UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Identifying priorities in knowledge translation from the perspective of trainees: results from an online… Newman, Kristine; Van Eerd, Dwayne; Powell, Byron J; Urquhart, Robin; Cornelissen, Evelyn; Chan, Vivian; Lal, Shalini Jun 21, 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


52383-13012_2015_Article_282.pdf [ 275.6kB ]
JSON: 52383-1.0215964.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0215964-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0215964-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0215964-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0215964-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0215964-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0215964-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

SHORT REPORTIdentifying priorities in knpr, Re fKeorities and concerns for KT research and practice isuseful to advancing the KT field. This report defines KTitems included demographics, geographic location, car-eer stage, KT experience, KT research priorities, and KTrough Fluid-reminder e--mail [5]. Re-nalyzed usingen-ended re-ImplementationScienceNewman et al. Implementation Science 2015, 10:http://www.implementationscience.com/content/10/1/egories emerged. The codes were discussed andRyerson University, Toronto M5B 2K3, CanadaFull list of author information is available at the end of the articlesponses were reviewed and coded independently by twoinvestigators [BJP, VC] who revised codes as general cat-* Correspondence: kristine.newman@ryerson.ca1Daphne Cockwell School of Nursing, Faculty of Community Services,practitioners, health-care teams, and systems” [1]. In-deed, working with their mentors, they may identifynovel ways of viewing KT challenges and new ap-proaches to solving them. The purpose of this study wasto identify priorities for KT research and practice fromCollaborative (KTTC) [4] and 2013 KT CaInstitute [2] was e-mailed a survey link thSurveys™. Non-responders were sent threemails 7, 14, and 21 days after the initial esponses to open-ended questions were aqualitative content analysis [6, 7]. The opas the “iterative, timely, and effective process of integrat-ing best evidence into the routine practice of patients,topics unworthy of further research/exploration. A pur-posive sample of trainees affiliated with the KT Traineenada Summerand advancement of KT as a field. Our purpose was to identify research and practice priorities in the KT field fromthe perspectives of KT researcher/practitioner trainees.Findings: Survey response rate was 62 % (44/71). Participants were mostly Canadian graduate students, post-doctoralfellows, residents, and learners from various disciplines; the majority was from Ontario (44 %) and Quebec (20 %).Seven percent (5/71) were from other countries including USA, UK, and Switzerland. Seven main KT prioritythemes were identified: determining the effectiveness of KT strategies, technology use, increased key stakeholderinvolvement, context, theory, expand ways of inquiry, and sustainability.Conclusions: Overall, the priorities identified by the trainees correspond with KT literature and with KT experts’views. The trainees appeared to push the boundaries of current KT literature with respect to creative use ofcommunication technologies research.Keywords: Knowledge translation, Trainee, Research prioritiesFindingsPurpose and methodsThe knowledge translation (KT) field has advancedrapidly in the last decade. Given that KT trainees are de-veloping programs of research, understanding their pri-the perspectives of KT researcher and practitionertrainees. Trainee perspectives can complement expertviews expressed in the KT literature [2, 3].A Web-based survey was used to identify KT trainees’priorities related to KT practice and research. The 22translation from the persresults from an online suKristine Newman1*, Dwayne Van Eerd2,3, Byron J. Powell4and Shalini Lal8AbstractBackground: The need to identify priorities to help shapthe knowledge translation (KT) field advances. Since manyunderstanding their concerns and KT research and practic© 2015 Newman et al. This is an Open AccessLicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/medium, provided the original work is propercreativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/Open Accessowledgeective of trainees:veyobin Urquhart5, Evelyn Cornelissen6, Vivian Chan7uture directions for research and practice increases asT trainees are developing their research programs,priorities is important to supporting the developmentarticle distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attributionby/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in anyly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Newman et al. Implementation Science 2015, 10: Page 2 of 4http://www.implementationscience.com/content/10/1/disagreements were reviewed in detail by coders untilagreement was reached. The codes were then groupedthematically. The study team reviewed, discussed, andrefined the themes to ensure they accurately representedthe participants’ responses.The Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board ap-proved the study procedures.ResultsWe obtained a response rate of 62 % (44/77), and the re-spondents completed 91 % of the questions. The respon-dents self-identified as Masters or PhD students (60 %) orfaculty (14 %), with the remainder (26 %) identifying aspractitioners, clinician scientists, and fellows. Many re-spondents reported being involved in both KT researchand practice (45 %) or solely KT research (41 %), with theremainder involved in KT practice or other (14 %).The data were categorized into seven main themes re-lated to KT priorities. Many of these priorities relate toone another, as depicted in Additional file 1.Determining the effectiveness of KT strategiesThe most frequently mentioned KT priority concerneddeveloping generalizable knowledge about the effective-ness of KT strategies in various contexts. The respon-dents spoke to the need for more empirical testing ofKT strategies (“I believe that there needs to be a greaternumber of good quality, theory-based KT interventionalstudies conducted to improve our understanding of up-take and spread of knowledge”) [respondent D]. Manysuggested testing whether tailored KT strategies aremore effective than generic, one-size-fits-all strategies.The respondents emphasized the importance of adaptingexisting strategies from behavior change research (“manypeople do not benefit from this [the theoretical and em-pirical work related to behavior change] wisdom.”) [re-spondent N].Use of technologyThe respondents frequently reported the need tocapitalize on technologies such as the Web, mobilephone applications, health informatics, and social mediain KT research and practice. One respondent wrote: “KTis about communication and the new technologies pro-vide opportunities to test and understand the dilemmaof the knowledge to practice gap differently” [respondentE]. The respondents highlighted the potential benefitsand importance of sharing data through technology andonline: “Online sharing is very easy, but the ‘opensource’ mentality is far from the norm in … health re-search. On a positive note, KT researchers are very openin general, since they value collaboration and interdisci-plinarity” [respondent N].Increased involvement of key stakeholdersThe respondents noted the importance of more stake-holder involvement in various aspects of KT. This includeddeveloping partnerships with key stakeholders, such ascommissioning bodies and a broad range of end users (e.g.,policy makers, health-care providers, and patients) as wellas across countries. One respondent stated, “it is not al-ways clear either to practitioners that their particular local/lay knowledge is always welcome in academic research”[respondent AA]. Similarly, as another stated, “we oftenforget our main partner, the patient…there is a world thatwe need to explore there” [respondent K]. Lastly, the re-spondents acknowledged that stakeholder participation islimited by academic culture, which does not reward aca-demic researchers for participating in KT practice. As onerespondent [F] stated:Academia creates incentives for publication, which weknow is not an adequate strategy for effective KT.Creating solid partnerships takes a lot of time andresources, but those efforts are not valued andrecognized in academia.Importance of contextThe respondents prioritized assessing contextual ele-ments in two ways. First, the respondents suggested thatresearch is needed to clarify contextual constructs anddevelop methods for collecting, analyzing, and acting ondata about contexts. For instance, the respondents prior-itized pre-implementation assessments, implementationbarriers, and feasibility of implementation. Second, manyrespondents suggested that specific contexts (or settings)require more KT research, such as dementia care, pri-mary care, nutrition, chronic care, health-care organiza-tions, rural settings, and low-resourced settings. Forexample, one respondent [F] challenged the KT researchcommunity to pay more attention to the needs of Indi-genous peoples:I believe the CIHR model for KT does not go farenough in recognizing and valuing different cultural(and other) factors that are necessary for effective KTwith our Indigenous people—a true ethical problem ina time when health problems are dire for manyIndigenous communities.Finally, the respondents recommended that more at-tention be given to how evidence can be adapted to localcontexts.Importance of theorySeveral respondents’ priorities related to the use of the-ory in KT research and practice, stating that using the-ory is a prerequisite for quality KT research. TheyNewman et al. Implementation Science 2015, 10: Page 3 of 4http://www.implementationscience.com/content/10/1/expressed their belief that using theories from diversedisciplines and perspectives is important and also sug-gested using “theoretical frameworks to identify the ‘keycomponents’ or drivers in knowledge exchange” [re-spondent AJ]. While some respondents suggested spe-cific theories (e.g., complexity theory), others referredmore generally to the importance of integrating theoryand practice.Sixteen of the 44 respondents responded that thereneeds to be less emphasis on developing new KT frame-works/models and more emphasis on testing, refining,and improving those that already exist.Expand our ways of inquiryMany respondents identified research priorities relatedto expanding our ways of inquiry. One respondent felt“we need to explore other modes of inquiry that aremore finely attuned to the particular that shed light onspecific relationships between actual people” [respond-ent X]. In addition, many suggested embracing a broaderarray of research methodologies and approaches underu-tilized in KT research, such as social network analysis,economic evaluation, mixed methods, and qualitative re-search. As one respondent [AL] noted,KT is predominantly supported from a moretraditional research perspective yet continuously,research indicates that the most critical component tothe success or failure of a KT project or strategy iscontextual. Qualitative research can more effectivelyget at context.The respondents also prioritized development of validand reliable outcome measures, including those forcontextual elements (e.g., organizational readiness forchange), complex interventions, service-system out-comes (e.g., timeliness), implementation outcomes (e.g.,sustainability), and downstream effects of KT efforts onend users and health-care teams. They also expressedthe importance of using evaluation frameworks and ofroutinely conducting evaluations of KT efforts.Finally, the respondents prioritized improved descrip-tions of KT processes and research through develop-ment of reporting guidelines specific to KT. Reportingguidelines were suggested in response to a perceivedproblem in the literature: “limitations of syntheses areoften related to intervention reporting” [respondent M].SustainabilityThe respondents indicated that sustainability is a toppriority at the design phase of any KT research or prac-tice initiative. Many mentioned measuring sustainabilityof KT efforts as a priority. One respondent acknowl-edged, “We don't know if it is our efforts are sustainable,or even if they should be” [respondent K]. Other respon-dents noted the need for the development and testing ofspecific KT strategies to enhance sustainability.ConclusionsOverall, KT trainees identified KT research and practicepriorities that align closely with those noted by KT ex-perts in the KT literature. These include understandingcontext and contextual factors [8, 9], using theory in re-search and practice [10–13], evaluating effectiveness ofKT strategies [3, 14–17], considering factors related tosustainability [18, 19], and employing new approaches toevaluation or ways of inquiry to better understand KT[3, 20–25]. Specifically, Eccles et al. [3] noted that identi-fication, development, refinement, and testing of KTstrategies have been prioritized by federal governmentsand there have been calls to utilize mixed methods andqualitative approaches to understand the nuances ofcontexts and processes related to KT. We determinedtrainee priorities through an empirical process to com-plement the views of experienced KT experts. These pri-orities reinforce the need to move KT research andpractice forward in a number of strategic areas. Thesepriorities will certainly not be the last word. Attendingto these areas creatively will undoubtedly lead to theidentification of further priorities and, in the process,help to strengthen the science and practice of KT.Additional fileAdditional file 1: Identified KT Priorities. Categorized seven mainthemes related to KT prioritiesAbbreviationsKT: knowledge translation; KTSI: 2013 KT Canada Summer Institute;KTTC: Knowledge Translation Trainee Collaborative.Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.Authors’ contributionsAll authors contributed substantially to the (1) conception and design of thestudy, (2) analysis and interpretation of the data, and (3) critical review and revisionof the manuscript. They have given final approval of the version to be publishedand agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. KN and DVE alsoacquired funding and coordinated the study, and KN completed data collection.AcknowledgementsWe would like to acknowledge the respondents for their participation in thestudy. This research was partly funded by the Faculty of Community Services,Ryerson University by the Spring 2014 Publication Grant and in part by aCIHR Planning Grant #119110. We thank McMaster University, Faculty ofHealth Sciences, School of Nursing for ethics assistance. We thank the Dean’sOffice, Faculty of Community Services, Ryerson University for fundingprofessional editing of this article.Author details1Daphne Cockwell School of Nursing, Faculty of Community Services,2Ryerson University, Toronto M5B 2K3, Canada. Institute for Work and Health,Toronto, Canada. 3School of Public Health and Health Systems, University ofWaterloo, Waterloo, Canada. 4Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School ofstrategies. Eur J Health Econ. 2007;8:111–21. doi:10.1007/s10198-007-0043-8.25. Luke DA. Getting the big picture in community science: methods thatcapture context. Am J Community Psychol. 2005;35(3/4):185–200.doi:10.1007/s10464-005-3397-z.doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0282-5Cite this article as: Newman et al.: Identifying priorities in knowledgetranslation from the perspective of trainees: results from an onlinesurvey. Implementation Science 2015 10:.Newman et al. Implementation Science 2015, 10: Page 4 of 4http://www.implementationscience.com/content/10/1/Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, USA. 5Department ofSurgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada. 6Department of FamilyPractice, Faculty of Medicine, University of BC, Vancouver, BC, Canada.7Department of Medicine, Quality and Safety, Vancouver Coastal Health,Vancouver, Canada. 8School of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Universityof Montreal, Montreal, Canada.Received: 29 January 2015 Accepted: 18 June 2015References1. Davis D. Continuing education, guideline implementation, and theemerging transdisciplinary field of knowledge translation. J Contin EducHealth Prof. 2006;26:5–12.2. Straus SE, Brouwers M, Johnson D, Lavis JN, Legare F, Majumdar SR, et al.Core competencies in the science and practice of knowledge translation:description of a Canadian strategic training initiative. Implement Sci.2011;6:127.3. Eccles MP, Armstrong D, Baker R, Cleary K, Davies H, Davies S, et al. Animplementation research agenda. Implement Sci. 2009;4(18):1–7.doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-18.4. Urquhart R, Cornelissen E, Lal S, Colquhoun H, Klein G, Richmond S, et al.A community of practice for knowledge translation trainees: an innovativeapproach for learning and collaboration. J Contin Educ Health Prof.2013;33(4):274–81.5. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian L. Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys:the tailored design method. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2008.6. Forman J, Damschroder L. Qualitative content analysis. In: Jacoby L, SiminoffLA, editors. Empirical methods for bioethics: a primer. Volume 11.Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008. p. 39–62.7. Klaus K. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. ThousandOaks: Sage; 2004.8. Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B. Enabling the implementation of evidencebased practice: a conceptual framework. Quality in Health Care. 1998;7:149–58.9. Stetler CB, Damschroder LJ, Helfrich CD, Hagedorn HJ. A guide for applyinga revised version of the PARIHS framework for implementation. ImplementSci. 2011;6:99.10. Colquhoun HL, Brehaut JC, Sales A, Ivers N, Grimshaw J, Michie S, et al. Asystematic review of the use of theory in randomized controlled trials of auditand feedback. Implement Sci. 2013;8(66):1–8. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-66.11. Davies P, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM. A systematic review of the use of theoryin the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies andinterpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implement Sci.2010;5(14):1–6. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-14.12. Grol R, Bosch MC, Hulscher MEJ, Eccles MP, Wensing M. Planning andstudying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives.Milbank Q. 2007;85(1):93–138. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00478.x.13. Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, Brownson RC. Bridging research andpractice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J PrevMed. 2012;43(3):337–50. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024.14. Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translationof research findings. Implement Sci. 2012;7(50):1–17.15. Novins DK, Green AE, Legha RK, Aarons GA. Dissemination andimplementation of evidence-based practices for child and adolescentmental health: a systematic review. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry.2013;52(10):1009–1025.e18. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2013.07.012.16. Powell BJ, Proctor EK, Glass JE. A systematic review of strategies forimplementing empirically supported mental health interventions. Res SocWork Pract. 2014;24(2):192–212. doi:10.1177/1049731513505778.17. Parmelli E, Flodgren G, Schaafsma ME, Baillie N, Beyer FR, Eccles MP. Theeffectiveness of strategies to change organizational culture to improvehealthcare performance. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; 1.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008315.pub218. Scheirer MA, Dearing JW. An agenda for research on the sustainability ofpublic health programs. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(11):2059–67.19. Stirman, SW, Kimberly J, Cook N, Calloway A, Castro F, Charns M. Thesustainability of new programs and innovations: a review of the empiricalliterature and recommendations for future research. Implement Sci. 2012;7(7):17.20. Kitson AL. The need for systems change: reflections on knowledgetranslation and organizational change. JAN. 2009;65(1):217–28.Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Centraland take full advantage of: • Convenient online submission• Thorough peer review• No space constraints or color figure charges• Immediate publication on acceptance• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar• Research which is freely available for redistribution21. Aarons GA, Fettes DL, Sommerfeld DH, Palinkas LA. Mixed methods forimplementation research: application to evidence-based practice implementationand staff turnover in community-based organizations providing child welfareservices. Child Maltreat. 2012;17(1):67–79. doi:10.1177/1077559511426908.22. Palinkas LA, Aarons GA, Horwitz S, Chamberlain P, Hurlburt M, Landsverk J.Mixed methods designs in implementation research. Adm Policy MentHealth. 2011;38:44–53. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0314-z.23. Raghavan R. The role of economic evaluation in dissemination andimplementation research. In: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK, editors.Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science topractice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 94–113.24. Vale L, Thomas R, MacLennan G, Grimshaw J. Systematic review ofeconomic evaluations and cost analyses of guideline implementationSubmit your manuscript at www.biomedcentral.com/submit


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items