Knowledge translation in health: how implementation science could contribute more.
Implementation science
Knowledge transfer
Quality improvement
Research policy
Journal
BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 05 2019
07 05 2019
Historique:
received:
10
02
2019
accepted:
10
04
2019
entrez:
9
5
2019
pubmed:
9
5
2019
medline:
20
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite increasing interest in research on how to translate knowledge into practice and improve healthcare, the accumulation of scientific knowledge in this field is slow. Few substantial new insights have become available in the last decade. Various problems hinder development in this field. There is a frequent misfit between problems and approaches to implementation, resulting in the use of implementation strategies that do not match with the targeted problems. The proliferation of concepts, theories and frameworks for knowledge transfer - many of which are untested - has not advanced the field. Stakeholder involvement is regarded as crucial for successful knowledge implementation, but many approaches are poorly specified and unvalidated. Despite the apparent decreased appreciation of rigorous designs for effect evaluation, such as randomized trials, these should remain within the portfolio of implementation research. Outcome measures for knowledge implementation tend to be crude, but it is important to integrate patient preferences and the increased precision of knowledge. We suggest that the research enterprise be redesigned in several ways to address these problems and enhance scientific progress in the interests of patients and populations. It is crucially important to establish substantial programmes of research on implementation and improvement in healthcare, and better recognize the societal and practical benefits of research.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Despite increasing interest in research on how to translate knowledge into practice and improve healthcare, the accumulation of scientific knowledge in this field is slow. Few substantial new insights have become available in the last decade.
MAIN BODY
Various problems hinder development in this field. There is a frequent misfit between problems and approaches to implementation, resulting in the use of implementation strategies that do not match with the targeted problems. The proliferation of concepts, theories and frameworks for knowledge transfer - many of which are untested - has not advanced the field. Stakeholder involvement is regarded as crucial for successful knowledge implementation, but many approaches are poorly specified and unvalidated. Despite the apparent decreased appreciation of rigorous designs for effect evaluation, such as randomized trials, these should remain within the portfolio of implementation research. Outcome measures for knowledge implementation tend to be crude, but it is important to integrate patient preferences and the increased precision of knowledge.
CONCLUSIONS
We suggest that the research enterprise be redesigned in several ways to address these problems and enhance scientific progress in the interests of patients and populations. It is crucially important to establish substantial programmes of research on implementation and improvement in healthcare, and better recognize the societal and practical benefits of research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31064388
doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1322-9
pii: 10.1186/s12916-019-1322-9
pmc: PMC6505277
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
88Références
Implement Sci. 2008 Nov 13;3:49
pubmed: 19014512
Fam Pract. 2000 Feb;17 Suppl 1:S32-5
pubmed: 10735266
Implement Sci. 2015 Apr 21;10:53
pubmed: 25895742
Clin Med (Lond). 2019 Jan;19(1):47-56
pubmed: 30651245
BMJ. 1997 Aug 16;315(7105):418-21
pubmed: 9277610
Implement Sci. 2012 Feb 29;7:10
pubmed: 22376988
Implement Sci. 2016 Mar 17;11:38
pubmed: 26988000
J Eval Clin Pract. 2007 Apr;13(2):161-8
pubmed: 17378860
BMC Med. 2016 May 23;14:78
pubmed: 27211576
Lancet. 2003 Oct 11;362(9391):1225-30
pubmed: 14568747
BMJ. 2014 Jun 13;348:g3725
pubmed: 24927763
Lancet. 2018 Nov 17;392(10160):2214-2228
pubmed: 30314860
Implement Sci. 2017 Jan 10;12(1):5
pubmed: 28069029
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Aug;100:92-102
pubmed: 29660481
BMJ. 2008 Jan 12;336(7635):74-6
pubmed: 18187724
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 23;361(4):368-78
pubmed: 19625717
Implement Sci. 2012 May 31;7:50
pubmed: 22651257
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Nov;29(11):1534-41
pubmed: 24965281
Implement Sci. 2017 Apr 27;12(1):55
pubmed: 28449697
Lancet. 2016 Aug 6;388(10044):547-8
pubmed: 27511773
Implement Sci. 2017 Oct 3;12(1):118
pubmed: 28974248
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006 Winter;26(1):13-24
pubmed: 16557505