| Literature DB >> 31959184 |
L Boland1,2, A Kothari1, C McCutcheon2, I D Graham3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a model of research co-production, whereby researchers partner with knowledge users throughout the research process and who can use the research recommendations in practice or policy. IKT approaches are used to improve the relevance and impact of research. As an emerging field, however, the evidence underpinning IKT is in active development. The Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network represents a collaborative interdisciplinary team that aims to advance the state of IKT science.Entities:
Keywords: Colloquium; Integrated knowledge translation; Knowledge users; Research agenda; Research co-production
Year: 2020 PMID: 31959184 PMCID: PMC6972018 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-019-0521-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Res Policy Syst ISSN: 1478-4505
Characteristics of the concept papers presented at the meeting
| Title | Objective | Findings/Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| IKT theory and ethics | ||
Providing clarity among approaches to partnered research: a multiphase mixed methods concept synthesis (AB 1.1) | To identify similarities and differences between IKT and other approaches to partnered research approaches | Several similarities and differences exist between IKT and other partnered research approaches Researchers should describe the purpose and processes for partnered research |
Blending IKT and global health governance: a novel approach for wicked problems (AB 1.2) | To consider how combining IKT and global health governance could respond to wicked problems | IKT models should be expanded to include global health governance for addressing wicked problems |
Why should we pay attention to power within research co-production approaches? (AB 1.3) | To define power as it relates to the co-production of health research, describe how it operates among and between various participant groups, and provide recommendations for achieving equitable partnerships | Attending to power imbalances at each stage of the research process is crucial in co-production; all participants should be aware of the implications of power imbalances and be supported to achieve and maintain a balance of power |
Fostering the conduct of ethical and equitable research practices: the imperative for IKT in research conducted by and with Indigenous community members (AB 1.4) | To explore questions from Indigenous KUs’ perspectives on health research, researchers and research institutions | IKT shares commonality with and facilitates opportunities to further define and develop Indigenous knowledge translation; Western health systems need to expand and re-examine what constitutes ‘evidence’ in the development of useful and relevant knowledge |
| IKT methods | ||
Review protocol on IKT and partnerships: a coordinated multicenter team approach (AB 2.1) | To conduct five separate reviews to identify and synthesise the partnership literature and better understand the evidence base | These efforts will contribute to and improve the quality, conduct and reporting of research partnership literature |
Conceptualizing IKT initiation: a meta-narrative review (AB 2.2) | To conduct a meta-narrative review of IKT initiation concepts, processes, enablers, barriers and outcomes in health services research, research from other disciplines and research traditions where IKT may be used | While IKT was recognised, it remains vaguely conceptualised despite lengthy research traditions; ongoing research of IKT initiation is needed to identify or generate relevant theory, and to establish outcomes and the determinants of those outcomes |
Digital storytelling: a methodology for engaging vulnerable and marginalized populations in IKT (AB 2.3) | To present digital storytelling, an innovative approach to bring the voices of vulnerable and marginalised populations | Digital storytelling can uncover and amplify marginalised peoples’ voices for knowledge creation and translation |
Community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation: advancing the co-creation of knowledge (AB 2.4) | To better understand the similarities and differences between community-based participatory research and IKT | When used appropriately, community-based participatory research and IKT both have the potential to contribute to, and advance, implementation science about the conduct of collaborative health systems research |
| IKT Evaluation and Impact | ||
Embracing complexity and uncertainty to create impact: exploring the emergence, processes and transformative potential of co-produced research (AB 3.1) | To identify a continuum of co-production processes and illustrate how it can influence interactions between research, policy and practice | This new ‘social model of impact’ and framework capture multi-layered and potentially transformative impacts of co-produced research |
Advancing the evaluation of IKT (AB 3.2) | To explore how realistic evaluation could advance the field of IKT | A realist approach could contribute greatly to our ability to assess and increase the value of IKT |
Exploring the synergies between focused ethnography and IKT (AB 3.3) | To describe our experience of conducting a focused ethnography with a collaborative IKT approach using a research exemplar about the experiences of frail, older adults undergoing a transcatheter aortic valve implantation | The integration of IKT with focused ethnography allows for real-time uptake of meaningful, emerging findings, the strengthening of collaborative research teams, and opportunities for sustained programmes of research and relationships in the field of health services research |
Variable participation of KUs in cancer health services research: results of a multiple case study (AB 3.4) | To evaluate IKT activities within a cancer health services research network in Ontario, Canada | Barriers to KU co-production of cancer health services research include mismatched expectations of KU role and frequent KU turnover; research teams that take an IKT approach should consider specific strategies to address barriers to KU engagement |
Translating research into action: an international study of the role of research funders (AB 3.5) | To provide an international review of health research funders’ efforts to encourage knowledge translation | Knowledge translation approaches and mechanisms vary across region and funder type; evaluation of funding agency efforts to promote and/or support knowledge translation should be prioritised and actioned |
| Patient engagement and IKT | ||
Patient engagement in IKT research (AB 4.1) | To explore how existing health research methodologies can inform current approaches to patient engagement and support meaningful engagement with patients in IKT research | This iterative and exploratory process will provide greater conceptual clarity and density around patient engagement within IKT research and make explicit how the principles, practices and outcomes of patient engagement and IKT overlap across the research process |
Patient engagement and IKT research: what can be learned from qualitative health research methods? (AB 4.2) | To conduct a scoping review to explore how patients are engaged in IKT research and explore how IKT approaches can foster meaningful patient engagement | IKT researchers will increasingly need to engage patients as KUs to satisfy health policy, care and research mandates for engaging patients as partners in decision-making |
Engaging frail and seriously ill patients in IKT (AB 4.3) | To systematically review and synthesise how those with serious illness and frailty have been involved as research partners | Given the fluctuations in health for frail and seriously ill patients, researchers need to be flexible and creative in their approach to patient engagement. Further research is required to build the evidence base about what it means to engage frail and seriously ill patients in research so that developing research is more applicable to their needs |
AB abstract, IKT integrated knowledge translation, KU knowledge user
IKT categories derived from group discussions
| Category | Sub-category | Description |
|---|---|---|
| IKT theory | Frameworks | IKT frameworks need to be identified, developed and validated |
| Clarity | Greater theoretical clarity about IKT is required; the underlying assumptions of IKT need to be made explicit | |
| IKT methods | Search filters | Search filters that identify IKT concepts in the literature are required |
| IKT data collection | Development of approaches to obtaining meaningful data that illustrate the impact of IKT is required; considerations include embedded research from the health system and sampling from multiple populations for IKT outcomes | |
| Outcomes | Specific IKT outcomes need to be identified | |
| Evaluation | Tools for evaluating IKT need to be identified or developed and validated | |
| Reporting guidelines | Report standards for IKT research studies are required | |
| IKT processes | Initiating IKT | Identify strategies to initiate engagement with KUs |
| Describing KU | Describe who the KUs are that are using IKT processes | |
| Accountability | Identify who is accountable for the IKT process | |
| Indicators of success | Identifying indicators of IKT success | |
| Governance and leadership | Identify the governance structure for research required to support IKT | |
| Promoting partnership | Level of partnership | Ensuring that KUs are involved in the research priority-setting and engaged with at the highest level of partnership; ensuring engagement is genuine and not tokenism |
| Diversity | Accounting for diverse perspectives in the partnership process of IKT | |
| Experiences | Need for detailed reporting on the characteristics and experiences of various knowledge user types involved in the IKT partnership | |
| KU needs | Identifying and supporting the KU’s needs throughout the partnership | |
| Safe spaces | Ensure safe participatory spaces for KUs | |
| Researcher reciprocation | Identifying ways for researchers to meet the needs of vulnerable groups | |
| KU reimbursement and IKT cost | Reimbursing KUs for their time and costs associated with collaboration | |
| Definitions and distinctions | Distinguishing IKT from other concepts and approaches | Define and distinguish IKT from patient-oriented research, quality improvement, other designs and methods, learning health systems, implementation science |
| Capacity-building | Repository | Create a repository of IKT frameworks, tools and publications |
| Trainees | Develop a vision for building IKT capacity in trainees | |
| Role of funders | Funding and costs | Examining how funders should account for the added cost of IKT |
| Funders as KUs | Determining how and whether funders should be KUs | |
| Peer-review | Exploring the impact of peer-reviewers on grant success | |
| Structures | Changing the funding structures to support IKT and KU partnership |
IKT integrated knowledge translation, KU knowledge user