Dataset Information

Development of the Translating Allied Health Knowledge (TAHK) Framework.

ABSTRACT:

Background

While evidence-based practice is a familiar concept to allied health clinicians, knowledge translation (KT) is less well known and understood. The need for a framework that enables allied health clinicians to access and engage with KT was identified. The aim of this paper is to describe the development of the Translating Allied Health Knowledge (TAHK) Framework.

Methods

An iterative and collaborative process involving clinician and academic knowledge partners was utilised to develop the TAHK Framework. Multiple methods were utilised during this process, including a systematic literature review, steering committee consultation, mixed methods survey, benchmarking and measurement property analysis.

Results

The TAHK Framework has now been finalised, and is described in detail. The framework is structured around four domains - Doing Knowledge Translation, Social Capital for Knowledge Translation, Sustaining Knowledge Translation and Inclusive Knowledge Translation - under which 14 factors known to influence allied health KT are classified. The formulation of the framework to date has laid a rigorous foundation for further developments, including clinician support and outcome measurement.

Conclusion

The method of development adopted for the TAHK Framework has ensured it is both evidence and practice based, and further amendments and modifications are anticipated as new knowledge becomes available. The Framework will enable allied health clinicians to build on their existing capacities for KT, and approach this complex process in a rigorous and systematic manner. The TAHK Framework offers a unique focus on how knowledge is translated by allied health clinicians in multidisciplinary settings.

SUBMITTER: Hitch D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6706979 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFront-line health practitioners lack confidence in knowledge translation, yet they are often required to undertake projects to bridge the knowledge-practice gap. There are few initiatives focused on building the capacity of the health practitioner workforce to undertake knowledge translation, with most programs focusing on developing the skills of researchers. This paper reports the development and evaluation of a knowledge translation capacity building program for allied health practitioners located over geographically dispersed locations in Queensland, Australia.MethodsAllied Health Translating Research into Practice (AH-TRIP) was developed over five years with consideration of theory, research evidence and local needs assessment. AH-TRIP includes five components: training and education; support and networks (including champions and mentoring); showcase and recognition; TRIP projects and implementation; evaluation. The RE-AIM framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation Maintenance) guided the evaluation plan, with this paper reporting on the reach (number, discipline, geographical location), adoption by health services, and participant satisfaction between 2019 and 2021.ResultsA total of 986 allied health practitioners participated in at least one component of AH-TRIP, with a quarter of participants located in regional areas of Queensland. Online training materials received an average of 944 unique page views each month. A total of 148 allied health practitioners have received mentoring to undertake their project, including a range of allied health disciplines and clinical areas. Very high satisfaction was reported by those receiving mentoring and attending the annual showcase event. Nine of sixteen public hospital and health service districts have adopted AH-TRIP.ConclusionAH-TRIP is a low-cost knowledge translation capacity building initiative which can be delivered at scale to support allied health practitioners across geographically dispersed locations. Higher adoption in metropolitan areas suggests that further investment and targeted strategies are needed to reach health practitioners working in regional areas. Future evaluation should focus on exploring the impact on individual participants and the health service.

Project description:BackgroundKnowledge translation (KT) aims to close the research-practice gap in order to realize and maximize the benefits of research within the practice setting. Previous studies have investigated KT strategies in nursing and medicine; however, the present study is the first systematic review of the effectiveness of a variety of KT interventions in five allied health disciplines: dietetics, occupational therapy, pharmacy, physiotherapy, and speech-language pathology.MethodsA health research librarian developed and implemented search strategies in eight electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, PASCAL, EMBASE, IPA, Scopus, CENTRAL) using language (English) and date restrictions (1985 to March 2010). Other relevant sources were manually searched. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, performed data extraction, and performed quality assessment. Within each profession, evidence tables were created, grouping and analyzing data by research design, KT strategy, targeted behaviour, and primary outcome. The published descriptions of the KT interventions were compared to the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) Recommendations to Improve the Reporting of the Content of Behaviour Change Interventions.ResultsA total of 2,638 articles were located and the titles and abstracts were screened. Of those, 1,172 full-text articles were reviewed and subsequently 32 studies were included in the systematic review. A variety of single (n = 15) and multiple (n = 17) KT interventions were identified, with educational meetings being the predominant KT strategy (n = 11). The majority of primary outcomes were identified as professional/process outcomes (n = 25); however, patient outcomes (n = 4), economic outcomes (n = 2), and multiple primary outcomes (n = 1) were also represented. Generally, the studies were of low methodological quality. Outcome reporting bias was common and precluded clear determination of intervention effectiveness. In the majority of studies, the interventions demonstrated mixed effects on primary outcomes, and only four studies demonstrated statistically significant, positive effects on primary outcomes. None of the studies satisfied the four WIDER Recommendations.ConclusionsAcross five allied health professions, equivocal results, low methodological quality, and outcome reporting bias limited our ability to recommend one KT strategy over another. Further research employing the WIDER Recommendations is needed to inform the development and implementation of effective KT interventions in allied health.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an ambitious target to create a UK clinical academic workforce representing 1% of clinicians from nursing, midwifery, the allied health professions, healthcare science, pharmacy and psychology (NMAHPPs). Understanding and recording the impact that clinical academics make across healthcare services is crucial if we are to grow, value and support this highly skilled workforce group. However, it is currently difficult to systematically record, collate and report the impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. The aims of this project were to i) develop a framework outlining the impacts that were important for key stakeholder groups, and ii) create and pilot a research impact capture tool to record these impacts.MethodsThe framework was developed from the existing literature. It was refined, remodelled and approved by multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement, including patient and public representatives, healthcare managers and research-active clinicians. The framework was converted into a series of questions to create an electronic research impact capture tool, which was also refined through feedback from these stakeholder groups. The impact capture tool was piloted with research-active clinicians across a large NHS Trust and its associated organisations.ResultsThe impact framework contained eight elements: clinical background, research and service improvement activities, research capacity building, research into practice, patients and service users, research dissemination, economics and research funding, and collaborations. Thirty individuals provided data for the research impact capture tool pilot (55% response rate). Respondents reported a range of positive impacts representing all elements of the framework. Importantly, research-activity appeared to be a key driver for recruitment and retention in the sample population.ConclusionsThe impact capture tool is a feasible method of recording the breadth of impacts associated with NMAHPP research activity. We encourage other organisations to collaboratively use and refine our impact capture tool, with the aim of standardising reporting, and facilitating discussions about research activity within clinical appraisal. Pooling and comparing data will also allow comparison between organisations, and assessment of change over time or after implementation of interventions aimed at supporting and increasing research activity.

Project description:BackgroundAllied Health Professionals (AHPs) form a significant part of the healthcare workforce and have great potential to improve services through research and research-informed practice. However, there is a lack of tradition in research embedded in practice in these professional groups. Barriers include clinical caseload pressures, a lack of sustainable training and consequent lack of confidence in practitioners. Practice managers are ill-equipped to monitor and guide staff research development. The modern healthcare system is a multi-disciplinary environment focused on the needs of the patient. A common framework across all AHP disciplines, offering equality in research knowledge and skills and shared language, might be helpful in planning and developing clinical career pathways. Our aim is to develop a consolidated research framework to help AHPs to plan and guide research activity throughout their career.MethodsThe study was conducted in three phases. Phase one identified existing AHP research frameworks (AHPRF) through expert consultations and literature searches. Phase two involved framework analysis of the AHPRFs to develop a single consolidated framework. Phase three included a workshop with experts to validate and adapt the framework for practice.ResultsNineteen AHPRFs were identified. A consolidated framework was shaped by analysis of the AHPRFs resulting in a consolidated framework of eight sections, each containing a series of statements. Each section relates to an analytic theme within the framework analysis, and the statements were based on sub-categories of themes. The final framework was further shaped by the phase three workshop into a set of 'stem' statements that can be adapted to reflect different levels of expertise and the inclusion of a set of guiding principles developed through expert consultation.ConclusionThe consolidated framework was entitled 'Shaping Better Practice Through Research: A Practitioner Framework' by stakeholders, thus emphasising its ambition to embed research activity into practice. It instigates a new perspective within AHP research by offering practitioners and managers a tool that can be applied across public, private, and voluntary settings for AHPs in all disciplines. Its ambition is to develop capacity in the AHPs that can undertake research to improve services and the health of service users.

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:BackgroundClinicians are faced with using the current best evidence to make treatment decisions, yet synthesis of knowledge translation (KT) strategies that influence professional practice behaviors in rehabilitation disciplines remains largely unknown.PurposeThe purposes of this study were: (1) to examine the state of science for KT strategies used in the rehabilitation professions (physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology), (2) to identify the methodological approaches utilized in studies exploring KT strategies, and (3) to report the extent that KT interventions are described.Data sourcesEight electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, PASCAL, EMBASE, IPA, Scopus, and CENTRAL) were searched from January 1985 to May 2013 using language (English) restriction.Study selectionEligibility criteria specified articles evaluating interventions or strategies with a primary purpose of translating research or enhancing research uptake into clinical practice.Data extractionTwo reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, performed data extraction, and performed quality assessment. The published descriptions of the KT interventions were compared with the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research's (WIDER) Recommendations to Improve the Reporting of the Content of Behaviour Change Interventions.Data synthesisOf a total of 2,793 articles located and titles and abstracts screened, 26 studies were included in the systematic review. Eighteen articles reported interventions that used a multicomponent KT strategy. Education-related components were the predominant KT intervention regardless of whether it was a single or multicomponent intervention. Few studies used reminders or audit and feedback intervention (n=3). Only one study's primary outcome measure was an economic evaluation. No clear delineation of the effect on KT strategies was seen.LimitationsDiverse studies were included; however, the heterogeneity of the studies was not conducive to pooling the data.ConclusionsThe modest-to-low methodological quality assessed in the studies underscores the gaps in KT strategies used in rehabilitation and highlights the need for rigorously designed studies that are well reported.