OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to understand the barriers and facilitators in brokering knowledge brokering knowledge to help injured workers make informed decisions about recovery and to support their transitions to return to work (RTW). PARTICIPANTS: Perceptions of 63 Injured Worker Groups (IWGs) and 43 Health Care Professionals (HCPs) in facilitating and brokering knowledge were examined. METHODS: Critical theory and participatory action research approaches informed the development of a multi-stakeholder research team and the study design to support an exploration into knowledge exchange and transfer. Data was analyzed using a critical occupational perspective to reveal the source of barriers and to identify the facilitators of the knowledge exchange and transfer process. RESULTS: Barriers in transferring knowledge included system barriers, a lack of information accessibility, and problems with variations in injured worker capacity and experience using information. IWG and HCP participants lacked expertise in knowledge transfer. Findings also revealed the interactive knowledge transfer processes that IWGs and HCPs use to help injured workers understand and use information. CONCLUSIONS: Change is required to improve knowledge exchange and transfer of information for and to persons with injuries and disabilities. Suggested changes include the development of a sustainable knowledge transfer community of practice, a best practice guide for knowledge brokers such as IWGs and HCPs, and a process for ongoing assessment and evaluation of injured worker information needs and preferences.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to understand the barriers and facilitators in brokering knowledge brokering knowledge to help injured workers make informed decisions about recovery and to support their transitions to return to work (RTW). PARTICIPANTS: Perceptions of 63 Injured Worker Groups (IWGs) and 43 Health Care Professionals (HCPs) in facilitating and brokering knowledge were examined. METHODS: Critical theory and participatory action research approaches informed the development of a multi-stakeholder research team and the study design to support an exploration into knowledge exchange and transfer. Data was analyzed using a critical occupational perspective to reveal the source of barriers and to identify the facilitators of the knowledge exchange and transfer process. RESULTS: Barriers in transferring knowledge included system barriers, a lack of information accessibility, and problems with variations in injured worker capacity and experience using information. IWG and HCP participants lacked expertise in knowledge transfer. Findings also revealed the interactive knowledge transfer processes that IWGs and HCPs use to help injured workers understand and use information. CONCLUSIONS: Change is required to improve knowledge exchange and transfer of information for and to persons with injuries and disabilities. Suggested changes include the development of a sustainable knowledge transfer community of practice, a best practice guide for knowledge brokers such as IWGs and HCPs, and a process for ongoing assessment and evaluation of injured worker information needs and preferences.