Dataset Information

Transdisciplinary research for impact: protocol for a realist evaluation of the relationship between transdisciplinary research collaboration and knowledge translation.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Transdisciplinary teams are increasingly regarded as integral to conducting effective research. Similarly, knowledge translation is often seen as a solution to improving the relevance and benefits of health research. Yet, whether, how, for whom and under which circumstances transdisciplinary research influences knowledge translation is undertheorised, which limits its potential impact. The proposed research aims to identify the contexts and mechanisms by which transdisciplinary research contributes to developing shared understandings and behaviours of knowledge translation between team members. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Using a longitudinal case-study design approach to realist evaluation, we outline a study protocol examining whether, how, if and for whom transdisciplinary collaboration can impact knowledge translation understandings and behaviours within a 5-year transdisciplinary Centre of Research Excellence. Data are being collected between February 2017 and December 2020 over four rounds of theory development, refinement and testing using interviews, observation, document review and visual elicitation as data sources. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The Health Research Ethics Committee of the University of Adelaide approved this study. Findings will be communicated with team members at scheduled intervals throughout the study verbally and by means of creative reflective approaches (eg, arts elicitation, journalling). This research will be used to help support optimal team functioning by identifying strategies to support knowledge sharing and communication within and beyond the team to facilitate attainment of research objectives. Academic dissemination will occur through publication and presentations.

SUBMITTER: Archibald MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5892766 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Transdisciplinary research for impact: protocol for a realist evaluation of the relationship between transdisciplinary research collaboration and knowledge translation.

Archibald Mandy M MM Lawless Michael M Lawless Michael M Harvey Gillian G Kitson Alison L AL

BMJ open 20180407 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Transdisciplinary teams are increasingly regarded as integral to conducting effective research. Similarly, knowledge translation is often seen as a solution to improving the relevance and benefits of health research. Yet, whether, how, for whom and under which circumstances transdisciplinary research influences knowledge translation is undertheorised, which limits its potential impact. The proposed research aims to identify the contexts and mechanisms by which transdisciplin ...[more]

PMID: 29627820

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTransdisciplinary research and knowledge translation are increasingly regarded as key concepts underpinning applied research across the health and social sciences, due to their presumed potential in addressing complex, "wicked" problems and improving the use of research in practice and policy, respectively. Despite sharing an impact mandate, the relationship between transdisciplinary research collaboration and knowledge translation remains unclear. In response, we examined the relationship between transdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge translation to generate these understandings with a view towards maximizing the impact of collaborative efforts.MethodsWe undertook a realist evaluation and longitudinal case study of a 5-year National Health and Medical Research Council-funded Centre of Research Excellence in Transdisciplinary Frailty Research. Data were collected between February 2017 and March 2020 over three rounds of theory development, refinement and testing using interviews, observation, document review and visual elicitation as data sources. The Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Adelaide approved this study.ResultsIterative analysis of narrative interviews and visual data led to the development of three overarching programme theories explicating the reciprocal relationship between KT understandings and transdisciplinary team process. These programme theories revolve around the concept of a network, which we define in alignment with extant theoretical literature on network mechanisms and complex networks as graphically representable networks of agents/people (nodes) joined by social relationships (links). Our findings demonstrate that under the right contextual conditions, transdisciplinary team members respond through an improved ability to (1) navigate the network, (2) negotiate the network and (3) mobilize the network.ConclusionsThis research demonstrates the reciprocity and mutually supportive relationship between transdisciplinary research and knowledge translation. Our findings suggest that embedding a collaborative knowledge translation framework and providing resources such as facilitation and distributed leadership within a transdisciplinary team can improve collaboration and support transdisciplinary research objectives.

Project description:IntroductionSustainability at a system level relates to the capacity of the system to be able to service the ongoing health needs of the population. It is a multifaceted concept encompassing both the affordability and efficiency of a system and the system's ability to adapt and change.To address issues that currently threaten health system sustainability, healthcare leaders, policy makers, clinicians and researchers are searching for solutions to ensure the delivery of safe, value-based care into the future. The timely translation of research evidence into sustainable interventions that can be adopted into the health system is one way of bolstering the sustainability of the system as a whole. We present a protocol for the realist evaluation of a research translation funding programme to understand how the research translation process contributes to health system sustainability and value-based healthcare.Methods and analysisUnderpinned by the realist evaluation framework, we will: (1) Develop the Initial Program Theory (IPT) of the research translation process; (2) Test the program theory through case study analysis; and (3) Refine and consolidate the theory through stakeholder consultation. The evaluation uses a case example of a research translation programme, chosen for its representation of a microcosm of the broader health system and the heterogeneity of service improvement activities taking place within it. Across the three phases, analysis of data from documents about the research translation program and interviews and focus groups with stakeholders and program users will draw on the context (C), mechanism (M), outcome (O) formula that is core to realist evaluation. In addition, system dynamic methods will capture the feedback loops and complex relationships among the IPT and context-mechanism-outcome configurations. This approach to evaluation of a research translation funding programme may be adapted to similar programmes operating in other settings.Ethics and disseminationCurtin University Human Research Ethics Committee, Western Australia, approved this study (approval number: HRE2020-0464). Results will be published in scientific journals, and communicated to respondents and relevant partners.

Project description:BackgroundKnowledge translation (KT) is an important means of improving the health service quality. Most research on the effectiveness of KT strategies has focused on individual strategies, i.e., those directly targeting the modification of allied health professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, for example. In general, these strategies are moderately effective in changing practices (maximum 10% change). Effecting change in organizational contexts (e.g., change readiness, general and specific organizational capacity, organizational routines) is part of a promising new avenue to service quality improvement through the implementation of evidence-based practices. The objective of this study will be to identify why, how, and under what conditions organizational KT strategies have been shown to be effective or ineffective in changing the (a) knowledge, (b) attitudes, and (c) clinical behaviors of allied health professionals in traumatology settings.MethodsThis is a realist review protocol involving four iterative steps: (1) Initial theory formulation, (2) search for Evidence search, (3) knowledge extraction and synthesis, and (4) recommendations. We will search electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, CINHAL, Cochrane Library, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. The studies included will be those relating to the use of organizational KT strategies in trauma settings, regardless of study designs, published between January 1990 and October 2020, and presenting objective measures that demonstrate change in allied health professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and clinical behaviors. Two independent reviewers will select, screen, and extract the data related to all relevant sources in order to refine or refute the context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations developed in the initial theory and identify new CMO configurations.DiscussionUsing a systematic and rigorous method, this review will help guide decision-makers and researchers in choosing the best organizational strategies to optimize the implementation of evidence-based practices.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020216105.

Project description:Increasingly, it is being suggested that translational gaps might be eradicated or narrowed by bringing research users and producers closer together, a theory that is largely untested. This paper reports a national study to fill a gap in the evidence about the conditions, processes and outcomes related to collaboration and implementation.A longitudinal realist evaluation using multiple qualitative methods case studies was conducted with three Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research in Care (England). Data were collected over four rounds of theory development, refinement and testing. Over 200 participants were involved in semi-structured interviews, non-participant observations of events and meetings, and stakeholder engagement. A combined inductive and deductive data analysis process was focused on proposition refinement and testing iteratively over data collection rounds.The quality of existing relationships between higher education and local health service, and views about whether implementation was a collaborative act, created a path dependency. Where implementation was perceived to be removed from service and there was a lack of organisational connections, this resulted in a focus on knowledge production and transfer, rather than co-production. The collaborations' architectures were counterproductive because they did not facilitate connectivity and had emphasised professional and epistemic boundaries. More distributed leadership was associated with greater potential for engagement. The creation of boundary spanning roles was the most visible investment in implementation, and credible individuals in these roles resulted in cross-boundary work, in facilitation and in direct impacts. The academic-practice divide played out strongly as a context for motivation to engage, in that 'what's in it for me' resulted in variable levels of engagement along a co-operation-collaboration continuum. Learning within and across collaborations was patchy depending on attention to evaluation.These collaborations did not emerge from a vacuum, and they needed time to learn and develop. Their life cycle started with their position on collaboration, knowledge and implementation. More impactful attempts at collective action in implementation might be determined by the deliberate alignment of a number of features, including foundational relationships, vision, values, structures and processes and views about the nature of the collaboration and implementation.

Project description:BackgroundThe Collaboration for Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) is a research consortium concerned with the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of non-communicable diseases. CEBHA+ seeks to engage policymakers and practitioners throughout the research process in order to build lasting relationships, enhance evidence uptake, and create long-term capacity among partner institutions in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda in collaboration with two German universities. This integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach includes the formal development, implementation and evaluation of country specific IKT strategies.MethodsWe have conceptualised the CEBHA+ IKT approach as a complex intervention in a complex system. We will employ a comparative case study (CCS) design and mixed methods to facilitate an in-depth evaluation. We will use quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews, quarterly updates, and a policy document analysis to capture the process and outcomes of IKT across the African CEBHA+ partner sites. We will conduct an early stage (early 2020) and a late-stage evaluation (early 2022), triangulate the data collected with various methods at each site and subsequently compare our findings across the five sites.DiscussionEvaluating a complex intervention such as the CEBHA+ IKT approach is complicated, even more so when undertaken across five diverse countries. Despite conceptual, methodological and practical challenges, our comparative case study addresses important evidence gaps: While involving decision-makers in the research process is gaining traction worldwide, we still know very little regarding (i) whether this approach really makes a difference to evidence uptake, (ii) the mechanisms that make IKT successful, and (iii) relevant differences across socio-cultural contexts. The evaluation described here is intended to provide relevant insights on all of these aspects, notably in countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and is expected to contribute to the science of IKT overall.

Dataset Information

Transdisciplinary research for impact: protocol for a realist evaluation of the relationship between transdisciplinary research collaboration and knowledge translation.

Publications

Transdisciplinary research for impact: protocol for a realist evaluation of the relationship between transdisciplinary research collaboration and knowledge translation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets