Health Research Funding Agencies' Support and Promotion of Knowledge Translation: An International Study.
Saved in:
| Title: | Health Research Funding Agencies' Support and Promotion of Knowledge Translation: An International Study. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | TETROE, JACQUELINE M. (AUTHOR), GRAHAM, IAN D. (AUTHOR), FOY, ROBBIE (AUTHOR), ROBINSON, NICOLE (AUTHOR), ECCLES, MARTIN P. (AUTHOR), WENSING, MICHEL (AUTHOR), DURIEUX, PIERRE (AUTHOR), LÉGARÉ, FRANCE (AUTHOR), NIELSON, CAMILLA PALMHØJ (AUTHOR), ADILY, ARMITA (AUTHOR), WARD, JEANETTE E. (AUTHOR), PORTER, CASSANDRA (AUTHOR), SHEA, BEVERLEY (AUTHOR), GRIMSHAW, JEREMY M. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Milbank Quarterly. Mar2008, Vol. 86 Issue 1, p125-155. 31p. 11 Charts. |
| Subjects: | Public health research, Theory of knowledge, World class companies, Employment practices, Interviewing, Market penetration, Policy sciences, Medical personnel, Research |
| Abstract: | 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Milbank Quarterly is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0887378X |
| DOI: | 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00515.x |
