Dataset Information

Key components of knowledge transfer and exchange in health services research: Findings from a systematic scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To identify the key common components of knowledge transfer and exchange in existing models to facilitate practice developments in health services research.

Background

There are over 60 models of knowledge transfer and exchange designed for various areas of health care. Many of them remain untested and lack guidelines for scaling-up of successful implementation of research findings and of proven models ensuring that patients have access to optimal health care, guided by current research.

Design

A scoping review was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines. Key components of knowledge transfer and exchange were identified using thematic analysis and frequency counts.

Data sources

Six electronic databases were searched for papers published before January 2015 containing four key terms/variants: knowledge, transfer, framework, health care.

Review methods

Double screening, extraction and coding of the data using thematic analysis were employed to ensure rigour. As further validation stakeholders' consultation of the findings was performed to ensure accessibility.

Results

Of the 4,288 abstracts, 294 full-text articles were screened, with 79 articles analysed. Six key components emerged: knowledge transfer and exchange message, Stakeholders and Process components often appeared together, while from two contextual components Inner Context and the wider Social, Cultural and Economic Context, with the wider context less frequently considered. Finally, there was little consideration of the Evaluation of knowledge transfer and exchange activities. In addition, specific operational elements of each component were identified.

Conclusions

The six components offer the basis for knowledge transfer and exchange activities, enabling researchers to more effectively share their work. Further research exploring the potential contribution of the interactions of the components is recommended.

SUBMITTER: Prihodova L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7379521 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Key components of knowledge transfer and exchange in health services research: Findings from a systematic scoping review.

Prihodova Lucia L Guerin Suzanne S Tunney Conall C Kernohan W George WG

Journal of advanced nursing 20181007 2

<h4>Aims</h4>To identify the key common components of knowledge transfer and exchange in existing models to facilitate practice developments in health services research.<h4>Background</h4>There are over 60 models of knowledge transfer and exchange designed for various areas of health care. Many of them remain untested and lack guidelines for scaling-up of successful implementation of research findings and of proven models ensuring that patients have access to optimal health care, guided by curre ...[more]

PMID: 30168164

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSimple visualizations in health research data, such as scatter plots, heat maps, and bar charts, typically present relationships between 2 variables. Interactive visualization methods allow for multiple related facets such as numerous risk factors to be studied simultaneously, leading to data insights through exploring trends and patterns from complex big health care data. The technique presents a powerful tool that can be used in combination with statistical analysis for knowledge discovery, hypothesis generation and testing, and decision support.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this scoping review is to describe and summarize the evidence of interactive visualization applications, methods, and tools being used in population health and health services research (HSR) and their subdomains in the last 15 years, from January 1, 2005, to March 30, 2019. Our secondary objective is to describe the use cases, metrics, frameworks used, settings, target audience, goals, and co-design of applications.MethodsWe adapted standard scoping review guidelines with a peer-reviewed search strategy: 2 independent researchers at each stage of screening and abstraction, with a third independent researcher to arbitrate conflicts and validate findings. A comprehensive abstraction platform was built to capture the data from diverse bodies of literature, primarily from the computer science and health care sectors. After screening 11,310 articles, we present findings from 56 applications from interrelated areas of population health and HSR, as well as their subdomains such as epidemiologic surveillance, health resource planning, access, and use and costs among diverse clinical and demographic populations.ResultsIn this companion review to our earlier systematic synthesis of the literature on visual analytics applications, we present findings in 6 major themes of interactive visualization applications developed for 8 major problem categories. We found a wide application of interactive visualization methods, the major ones being epidemiologic surveillance for infectious disease, resource planning, health service monitoring and quality, and studying medication use patterns. The data sources included mostly secondary administrative and electronic medical record data. In addition, at least two-thirds of the applications involved participatory co-design approaches while introducing a distinct category, embedded research, within co-design initiatives. These applications were in response to an identified need for data-driven insights into knowledge generation and decision support. We further discuss the opportunities stemming from the use of interactive visualization methods in studying global health; inequities, including social determinants of health; and other related areas. We also allude to the challenges in the uptake of these methods.ConclusionsVisualization in health has strong historical roots, with an upward trend in the use of these methods in population health and HSR. Such applications are being fast used by academic and health care agencies for knowledge discovery, hypotheses generation, and decision support.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/14019.

Project description:BackgroundAddressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge into routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK and internationally.However, there is lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination. Moreover, the expectations and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another. Against this background, we performed a systematic scoping to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activity.MethodsWe searched twelve electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO), the reference lists of included studies and of individual funding agency websites to identify potential studies for inclusion. To be included, papers had to present an explicit framework or plan either designed for use by researchers or that could be used to guide dissemination activity. Papers which mentioned dissemination (but did not provide any detail) in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework, were excluded. References were screened independently by at least two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by discussion. For each included paper, the source, the date of publication, a description of the main elements of the framework, and whether there was any implicit/explicit reference to theory were extracted. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsThirty-three frameworks met our inclusion criteria, 20 of which were designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities. Twenty-eight included frameworks were underpinned at least in part by one or more of three different theoretical approaches, namely persuasive communication, diffusion of innovations theory, and social marketing.ConclusionsThere are currently a number of theoretically-informed frameworks available to researchers that can be used to help guide their dissemination planning and activity. Given the current emphasis on enhancing the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could consider encouraging researchers to adopt a theoretically-informed approach to their research dissemination.

Project description:BackgroundYouth mental health service organizations continue to rapidly broaden their use of virtual care and digital mental health interventions as well as leverage artificial intelligence and other technologies to inform care decisions. However, many of these digital services have failed to alleviate persistent mental health disparities among equity-seeking populations and in some instances have exacerbated them. Transdisciplinary and intersectional knowledge exchange is greatly needed to address structural barriers to digital mental health engagement, develop and evaluate interventions with historically underserved communities, and ultimately promote more accessible, useful, and equitable care.MethodsTo that end, the Digital, Inclusive, Virtual, and Equitable Research Training in Mental Health Platform (DIVERT), the Maritime Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) SUPPORT (Support for People and Patient-Oriented Research and Trials) Unit and IWK Mental Health Program invited researchers, policymakers, interprofessional mental health practitioners, trainees, computer scientists, health system administrators, community leaders and youth advocates to participate in a knowledge exchange workshop. The workshop aimed to (a) highlight local research and innovation in youth-focused digital mental health services; (b) learn more about current policy and practice issues in inclusive digital mental health for youth in Canada, (c) participate in generating action recommendations to address challenges to inclusive, diverse and equitable digital mental health services, and (d) to synthesize cross-sector feedback to inform future training curriculum, policy, strategic planning and to stimulate new lines of patient-oriented research.ResultsEleven challenge themes emerged related to white-colonial normativity, lack of cultural humility, inaccessibility and affordability of participating in the digital world, lack of youth and community involvement, risks of too much digital time in youth's lives, and lack of scientific evidence derived from equity-deserving communities. Nine action recommendations focused on diversifying research and development funding, policy and standards, youth and community led promotion, long-term trust-building and collaboration, and needing to callout and advocate against unsafe digital services and processes.ConclusionKey policy, training and practice implications are discussed.

Project description:PurposeThis study is a scoping review of the different methods used to measure rurality in the health services research (HSR) literature.MethodsWe identified peer-reviewed empirical studies from 2010-2020 from seven leading HSR journals, including the Journal of Rural Health, that used any definition to measure rurality as a part of their analysis. From each study, we identified the geographic unit (e.g., county, zip code) and definition (e.g., Rural Urban Continuum Codes, Rural Urban Commuting Areas) used to classify categories of rurality. We analyzed whether geographic units and definitions used to classify rurality differed by focus area of studies, including costs, quality, and access to care. Lastly, we examined the number of rural categories used by authors to assess rural areas.FindingsIn 103 included studies, five different geographic units and 11 definitions were used to measure rurality. The most common geographic units used to measure rurality were county (n = 59, 57%), which was used most frequently in studies examining cost (n = 12, 75%) and access (n = 33, 57.9%). Rural Urban Commuting Area codes were the most common definition used to measure rurality for studies examining access (n = 13, 22.8%) and quality (n = 10, 44%). The majority of included studies made rural versus urban comparisons (n = 82, 80%) as opposed to focusing on rural populations only (n = 21, 20%). Among studies that compared rural and urban populations, most studies used only one category to identify rural locations (n = 49 of 82 studies, 60%).ConclusionGeographic units and definitions to determine rurality were used inconsistently within and across studies with an HSR focus. This finding may affect how health disparities by rural location are determined and thus how resources and federal funds are allocated. Future research should focus on developing a standardized system to determine under what circumstances researchers should use different geographic units and methods to determine rurality by HSR focus area.

Dataset Information

Key components of knowledge transfer and exchange in health services research: Findings from a systematic scoping review.

Aims

Background

Design

Data sources

Review methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Key components of knowledge transfer and exchange in health services research: Findings from a systematic scoping review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets