Anna R Gagliardi1, Frances C Wright, Eva Grunfeld, Dave Davis. 1. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. anna.gagliardi@sunnybrook.ca
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We do not know the extent and nature of knowledge translation (KT) in oncology. This study examined colorectal cancer (CRC) health services research, and engaged researchers and decision makers in prioritizing KT research gaps. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched from 1996 to 2006 for CRC health services research in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and United States. Studies were tabulated by indicator, type of research and country to reveal gaps. Researchers and decision makers prioritized gaps via questionnaire, then generated research questions for top-ranked gaps at a one-day workshop. RESULTS: A total of 132 articles were categorized and 29 individuals attended the workshop. We lack knowledge about factors influencing rates of many indicators. Researchers and decision makers prioritized KT research on factors that could either influence the utilization of screening or enhance the quality of surgical outcomes. They acknowledged lack of research capacity and policy support as barriers, and confusion about the concept of KT. CONCLUSIONS: Several opportunities were revealed for improving the quality of CRC screening and surgery. Greater coordination of, and support for KT research is required to address these gaps. Further research should evaluate different methods of achieving KT between researchers and decision makers for research planning.
OBJECTIVE: We do not know the extent and nature of knowledge translation (KT) in oncology. This study examined colorectal cancer (CRC) health services research, and engaged researchers and decision makers in prioritizing KT research gaps. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched from 1996 to 2006 for CRC health services research in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and United States. Studies were tabulated by indicator, type of research and country to reveal gaps. Researchers and decision makers prioritized gaps via questionnaire, then generated research questions for top-ranked gaps at a one-day workshop. RESULTS: A total of 132 articles were categorized and 29 individuals attended the workshop. We lack knowledge about factors influencing rates of many indicators. Researchers and decision makers prioritized KT research on factors that could either influence the utilization of screening or enhance the quality of surgical outcomes. They acknowledged lack of research capacity and policy support as barriers, and confusion about the concept of KT. CONCLUSIONS: Several opportunities were revealed for improving the quality of CRC screening and surgery. Greater coordination of, and support for KT research is required to address these gaps. Further research should evaluate different methods of achieving KT between researchers and decision makers for research planning.