Programme theory development and formative evaluation of a provincial knowledge translation unit.
Communities of practice
Evidence-based decision-making
Evidence-informed practice
Formative evaluation
Health research capacity-building
Health research funding agencies
Implementation science
Knowledge translation
Needs assessment
Patient-oriented research
Journal
Health research policy and systems
ISSN: 1478-4505
Titre abrégé: Health Res Policy Syst
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Apr 2019
11 Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
20
09
2018
accepted:
10
03
2019
entrez:
12
4
2019
pubmed:
12
4
2019
medline:
14
8
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Research shows a significant gap between healthcare research and evidence-based healthcare policy and practice. Knowledge translation (KT) has an important role in addressing this gap by bolstering evidence-informed healthcare. Canada's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) is a nationally mandated and supported initiative developed to respond to the gap between research and practice. One aspect of SPOR is the provincial/territorial SUpport for People and Patient-Oriented Research and Trials (SUPPORT) Units, intended to assist local health researchers and systems to reach the goal of improving the quality and quantity of patient-oriented research in Canada. This article presents the programme theory development and a formative evaluation of the KT Platform in Alberta's SPOR SUPPORT Unit. We used a mixed-methods approach to develop the KT Platform's programme theory and subsequently conducted the formative evaluation. An extensive needs assessment, comprised of 59 qualitative interviews with researchers and health systems employees in Canada with an interest in KT, served as the basis for our programme theory design. Three years after launching the KT Platform, we hired an evaluation consultant to conduct a formative evaluation of the Platform's programme theory and operations. The evaluation was performed by conducting nine interviews with KT Platform service users (n = 6) and KT experts acting in advisory capacities to the KT Platform (n = 3). The KT Platform developed a '4C Model' as a summary of the Platform's programme theory. This model is designed to meet local needs for capacity-building, a community of practice, consultation services, and contributions to KT science. This suite of services was found to help the local health system implement health evidence with measurable positive health outcomes. However, the community remains hesitant about their capacity as individuals to design and perform important KT activities independently. With the mandate and support provided by SPOR, the KT Platform was able to design a strong programme theory based on evidence from an extensive needs assessment of the local community. The resulting 4C Model has provided a framework for KT work to assist in improving local health outcomes and can be considered by others designing KT programmes as a useful model to follow. Ongoing monitoring and assessment are required to continue to identify and respond to local needs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Research shows a significant gap between healthcare research and evidence-based healthcare policy and practice. Knowledge translation (KT) has an important role in addressing this gap by bolstering evidence-informed healthcare. Canada's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) is a nationally mandated and supported initiative developed to respond to the gap between research and practice. One aspect of SPOR is the provincial/territorial SUpport for People and Patient-Oriented Research and Trials (SUPPORT) Units, intended to assist local health researchers and systems to reach the goal of improving the quality and quantity of patient-oriented research in Canada. This article presents the programme theory development and a formative evaluation of the KT Platform in Alberta's SPOR SUPPORT Unit.
METHODS
METHODS
We used a mixed-methods approach to develop the KT Platform's programme theory and subsequently conducted the formative evaluation. An extensive needs assessment, comprised of 59 qualitative interviews with researchers and health systems employees in Canada with an interest in KT, served as the basis for our programme theory design. Three years after launching the KT Platform, we hired an evaluation consultant to conduct a formative evaluation of the Platform's programme theory and operations. The evaluation was performed by conducting nine interviews with KT Platform service users (n = 6) and KT experts acting in advisory capacities to the KT Platform (n = 3).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The KT Platform developed a '4C Model' as a summary of the Platform's programme theory. This model is designed to meet local needs for capacity-building, a community of practice, consultation services, and contributions to KT science. This suite of services was found to help the local health system implement health evidence with measurable positive health outcomes. However, the community remains hesitant about their capacity as individuals to design and perform important KT activities independently.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
With the mandate and support provided by SPOR, the KT Platform was able to design a strong programme theory based on evidence from an extensive needs assessment of the local community. The resulting 4C Model has provided a framework for KT work to assist in improving local health outcomes and can be considered by others designing KT programmes as a useful model to follow. Ongoing monitoring and assessment are required to continue to identify and respond to local needs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30971263
doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0437-y
pii: 10.1186/s12961-019-0437-y
pmc: PMC6458605
doi:
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
40Références
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006 Winter;26(1):25-36
pubmed: 16557511
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006 Winter;26(1):72-80
pubmed: 16557513
Health Promot Int. 2007 Sep;22(3):254-60
pubmed: 17596543
Implement Sci. 2009 Mar 01;4:11
pubmed: 19250556
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
Am J Prev Med. 2009 Dec;37(6 Suppl 1):S187-91
pubmed: 19896017
BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Jan 05;10:3
pubmed: 20051125
Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Dec;81 Suppl:S100-10
pubmed: 21067884
Am J Prev Med. 2011 Jun;40(6):637-44
pubmed: 21565657
Implement Sci. 2011 Dec 09;6:127
pubmed: 22152223
Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 24;7:39
pubmed: 22531033
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012 Dec;66(12):1187-92
pubmed: 22569750
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 May 16;12:118
pubmed: 22591757
Am J Public Health. 2012 Jul;102(7):1274-81
pubmed: 22594758
Implement Sci. 2013 Jan 09;8:7
pubmed: 23302517
Am J Public Health. 2013 Sep;103(9):1693-9
pubmed: 23865659
Health Info Libr J. 2013 Dec;30(4):261-77
pubmed: 24251889
Health Res Policy Syst. 2014 May 23;12:25
pubmed: 24886489
Implement Sci. 2014 Jun 06;9:71
pubmed: 24906229
Health Res Policy Syst. 2015 Jul 25;13:33
pubmed: 26208500
Implement Sci. 2015 Aug 12;10:114
pubmed: 26264453
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Mar 24;4(8):545-7
pubmed: 26340396
BMC Med. 2015 Oct 06;13:255
pubmed: 26444862
Implement Sci. 2016 Mar 17;11:38
pubmed: 26988000
J Behav Med. 2017 Feb;40(1):203-213
pubmed: 27481103
Am J Prev Med. 2017 Mar;52(3S3):S322-S329
pubmed: 28215389
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017 Feb 08;6(5):299-300
pubmed: 28812820
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Dec 06;17(1):161
pubmed: 29207955
Can J Diabetes. 2018 Oct;42(5):505-513.e1
pubmed: 29555341
J Am Board Fam Med. 2018 May-Jun;31(3):307-311
pubmed: 29743211
J Am Board Fam Med. 2018 May-Jun;31(3):466-478
pubmed: 29743229
Front Public Health. 2018 May 07;6:136
pubmed: 29868544