Health research funding agencies' support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study.

CONTEXT The process of knowledge translation (KT) in health research depends on the activities of a wide range of actors, including health professionals, researchers, the public, policymakers, and research funders. Little is known, however, about health research funding agencies' support and promotion of KT. Our team asked thirty-three agencies from Australia, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, and the United States about their role in promoting the results of the research they fund. METHODS Semistructured interviews were conducted with a sample of key informants from applied health funding agencies identified by the investigators. The interviews were supplemented with information from the agencies' websites. The final coding was derived from an iterative thematic analysis. FINDINGS There was a lack of clarity between agencies as to what is meant by KT and how it is operationalized. Agencies also varied in their degree of engagement in this process. The agencies' abilities to create a pull for research findings; to engage in linkage and exchange between agencies, researchers, and decision makers; and to push results to various audiences differed as well. Finally, the evaluation of the effectiveness of KT strategies remains a methodological challenge. CONCLUSIONS Funding agencies need to think about both their conceptual framework and their operational definition of KT, so that it is clear what is and what is not considered to be KT, and adjust their funding opportunities and activities accordingly. While we have cataloged the range of knowledge translation activities conducted across these agencies, little is known about their effectiveness and so a greater emphasis on evaluation is needed. It would appear that "best practice" for funding agencies is an elusive concept depending on the particular agency's size, context, mandate, financial considerations, and governance structure.

[1]  O. Barr Getting Research into PracticeGetting Research into Practice , 2005 .

[2]  J Lomas,et al.  Using 'linkage and exchange' to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. , 2000, Health affairs.

[3]  S. Heap,et al.  The diffusion of ideas in the academy: A quantitative illustration from economics , 2005 .

[4]  B. Sibbald,et al.  Getting research into practice. , 1997, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[5]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies , 2005, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[6]  John Lavis,et al.  Measuring the impact of health research , 2003, Journal of health services research & policy.

[7]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  KT challenges for researchers: how are Canadian health researchers promoting the uptake of their findings? , 2005 .

[8]  J. Morse,et al.  Qualitative Research Methods for Health Professionals , 1995 .

[9]  R. Petrella,et al.  Impact of a social marketing media campaign on public awareness of hypertension. , 2005, American journal of hypertension.

[10]  S. Shortell,et al.  Improving the quality of health care in the United Kingdom and the United States: a framework for change. , 2001, The Milbank quarterly.

[11]  J Lomas,et al.  Diffusion, Dissemination, and Implementation: Who Should Do What? , 1993, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[12]  S. Straus,et al.  Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? , 2006, The Journal of continuing education in the health professions.

[13]  A. L. Cochrane,et al.  Effectiveness and Efficiency , 1994, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[14]  B. Crabtree,et al.  Doing Qualitative Research , 1999 .

[15]  Joseph A. Maxwell,et al.  Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach , 1996 .

[16]  C. Ramsay,et al.  Mass media interventions: effects on health services utilisation. , 2002, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[17]  Catherine C. Marshall,et al.  Designing Qualitative Research , 1996 .

[18]  V. Beral,et al.  Endometrial cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study. , 2005, Lancet.

[19]  K. Emmons,et al.  Introduction to the special section on dissemination: dissemination research and research dissemination: how can we close the gap? , 2005, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[20]  V. Beral Ovarian cancer and hormone replacement therapy in the Million Women Study , 2007, The Lancet.

[21]  E. Guba,et al.  Lincoln, Yvonna, and Egon Guba, "Postpositivism and the Naturalist Paradigm," pp. 14-46 in Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985.* , 1985 .

[22]  R. Stafford,et al.  National use of postmenopausal hormone therapy: annual trends and response to recent evidence. , 2004, JAMA.

[23]  E. Guba,et al.  Naturalistic inquiry: Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1985, 416 pp., $25.00 (Cloth) , 1985 .

[24]  Rachael Turk,et al.  The Sound of One Hand Clapping , 2008 .

[25]  Anton J. Kuzel,et al.  Sampling in qualitative inquiry. , 1992 .

[26]  A. Oxman,et al.  Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review , 2002, Journal of health services research & policy.

[27]  J. Stanley Metcalfe,et al.  Networks of knowledge: The distributed nature of medical innovation , 2007, Scientometrics.