Reflecting on Backward Design for Knowledge Translation; Comment on “A Call for a Backward Design to Knowledge Translation”

Document Type: Commentary

Authors

1 Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada

2 Department of Family Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Abstract

In a recent Editorial for this journal, El-Jardali and Fadlallah proposed a new framework for Knowledge Translation (KT) in healthcare. Many such frameworks already exist; thus, new entrants to the field must be scrutinized in regard to their unique contributions to advancing understanding and practice. The El-Jardali and Fadlallah framework focuses on policy-level discussions, a relatively under-studied issue to date. Their framework usefully incorporates both priority setting questions at the front-end (which KT efforts get undertaken and which do not) as well as evaluation questions at the back-end (how do we show that more evidence-informed decisions are actually better ones?). Their framework also emphasizes capacity building among both decision-makers and researchers. This is an area worthy of additional attention, particularly because it is likely to be far more challenging than El-Jardali and Fadlallah allow.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. El-Jardali F, Fadlallah R. A call for a backward design to knowledge translation. Int J Health Policy Manag 2015; 4: 1–5. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.10
  2. Ward V, House A, Hamer S. Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature. J Health Serv Res Policy 2009; 14: 156-64. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008120
  3. Lomas J, Brown AD. Research and advice giving: a functional view of evidence-informed policy advice in a Canadian Ministry of Health. Milbank Q 2009; 87: 903-36.
  4. Ellen ME, Leon G, Bouchard G, Lavis JN, Ouimet M, Grimshaw JM. What supports do health system organizations have in place to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making? A qualitative study. Implement Sci 2013; 8: 84. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-84
  5. Gauvin FP. Understanding policy developments and choices through the ‘3-I’ framework: interests, ideas and institutions. Montreal QB: National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy; 2014. Available from: http://www.ncchpp.ca/docs/2014_ProcPP_3iFramework_EN.pdf
  6. Nilsen P, Stahl C, Roback K, Cairney P. Never the twain shall meet? – a comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implement Sci 2013; 8: 63. doi:  10.1186/1748-5908-8-63
  7. Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, Esmail LC, Ramsey SD, Veenstra DL, et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Effective Res 2012;1: 181-94.  doi: 10.2217/cer.12.7
  8. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Guide to Knowledge Translation Planning at CIHR: Integrated and End-of-Grant Approaches [internet]. Available from: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45321.html
  9. Oliver K, Lorenc T, Innvaer S. New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature. Health Res Policy Syst 2014; 12: 34. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-12-34
  10. Denis J, Lomas  J, Stipich N. Creating receptor capacity for research in the health system: the Executive Training for Research Application (EXTRA) program in Canada. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008; 13: 1-7.
  11. Scott C, Seidel J, Bowen S, Gall N. Integrated health systems and integrated knowledge: creating space for putting knowledge into action. Healthc Q 2009; 13: 30-6.
  12. Bowen S, Zwi AB. Pathways to ‘evidence-informed’ policy and practice: a framework for action. PLoS Med 2005; 2: 7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020166
  13. Cornelissen E, Mitton C, Davidson A, Reid RC, Hole R, Visockas AM, et al. Changing priority setting practice: The role of implementation in practice change. Health Policy 2014; 117: 266-74.
  14. Cooke J. A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care. BMC Fam Pract 2005; 6: 44. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-6-44
  15. Lipsky M. Street-level Bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage; 1980.
  16. Cornelissen E, Mitton C, Davidson A, Reid RC, Hole R, Visockas AM, Smith N. Determining and broadening the definition of impact from implementing a rational priority setting approach in a healthcare organization. Soc Sci Med 2014; 114: 1-9.
  17. Mitton C, Bate A. Où sont les chercheurs? Speaking at cross-purposes or across boundaries? Healthc Policy 2007;3: 32-7.
  18. Cornelissen E, Mitton C, Sheps S. Knowledge translation in the discourse of professional practice. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2011; 9: 184-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2011.00215.x
  19. Contandriopoulos D, Lemire M, Denis JL, Tremblay E. Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: a narrative systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q 2010; 88: 444-83.
  20. Murphy K, Fafard P. Knowledge translation and social epistemology: taking power, politics and values seriously. In: Ocampo P, Dunn JR, editors. Rethinking Social Epistemology: Towards a Science of Change. Springer Science and Business Media BV; 2012. p. 267-83. doi:  10.1007/978-94-007-2138-8_13