Knowledge Translation (KT) is an attitude before it is a process

by Anneliese Poetz, KT Manager, NeuroDevNet

CollageOfWordMagnetsIf you search for KT models in the literature, you will find several ‘models’ for how KT should ideally happen. Many are comprised of a complex configuration of boxes, arrows, 3-D cone shapes to show the ‘process’ for doing KT (mostly end-of-grant KT). As a result of my PhD work, I developed a KT model that is grounded in the qualitative data I collected, that shows how KT actually happens in complex decision-making systems (for integrated-knowledge translation and end-of-grant KT). I also know that some develop their own model for describing and guiding the process for doing KT in their specific organization. But one thing is true no matter what model or context you are operating within: before you can effectively utilize any model or process for doing KT the people involved have to have the right attitude. If they don’t, even the ‘best’ KT process/model in the universe won’t be effective.

So what is the right attitude? You have to really want to do KT. That’s it.

Below is certainly not an exhaustive list but it gives you the idea.  For:

Hmmm1) Researchers (graduate students to established researchers): you have to sincerely want your research to be useful and used. You need to think at the outset of your research “who will actually find this research useful as I have proposed it?” and go talk to some of them, tell them what you are planning to do and be responsive to their feedback. Being responsive means being willing to change some or all of your research questions in order to make sure your research will answer the questions they have – this is also called addressing gaps in knowledge/evidence.

However, having the right attitude towards ‘end-of-grant KT’ (dissemination) is different than having the right attitude towards ‘integrated knowledge translation’. If you involve these and other diverse stakeholders in the research process, this is called ‘co-production’ and is the most effective way to achieve uptake, implementation and ultimately impact of your research.

If you do these things, you will have maximized the chances your research will useful and used.

CPDecisionMaker_MobileAnalysisLab2) Decision-makers: you have to sincerely want to make evidence-informed decisions and you have to have the organizational support to do so. Decision-makers include practitioners such as frontline staff such as nurses, doctors/clinicians, occupational therapists etc. (since they make several decisions during the course of their work day) as well as program managers (since they make policies, decisions about program components, therapies offered, intake criteria for potential clients which includes assessment and diagnosis) and hospital (and other) CEOs.

3) Organizations: Most people I’ve met are sincerely interested in making decisions based on the latest science. However, they face barriers such as: lack of time to read/absorb journal articles and limited access to journals. Other barriers could include organizational policies and procedures that require things to be done in a certain way, financial (limited resources), political (community/public pressure), and client/patient preferences (for example, treatment options).

So, individuals need to have the right attitude towards KT, but even then the organization has to facilitate this with its own expression of attitude toward KT evidenced by investing in the necessary structure and supports. For example: facilitating access to scientific journals and providing staff with paid time to get up to speed on the latest research (e.g. time to read literature, meet with researchers, attend conferences, attend stakeholder consultations being led by a researcher as part of their IKT, etc.).

Perhaps more importantly, organizations (including governments) that are willing and able to make the effort to stand up to political pressure by making the right decision as supported by the evidence instead of the decision that is popular in the community demonstrate a strong attitude toward evidence-informed decision making.

InsiteTrustTheEvidenceAn example of this can be found in the history of the supervised injection facility in Vancouver called Insite. After a long battle over community (mis)perceptions about the impact it would have, Insite has provided much evidence to show its positive impact on the health of the community, the individuals who attend the clinic, and savings to the health care system.

 

If you are a NeuroDevNet researcher or trainee and need help developing a KT plan (our KT planning service) or finding key stakeholders to consult with or involve in your research (our brokering service), contact the KT Core. In addition to brokering relationships we can offer tools/guides, advice, and review of your KT Plan for end-of-grant and integrated KT.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s