. This is particularly so in smaller specialties such as Palliative Care, where pressured multidisciplinary clinicians lack time and skill sets to locate and appraise the literature relevant to a particular area. Therefore, we have initiated the Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS), a knowledge transfer partnership through which we have developed a clear methodology to conduct evidence reviews to support professionals and other decision-makers working in palliative care.PaCERS methodology utilises modified systematic review methods as there is no agreed definition or an accepted methodology for conducting rapid reviews. This paper describes the stages involved based on our iterative recent experiences and engagement with stakeholders, who are the potential beneficiaries of the research. Uniquely, we emphasise the process and opportunities of engagement with the clinical workforce and policy-makers throughout the review, from developing and refining the review question at the start through to the importance of demonstrating impact. We are faced with the challenge of the trade-off between the timely transfer of evidence against the risk of impacting on rigour. To address this issue, we try to ensure transparency throughout the review process. Our methodology aligns with key principles of knowledge synthesis in defining a process that is transparent, robust and improving the efficiency and timeliness of the review.Our reviews are clinically or policy driven and, although we use modified systematic review methods, one of the key differences between published review processes and our review process is in our relationship with the requester. This streamlining approach to synthesising evidence in a timely manner helps to inform decisions faced by clinicians and decision-makers in healthcare settings, supporting, at pace, knowledge transfer and mobilisation.

scholarly journals Deimplementing Untested Practices in Homecare Services: A Preobservational-Postobservational Design

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manon Guay ◽  
Mélanie Ruest ◽  
Damien Contandriopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Transfer ◽  
Social Services ◽  
Exchange Process ◽  
Interdisciplinary Teams ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Clinical Tool ◽  
Health And Social Services ◽  
Knowledge Transfer And Exchange ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Status

Introduction. With community-dwelling elders waiting to adapt their bathroom, Health and Social Services Centers in Quebec (Canada) combined human resources through cross-skilling within interdisciplinary teams. To this end, occupational therapists implemented in-house “tools” to support nonoccupational therapists in selecting bathing equipment. However, unknown psychometric properties of those in-house “tools” cast doubt on the quality of service provided to elders. Little is also known about the best processes to use to support the deimplementation of such nonevidence-based practices. This study presents the effect of a knowledge transfer and exchange intervention designed to deimplement in-house “tools” and replace them with an evidence-based tool (Algo). Methods. Censuses were conducted with the 94 Health and Social Services Centers of Quebec providing homecare services, before and after the knowledge transfer and exchange intervention (2009-2013). In 2013, the deimplementation of in-house “tools” and their replacement by Algo were measured with Knott and Wildavsky’s levels of utilization. Results. Cross-skilling within interdisciplinary teams increased between censuses (87% to 98%), as did use of in-house “tools” (67% to 81%). Algo’s uptake started during the knowledge transfer and exchange process as 25 Health and Social Services Centers achieved the first level of utilization. Nonetheless, no Health and Social Services Center deimplemented the in-house “tools” to use Algo. Conclusion. The knowledge transfer and exchange process led to the development of a scientifically sound clinical tool (Algo) and challenged the status quo in clinical settings regarding the use of nonevidence-based practices. However, the deimplementation of in-use practices has not yet been observed. This study highlights the need to act proactively on the deimplementation and implementation processes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document