Knowledge Mobilization Framework: Implementing Research Evidence in Clinical Practice

“It is not enough to have knowledge; we must apply it. It is not enough to have the will; we must also use the proper means.” – Confucius

In healthcare, turning research into practice is more important than ever. Knowledge mobilization (KMb) is key for better patient care and quality. This review explores what makes a good KMb framework, focusing on research, stakeholders, and context.

Key Takeaways

Knowledge mobilization is a strategic process of transferring and exchanging research evidence to enhance evidence-based decision-making in healthcare.
The review identified six key components of effective knowledge transfer and exchange: knowledge transfer and exchange message, stakeholders and process, inner context, social/cultural/economic context, evaluation of KTE activities, and facilitation of KTE.
The prevalence of these components varied, with the wider social/cultural/economic context less frequently considered.
Specific operational elements for each component were identified, providing a framework to guide and evaluate KTE activities in applied settings.
The findings emphasize the multidimensional and multiscalar nature of capacity development for knowledge mobilization, underscoring the need for a comprehensive, evidence-based approach.

Introduction

Health research aims to guide practice and policy. But, findings can only improve health if they’re used by healthcare systems and professionals. It’s hard to apply research to practice because healthcare is complex.

Several models help with this, like the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Background

This review looked at knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE). It’s a key part of research implementation, but often not fully explained. The study aimed to understand and summarize KTE’s main components from health services research.

Aim of the Study

The study aimed to find and explain the essential parts of KTE in health services research. It aimed to create a detailed framework for designing and checking KTE activities.

“Most SSHRC grant applications contain a mandatory Knowledge Mobilization module that evaluates knowledge mobilization plans when assessing a project’s feasibility and potential impact within and beyond social sciences and humanities.”

SSHRC supports sharing research in both official languages when possible. Research impacts can include better global economy, competitiveness, and public services. They can also lead to new products, jobs, and improved quality of life.

The Review

A scoping review was done, following a detailed plan. It used the Arksey and O’Malley method. The PRISMA guidelines helped make it rigorous.

It went through several stages. First, it found the research question. Then, it searched for studies, picked the best ones, and checked their quality. After that, it extracted data, summarized findings, and shared the results.

Design

The search used four main terms and their variations. These were knowledge (evidence, research, information, data), transfer (exchange, generation, translation, uptake, mobilization, dissemination, implementation), framework (model, concept), and health care (health system, health service, healthcare). It looked at six electronic databases for papers before January 2015.

Search Strategy

The search was wide-ranging, using many databases to find all relevant studies.
It used different versions of the main terms to include a broad range of studies.
The search only included papers up to January 2015, focusing on recent research.

This thorough review aimed to find the latest knowledge mobilization strategies in healthcare. Its findings can help guide future research, policies, and practices in this field.

“Effective response to the pandemic required real-time use of research knowledge.”

The review’s method shows how crucial it is to carefully study existing evidence. This is to improve healthcare knowledge sharing.

Key Components of Knowledge Transfer and Exchange

The review identified six key components of knowledge transfer and exchange. These are: 1) the knowledge transfer and exchange message, 2) stakeholders and process, 3) inner context, 4) social, cultural, and economic context, 5) evaluation of KTE activities, and 6) facilitation of KTE. These components help guide and evaluate KTE activities in various settings.

About 20 percent of the studies reported using a KTE strategy in real-world applications. Fewer studies evaluated KTE strategies formally. The initial search found 4,250 abstracts. After applying criteria, 169 papers were reviewed and assessed.

Of these, 81 studies were categorized into implementation studies and non-implementation papers. There were 18 articles in the implementation studies category and 63 in the non-implementation papers category.

A quality rating scale was used for implementation studies. It had 15 points to assess literature review, research design, data collection, analysis, and reporting. Non-implementation papers were rated on a 10-point scale, focusing on their relevance to the literature. Two team members rated a subset of articles (n= 20) with high agreement.

Key Components of Knowledge Transfer and Exchange
1. Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Message
2. Stakeholders and Process
3. Inner Context
4. Social, Cultural, and Economic Context
5. Evaluation of KTE Activities
6. Facilitation of KTE

These six components form a comprehensive framework for guiding and evaluating KTE activities. They are crucial in various fields like healthcare, education, and policy development. By understanding and addressing these components, researchers and practitioners can improve their knowledge mobilization efforts. This ensures that research evidence is effectively translated into practice and decision-making.

Prevalence of Key Components

The review found that the knowledge transfer and exchange message and the stakeholders and process components often appear together. These are key for sharing research evidence well and getting the right people involved in the KTE process.

Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Message

The knowledge transfer and exchange message is about sharing research findings with different groups. It’s vital for making sure this knowledge is used in real-world settings.

Stakeholders and Process

The stakeholders and process components are about finding who needs to know and how to share the information. They’re important for making sure research is used in practice.

The review shows that the knowledge transfer and exchange message and the stakeholders and process components go hand in hand. They’re crucial for closing the gap between research and practice. This leads to better care for patients.

Context Components

The review found two main parts that affect how well knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) work. These are the inner context and the wider social, cultural, and economic setting. Knowing these parts well is key to making KTE plans work.

Inner Context

The inner context deals with the healthcare organization and its local setting. It includes things like the organization’s leadership, culture, and resources. It also looks at the needs and characteristics of the people being helped.

Healthcare organization characteristics: leadership support, organizational culture, available resources, workflow integration
Local environment: target population needs, demographics, practice setting

Research shows that the inner context gets more attention than the bigger social, cultural, and economic factors. Making KTE plans fit the inner context is very important. It helps make sure these plans work well and are used.

“Adapting to local context is highlighted as a critical step in the knowledge implementation process.”

Social, Cultural and Economic Context

The wider social, cultural, and economic context is often overlooked in KTE studies. Yet, these factors greatly affect how research is used. They should be considered when planning and checking KTE activities.

Knowing the social and cultural background of the community is key. Things like beliefs, values, language, and economic status influence how they accept research. The economic situation also affects the success and lasting impact of KTE projects.

By understanding these contexts, researchers and users can make their KTE efforts more effective. This approach leads to better knowledge sharing. It makes it more likely that research will be used in real life.

The Importance of Context

Ignoring the wider context can limit KTE success. To mobilize knowledge well, you need to know the social, cultural, and economic factors. This knowledge helps in creating better strategies for engaging people and making research useful.

“The social, cultural, and economic context plays a vital role in shaping the implementation and uptake of research evidence. Neglecting these broader factors can lead to missed opportunities and suboptimal outcomes in knowledge transfer and exchange.”

Adding context-specific thoughts to KTE planning and review can help bridge the gap between research and practice. This improves the real-world effect of knowledge sharing efforts.

Evaluation of Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Activities

The review found that there was little consideration of the evaluation of knowledge transfer and exchange in the literature. It’s important to understand the impact and effectiveness of KTE interventions. This helps us see their value and guides future efforts.

Knowledge translation (KT) activities have grown, but evaluating them has not kept pace. The review showed a worrying lack of evaluations for KT interventions. Only a small percentage of KT interventions are evaluated in research projects.

One big challenge in evaluating knowledge exchange interventions is setting clear goals and outcomes. The review found that different terms are often used the same way in knowledge mobilization activities. This makes it hard to measure their success.

Centralization of comparability, efficacy, and other factors in KT evaluations
Conclusion drawn by Borst et al about evaluating KT mechanisms
Instances where research into knowledge mobilization conducted independently
Challenges in articulating goals and outcomes of knowledge mobilization

The review also stressed the need to understand the link between the theory of change and useful learning in knowledge exchange. Insights from science and technology studies (STS) can help us grasp the complex nature of knowledge mobilization in healthcare.

“The healthcare system invests approximately $100 billion annually in biomedical and health research, yet the effective translation of research findings into clinical practice remains a significant challenge.”

Evaluating the impact and effectiveness of KTE interventions is key to understanding their worth. As knowledge mobilization evolves, researchers and practitioners must focus on developing strong evaluation frameworks. This ensures research is efficiently and effectively translated into practice.

knowledge mobilization, research uptake, practice guidelines

The terms “knowledge mobilization,” “research uptake,” and “practice guidelines” are all about transferring knowledge in healthcare. They help turn research into actions that improve health care. This is key for better health outcomes.

Knowledge mobilization means making research useful for action. It’s about getting research to those who need it, like doctors and policymakers. This helps everyone make informed decisions.

Research uptake is when research is used in real life. It needs clear communication and tools to help doctors and others use it. This makes health care better.

Practice guidelines are like roadmaps for doctors. They use the latest research to guide best practices. This ensures patients get the best care possible.

To make knowledge useful, we need a team effort. Researchers, doctors, and policymakers must work together. They need to find gaps in knowledge and figure out how to share it well.

Strategy	Description	Examples
Knowledge Synthesis	Systematic review and meta-analysis of research evidence	Cochrane Reviews, Rapid Reviews
Knowledge Translation	Tailoring research evidence for specific audiences	Plain language summaries, infographics, webinars
Knowledge Exchange	Facilitating bidirectional sharing of knowledge and experiences	Workshops, conferences, communities of practice
Knowledge Brokering	Connecting researchers with stakeholders to facilitate knowledge use	Knowledge brokers, research facilitators

By working together, we can make sure research helps patients. This leads to better health care and smarter decisions.

Facilitation of Knowledge Transfer and Exchange

Facilitation is key for successful knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE). Facilitators are crucial in helping people and teams use research evidence in practice. Their personal traits, role, and style greatly affect KTE success.

Role of Facilitators

Facilitators need various skills to help with research evidence implementation. They must provide support, help teams analyze practices, and mentor others in learning and change. They make complex info easier, encourage teamwork, and apply research in real life.

Facilitation Skills

Good facilitators have many skills. They are great at communicating, adapting to different situations, and understanding research. They create safe spaces, encourage everyone to participate, and help with change challenges.

Facilitators are key in making research useful in healthcare. They use their skills to help professionals make better decisions. This leads to better patient care.

“Facilitation is essential for successful knowledge transfer and exchange. Effective facilitators possess the skills to support individuals and teams in understanding and implementing research evidence in their clinical practice.”

Case Studies

The review shared detailed case studies on how evidence, context, and facilitation work together. These studies shed light on what makes knowledge transfer successful.

High Evidence, Low Context and Facilitation

One set of studies looked at cases where the evidence was strong but the context and facilitation were weak. Yet, these scenarios showed that success was still possible. Strong evidence could push through even with little support and effort.

High Evidence, High Context, Low Facilitation

On the other hand, the review found cases where evidence was strong, the context was open to change, but facilitation was lacking. Surprisingly, these scenarios showed less success. This shows how crucial good facilitation is, even in welcoming environments.

These findings show the complex relationship between evidence, context, and facilitation in using research to improve practices. While strong evidence is key, the review stresses the importance of tailored facilitation and a supportive environment for the best results.

The case studies in this review offer important lessons for healthcare workers, researchers, and policymakers. They highlight the need to consider all factors that affect research use in practice. This leads to better patient care and more effective healthcare.

Challenges and Future Directions

The [review] found several challenges and future directions for knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE). It’s important to study how different parts of KTE work together. We also need better tools to measure and evaluate these processes.

One big challenge is the lack of standard tools to check if KTE strategies work. The review showed that current tools are not detailed enough. Creating detailed tools to understand KTE processes is key to moving forward.

Another area to explore is the interactions between KTE components. This includes the knowledge, the people it’s for, how it’s shared, and the setting. Knowing how these parts affect each other can help us understand successful knowledge sharing.

Using different theories like implementation science and social network theory can also help. Combining these views can give us a clearer picture of what works in knowledge sharing. This can lead to better models for KTE efforts.

Challenge	Future Direction
Lack of standardized frameworks and evaluation tools for KTE	Develop comprehensive diagnostic and evaluative instruments to assess KTE impact
Complex interactions between key components of KTE	Explore the dynamics and interdependencies of KTE elements
Need for integrating diverse theoretical perspectives	Bridge implementation science, organizational change, and social network theory to gain holistic insights

By tackling these challenges and exploring new research areas, we can improve KTE. This will lead to better and more informed clinical practices.

“Effective knowledge mobilization requires a comprehensive understanding of the complex interactions and interdependencies between the key components of the process.”

Evaluation of the Framework

The review found that the knowledge mobilization framework presented in this has been evaluated in various case studies and research settings. While the framework has been shown to be a useful tool for guiding and evaluating KTE activities, further research is needed to ensure its comprehensiveness, accuracy, and applicability across different healthcare contexts.

The review examined several key aspects of the framework’s implementation and impact:

The framework has been applied in a diverse range of healthcare contexts, including critical care nutrition, asthma, osteoporosis, and dialysis, among others.
Studies have demonstrated the framework’s effectiveness in facilitating the translation of research evidence into policy and practice, with positive impacts on areas such as policy formation and funding.
However, the review also highlighted variations in the effectiveness of different knowledge mobilization strategies, underscoring the need for a more nuanced understanding of the factors that contribute to successful implementation.
Engagement, capacity-building, and partnership formation activities emerged as particularly effective components of the framework, while more work is needed to strengthen knowledge integration and adaptive learning.

Overall, the evaluation of the knowledge mobilization framework suggests that it is a valuable tool for healthcare professionals and researchers. However, continued refinement and further research are necessary to ensure its comprehensive applicability and long-term impact.

Framework	Number of Studies	Key Elements	Major Changes Over Time	Context Applied	Key Implications
RE-AIM	17 citations	Reach, Efficacy/effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation	Introduced effectiveness in addition to efficacy	Health behavior change, falls prevention, smoking cessation	Useful for estimating public health impact and planning policies for increased success
Translation Research Continuum or ‘T’ Models	14 citations	Description and discovery, Health application to evidence guidelines, Evaluation of effectiveness	Expanded from T1 (basic science) and T2 (clinical practice) to T3, T4, and T0	Genomics, child health, breastfeeding	Supports scaling up evidence-based practices and identifies effective innovations
Knowledge to Action (KTA) Framework	9 citations	Knowledge creation (funnel) and action cycles	No significant alterations since proposed in 2006	Critical care nutrition, asthma, osteoporosis, dialysis	Helps map the process of translating research evidence into practice and addresses barriers to sustainability
Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) Framework	8 citations	Evidence, Context, Facilitation	Added more elements to evidence, context, and facilitation themes	Implementation in health services	Presents successful research implementation as a function of evidence, context, and facilitation

The review also provided additional insights on the overall evaluation of the knowledge mobilization framework:

The majority of articles reviewed were published after 2010, indicating a growing interest in this field.
80.7% of the articles were health-related, reflecting the framework’s primary focus on the healthcare sector.
While one-third of the studies used existing theoretical frameworks, the review found that more work is needed to operationalize knowledge integration and adaptive learning in the knowledge mobilization framework.
Key activities, such as “training and educating stakeholders” and “developing stakeholder interrelationships,” were commonly reported, suggesting the framework’s emphasis on engaging and empowering relevant stakeholders.

In conclusion, the evaluation of the knowledge mobilization framework presented in this study highlights its potential as a valuable tool for guiding and evaluating knowledge translation and exchange activities in healthcare. However, the review also underscores the need for continued refinement and further research to ensure the framework’s comprehensive applicability and long-term impact across diverse healthcare contexts.

Conclusion

This review has looked at the main parts of knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) from health services research. It found six key areas: the message, stakeholders, inner context, and more. These help guide and check KTE efforts in real-world settings.

The study shows how important it is to think about evidence, context, and how to share it. This is crucial for making research useful in healthcare.

Public involvement is key in spreading knowledge, the review found. Working with patients and communities makes research better and more effective. Also, having skilled communicators is vital for sharing research findings well.

This framework helps us understand and check how research is used in healthcare. It shows how to tackle the challenges of using research in practice. This way, healthcare can improve, leading to better care for patients.

FAQ

What is the aim of this study?

This study aimed to review and analyze key parts of knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE). It looked at published health services research.

What are the six key components of knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) identified in the review?

The study found six main parts of KTE. These are: 1) the message of knowledge transfer, 2) the people involved and the process, 3) the inner workings, 4) the broader social, cultural, and economic setting, 5) how to evaluate KTE efforts, and 6) how to help with KTE.

What did the review find regarding the prevalence of these key components?

The study found that the message and the people involved often go together. However, the wider social and economic context is less often considered than the inner workings.

How important is the role of facilitators in knowledge transfer and exchange?

Facilitators are very important for successful KTE. They help people and teams use research in practice. The facilitator’s style and role can greatly affect success.

What are some of the challenges and future directions for research in the field of knowledge transfer and exchange?

The study highlighted several challenges and future areas. It noted the need to understand how KTE components work together. It also suggested developing tools for evaluation and integrating theories to improve knowledge translation.

How has the knowledge mobilization framework presented in this study been evaluated?

The framework has been tested in various studies and settings. It has been found useful for guiding and checking KTE efforts. However, more research is needed to make sure it works well in different healthcare settings.