Fostering knowledge exchange between researchers and decision-makers: exploring the effectiveness of a mixed-methods approach.

OBJECTIVES Knowledge exchange is thought to enhance research utilization by decision-makers but there is little guidance on appropriate methods. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a research planning exercise utilizing technical (ranking, rating) and interpretive strategies (interdisciplinary workshop deliberation). METHODS Participants were surveyed to establish research priorities and professional roles. Observation was used to examine actual contribution and outcomes. Semi-structured interviews with participants elicited perceived outcomes, commitment, contribution and learning. Survey data was reported with summary statistics. Transcripts were analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS Stakeholders were satisfied with the overall process, gaps in research were prioritized, and research questions were proposed, but anticipated intermediate or lateral outcomes were not achieved. Identifying differing perspectives and establishing relationships were unanticipated outcomes. Barriers included group dynamics, lack of clarity on objectives and processes, and minimal experience or interest in interpretive activities. CONCLUSIONS A conceptual framework for evaluating factors influencing knowledge exchange outcomes had not been previously investigated. Strategies for overcoming identified barriers include better facilitation, involving a critical volume of non-clinicians, in-person sharing of background information, and incentives for decision-makers. Further research is required to examine the effectiveness of different forms of knowledge exchange, and the degree to which they are currently being practiced.

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

[2]  Sue Ziebland,et al.  Analysing qualitative data , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  F. Sassi Setting priorities for the evaluation of health interventions: when theory does not meet practice. , 2003, Health policy.

[4]  David J Torgerson,et al.  Setting priorities for research. , 2004, Health policy.

[5]  Hugh Tilson,et al.  Public health systems research: setting a national agenda. , 2006, American journal of public health.

[6]  Joost Dekker,et al.  DOING THE RIGHT THING AND DOING IT RIGHT: TOWARD A FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING THE POLICY RELEVANCE OF HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH , 2003, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[7]  D. Menon,et al.  Bridging the “Know-Do” Gap in Healthcare Priority-Setting: What Role Has Academic Research Played? , 2005, Healthcare management forum.

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

[9]  Jalila Jbilou,et al.  Research-Based-Decision-Making in Canadian Health Organizations: A Behavioural Approach , 2007, Journal of Medical Systems.

[10]  Carl Auerbach,et al.  Qualitative Data: An Introduction to Coding and Analysis , 2003 .

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

[12]  Adalsteinn D. Brown,et al.  Development of quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery, using a 3-step modified Delphi approach. , 2005, Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie.

[13]  P. Shekelle,et al.  The effect of panel membership and feedback on ratings in a two-round Delphi survey: results of a randomized controlled trial. , 1999, Medical care.

[14]  M. Law,et al.  Information transfer: what do decision makers want and need from researchers? , 2007, Implementation science : IS.

[15]  Pauline Allen,et al.  On being a good listener: setting priorities for applied health services research. , 2003, The Milbank quarterly.

[16]  Fredric Wolf,et al.  Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. , 2009, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[17]  J. Birdsell,et al.  Health researchers in Alberta: an exploratory comparison of defining characteristics and knowledge translation activities , 2007, Implementation science : IS.

[18]  A. Carr,et al.  Primary total hip replacement surgery: a systematic review of outcomes and modelling of cost-effectiveness associated with different prostheses. , 1998, Health technology assessment.

[19]  L. Leape,et al.  Group judgments of appropriateness: the effect of panel composition. , 1992, Quality assurance in health care : the official journal of the International Society for Quality Assurance in Health Care.

[20]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. , 1998, Health technology assessment.

[21]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Is evidence‐based implementation of evidence‐based care possible? , 2004, The Medical journal of Australia.

[22]  J. Denis,et al.  Partnership experiences: Involving decision-makers in the research process , 2003, Journal of health services research & policy.

[23]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Impact of varying panel membership on ratings of appropriateness in consensus panels: a comparison of a multi- and single disciplinary panel. , 1995, Health services research.

[24]  J. Denis,et al.  Creating a new articulation between research and practice through policy? The views and experiences of researchers and practitioners , 2003, Journal of health services research & policy.

[25]  B J McNeil,et al.  Rating the appropriateness of coronary angiography--do practicing physicians agree with an expert panel and with each other? , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  Nabil Amara,et al.  Direct interactions medical school faculty members have with professionals and managers working in public and private sector organizations: A cross-sectional study , 2007, Scientometrics.

[27]  A D Oxman,et al.  Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[28]  Jane M. Young,et al.  Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback , 2006, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[29]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. , 1992 .

[30]  J. Lavis Research, public policymaking, and knowledge‐translation processes: Canadian efforts to build bridges , 2006, The Journal of continuing education in the health professions.

[31]  A. Epstein,et al.  Performance reports on quality--prototypes, problems, and prospects. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[32]  David S. C. Thompson,et al.  A guide to knowledge translation theory , 2006, The Journal of continuing education in the health professions.

[33]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Impact of group structure and process on multidisciplinary evidence-based guideline development: an observational study. , 2002, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[34]  Nicholas Mays,et al.  Describing the impact of health services and policy research , 2007, Journal of health services research & policy.

[35]  Réjean Landry,et al.  What factors induce health care decision-makers to use clinical guidelines? Evidence from provincial health ministries, regional health authorities and hospitals in Canada. , 2006, Social science & medicine.

[36]  Z. Ansari,et al.  Priority setting in public health and health services research. , 2000, Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association.

[37]  P M Wortman,et al.  Group decision making by experts: field study of panels evaluating medical technologies. , 1985, Journal of personality and social psychology.