Knowledge Mobilization and Academic Health Science Centres in Australia: Comment on "Academic Health Science Centres as Vehicles for Knowledge Mobilisation in Australia? A Qualitative Study"

Extant research on knowledge mobilization points to barriers and opportunities for innovation. Edelman et al paper "Academic Health Science Centres as Vehicles for Knowledge Mobilisation in Australia? A Qualitative Study" builds nicely on the existing knowledge base by evaluating the early stages of organisational development of Academic Health Science Centers in Australia. This commentary discusses their research findings by drawing on relevant themes including knowledge mobilization initiatives that have been developed globally to bridge the research-practice gap and knowledge brokering roles for service improvement. Following which, the commentary draws on organizational capabilities literature for knowledge brokering to happen, the latter including the need for measuring implementation fidelity amongst other capabilities. Finally, building on Edelman et al call for more attention to action-oriented roles and knowledge mobilization processes to deliver strategic goals the commentary concludes with a note for collective leadership as an enabler of knowledge mobilization with impact and at scale.

When Health Systems Consider Research to Be Beyond the Scope of Healthcare Delivery, Research Translation Is Crippled Comment on "Academic Health Science Centres as Vehicles for Knowledge Mobilisation in Australia? A Qualitative Study"

Edelman and colleagues’ analysis of the views of Board members of Australian Research Translation Centres (RTCs) is well timed. There has been little study of Australian RTCs to date. We focus on their recommendations regarding knowledge mobilisation (KM) to open broader debate on the wisdom of regarding UK practices as a blueprint. We go further and ask whether successful RTCs might, as a result of responding to local context, create idiosyncratic structures and solutions, making generalisable learning less likely? There has been much invested in Australian RTCs and implications of government’s formative evaluation of their work is discussed. Five recommendations are made that could help RTCs: allowing system end-users a greater say in funding decisions, taking a broader, more democratic approach to kinds of knowledge that are valued; investing in methodologies derived from the innovation space; and, a creative attention to governance to support these ideas.

Naturopaths’ mobilisation of knowledge and information in clinical practice: an international cross-sectional survey

Background The contemporary evidence-based practice model acknowledges the importance of patient preferences and clinician experience when applying evidence within a clinical setting. Knowledge mobilisation (KM) acknowledges the complexities of knowledge translation by recognising and respecting diversity in types of knowledge and how such diversity can influence health care and health care choices. While there has been considerable discussion on KM in health care, it has received little attention in the field of naturopathy. Despite naturopathy’s widespread international use, it is unclear how naturopathic practitioners (NPs) use and share knowledge and information in clinical practice. This study examines the mobilisation of knowledge amongst NPs internationally. Methods Online, international, cross-sectional survey of a self-selected sample of NPs from any country, that were either currently in clinical practice or had been in practice within the previous 12 months. The survey was administered in five languages (English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, German). Descriptive statistics were prepared for all survey items. Results The survey was completed by 478 NPs who reported using an average of seven (median = 7, SD = 2.6) information sources to inform patient care. NPs also drew on knowledge gained through patients sharing their perspectives of living with their health condition (Always/Most of the time: 89.3%). They mostly sought knowledge about how a treatment might benefit a patient, as well as knowledge about treatment safety and a better understanding of a patient’s health condition. NPs frequently reported sharing knowledge developed through consideration of the patient’s unique needs (83.3%), and primarily shared knowledge by producing information for the public (72.6%) and for patients (72.2%). Conclusions Based on these findings, it may be argued that NPs practice knowledge mobilisation; employing multiple forms and sources of knowledge, and mobilising knowledge to - as well as from - others. Due to their active engagement in patient and community education, NPs also may be considered knowledge brokers. In the context of the growing understanding of the complexities of knowledge translation and mobilisation in contemporary health care – and particularly within the context of implementation science – this study provides novel insights into an under-researched element of health services accessed by the community.

Five science strategies for tackling socio-political COVID-19 fallout

On 31 December 2019, the World Health Organization was informed of a viral pneumonia that was 10 days later identified as a novel coronavirus. An unprecedented pandemic ensued and tackling the virus and managing its repercussions has since been a priority for researchers and policy makers worldwide. The virus has taken lives, jobs and homes have been lost, and ways of life have been completely upended. The virus has created challenges and caused destruction and with a view to aiding recovery, the United Nations (UN) has published its Framework for the Immediate Socio-Economic Response to COVID-19. This includes the UN Research Roadmap for the COVID-19 Recovery, which highlights how countries across the globe can work together to develop strategies informed by science and evidence. In response to the complexity of COVID-19, the roadmap comprises several interrelated strands, including a focus on science strategies to merge and unite research and information. The roadmap has identified five scientific strategies to ensure science can be effectively applied to key challenges. These are: data infrastructure, implementation science, rapid learning systems, knowledge mobilisation and science of science.

More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production

Background Knowledge mobilisation requires the effective elicitation and blending of different types of knowledge or ways of knowing, to produce hybrid knowledge outputs that are valuable to both knowledge producers (researchers) and knowledge users (health care stakeholders). Patients and service users are a neglected user group, and there is a need for transparent reporting and critical review of methods used to co-produce knowledge with patients. This study aimed to explore the potential of participatory codesign methods as a mechanism of supporting knowledge sharing, and to evaluate this from the perspective of both researchers and patients. Methods A knowledge mobilisation research project using participatory codesign workshops to explore patient involvement in using health data to improve services. To evaluate involvement in the project, multiple qualitative data sources were collected throughout, including a survey informed by the Generic Learning Outcomes framework, an evaluation focus group, and field notes. Analysis was a collective dialogic reflection on project processes and impacts, including comparing and contrasting the key issues from the researcher and contributor perspectives. Results Authentic involvement was seen as the result of “space to talk” and “space to change”. "Space to talk" refers to creating space for shared dialogue, including space for tension and disagreement, and recognising contributor and researcher expertise as equally valuable to the discussion. ‘Space to change’ refers to space to adapt in response to contributor feedback. These were partly facilitated by the use of codesign methods which emphasise visual and iterative working, but contributors emphasised that relational openness was more crucial, and that this needed to apply to the study overall (specifically, how contributors were reimbursed as a demonstration of how their input was valued) to build trust, not just to processes within the workshops. Conclusions Specific methods used within involvement are only one component of effective involvement practice. The relationship between researcher and contributors, and particularly researcher willingness to change their approach in response to feedback, were considered most important by contributors. Productive tension was emphasised as a key mechanism in leading to genuinely hybrid outputs that combined contributor insight and experience with academic knowledge and understanding.

Knowledge mobilisation in sub-Saharan Africa: an impact evaluation of CPDL in improving primary school children’s performance

PurposeA non-governmental organisation (NGO) with schools in Sierra Leone prioritises admission of the most disadvantaged children but nevertheless achieves high educational and social standards. These schools were asked to provide continuing professional development and learning (CPDL) for other schools. This paper aims to report the design, development and delivery of CPDL which aimed to mobilise effective practices more widely. It also reports the design and results of an impact evaluation.Design/methodology/approachIt was recognised that CPDL delivered by foreigners would be (1) unaffordable in this impoverished West African country and (2) culturally inappropriate. It was therefore delivered by local teachers from the NGO's own schools. Most had obtained no formal teaching qualification. They were trained to collect data using a quasi-experimental design for an impact evaluation of children's attendance and literacy. A total of five schools participated in the CPDL, with ten control schools.FindingsA largely unqualified team succeeded in mobilising knowledge in the experimental schools. Children's attendance in experimental schools improved over that in control schools. Performance in literacy also improved significantly and was maintained at follow-up.Research limitations/implicationsFindings of the impact evaluation are seen as indicative rather than causal because a quasi-experimental study was conducted rather than a randomised controlled trial.Originality/valueThis lies in (1) teachers in schools with a severely disadvantaged intake providing a structured programme of CPDL for teachers in other schools; (2) school improvement through knowledge mobilisation in CPDL; (3) an impact evaluation with a quasi-experimental design showing improvement in children's performance.

Enabling knowledge brokerage intermediaries to be evidence-informed

Target audience: What Works Centres; other intermediary brokerage agencies; their funders and users; and researchers of research use.Background: Knowledge brokerage and knowledge mobilisation (KM) are generic terms used to describe activities to enable the use of research evidence to inform policy, practice and individual decision making. Knowledge brokerage intermediary (KBI) initiatives facilitate such use of research evidence. This debate paper argues that although the work of KBIs is to enable evidence-informed decision making (EIDM), they may not always be overt and consistent in how they follow the principles of EIDM in their own practice.Key points for discussion: Drawing on examples from existing brokerage initiatives, four areas are suggested where KBIs could be more evidence-informed in their work: (1) needs analysis: evidence-informed in their analysis of where and how the KBI can best contribute to the existing evidence ecosystem; (2) methods and theories of change: evidence-informed in the methods that the KBI uses to achieve its goals; (3) evidence standards: credible standards for making evidence claims; and (4) evaluation and monitoring: evidence-informed evaluation of their own activities and contribution to the knowledge base on evidence use. For each of these areas, questions are suggested for considering the extent that the principles are being followed in practice.Conclusions and implications: KBIs work with evidence but they may not always be evidence-informed in their practice. KBIs could benefit from more overtly attending to the extent that they apply the logic of EIDM to how they work. In doing so, KBIs can advance both the study, and practice, of using research evidence to inform decision making.