Identifying competencies for integrated knowledge translation: a Delphi study.
Competence
Delphi
Integrated knowledge translation
Knowledge user
Researcher
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Oct 2021
30 Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
06
04
2021
accepted:
27
09
2021
entrez:
30
10
2021
pubmed:
31
10
2021
medline:
3
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Considerable progress has been made to advance the field of knowledge translation to address the knowledge-to-action gap in health care; however, there remains a growing concern that misalignments persist between research being conducted and the issues faced by knowledge users, such as clinicians and health policy makers, who make decisions in the health care context. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a collaborative research model that has shown promise in addressing these concerns. It takes advantage of the unique and shared competencies amongst researchers and knowledge users to ensure relevance of the research process and its outcomes. To date, core competencies have already been identified to facilitate training in knowledge translation more generally but they have yet to be prioritized for IKT more specifically. The primary aim of this study was to recruit a group of researchers and knowledge users to identify and prioritize core competencies for researchers and knowledge users to engage with IKT. We recruited health care knowledge users (KUs) and researchers with experience and knowledge of IKT for a quantitative, cross-sectional study. We employed a modified Delphi approach consisting of three e-survey rounds to establish consensus on competencies important to IKT for KUs and researchers based on mean rating of importance and agreement between participants. Nineteen (73%) of the initial 26 participants were researchers (response rate = 41% in the first round; retention in subsequent rounds > 80%). Participants identified a total of 46 competencies important for IKT (18 competencies for KUs, 28 competencies for researchers) under 3 broad domains. Technical research skills were deemed extremely important for researchers, while both groups require teamwork and knowledge translation skills. This study provides important insight into distinct and overlapping IKT competencies for KUs and researchers. Future work could focus on how these can be further negotiated and contextualized for a wide range of IKT contexts, projects and teams. Greater attention could also be paid to establishing competencies of the entire team to support the research co-production process.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Considerable progress has been made to advance the field of knowledge translation to address the knowledge-to-action gap in health care; however, there remains a growing concern that misalignments persist between research being conducted and the issues faced by knowledge users, such as clinicians and health policy makers, who make decisions in the health care context. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a collaborative research model that has shown promise in addressing these concerns. It takes advantage of the unique and shared competencies amongst researchers and knowledge users to ensure relevance of the research process and its outcomes. To date, core competencies have already been identified to facilitate training in knowledge translation more generally but they have yet to be prioritized for IKT more specifically. The primary aim of this study was to recruit a group of researchers and knowledge users to identify and prioritize core competencies for researchers and knowledge users to engage with IKT.
METHODS
METHODS
We recruited health care knowledge users (KUs) and researchers with experience and knowledge of IKT for a quantitative, cross-sectional study. We employed a modified Delphi approach consisting of three e-survey rounds to establish consensus on competencies important to IKT for KUs and researchers based on mean rating of importance and agreement between participants.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Nineteen (73%) of the initial 26 participants were researchers (response rate = 41% in the first round; retention in subsequent rounds > 80%). Participants identified a total of 46 competencies important for IKT (18 competencies for KUs, 28 competencies for researchers) under 3 broad domains. Technical research skills were deemed extremely important for researchers, while both groups require teamwork and knowledge translation skills.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides important insight into distinct and overlapping IKT competencies for KUs and researchers. Future work could focus on how these can be further negotiated and contextualized for a wide range of IKT contexts, projects and teams. Greater attention could also be paid to establishing competencies of the entire team to support the research co-production process.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34715872
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-07107-7
pii: 10.1186/s12913-021-07107-7
pmc: PMC8556977
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1181Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Palliat Med. 2017 Sep;31(8):684-706
pubmed: 28190381
Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(3):i-iv, 1-88
pubmed: 9561895
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Aug 2;16(1):72
pubmed: 30068359
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2019 Dec 01;8(12):684-699
pubmed: 31779297
Res Involv Engagem. 2019 Feb 12;5:8
pubmed: 30805202
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2019 Jun;24(3):103-108
pubmed: 30442711
BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 Aug 18;11:198
pubmed: 21851617
PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20476
pubmed: 21694759
Nurs Res Pract. 2014;2014:170514
pubmed: 25692039
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jun 27;18(1):502
pubmed: 29945609
Circulation. 2009 May 19;119(19):2633-42
pubmed: 19451365
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003 Oct;8 Suppl 2:58-61
pubmed: 14596749
Crit Care. 2004 Dec;8(6):R403-8
pubmed: 15566584
BMC Health Serv Res. 2007 Feb 07;7:17
pubmed: 17284324
Implement Sci. 2010 Oct 14;5:77
pubmed: 20946678
Implement Sci. 2014 Apr 14;9(1):45
pubmed: 24731295
J Adv Nurs. 2003 Feb;41(4):376-82
pubmed: 12581103
Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(6):521-8
pubmed: 23721495
JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Jun 1;1(2):e180281
pubmed: 30646073
Med Care Res Rev. 2013 Feb;70(1):29-45
pubmed: 22930312
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2011 Jun;9(2):184-8
pubmed: 21599847
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;102:99-106
pubmed: 29966731
Health Policy. 2013 Feb;109(2):187-91
pubmed: 23228520
BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):71-2
pubmed: 8555924
J Healthc Leadersh. 2017 Mar 29;9:15-23
pubmed: 29355212
Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Mar 30;18(1):35
pubmed: 32228692
Health Promot Int. 2013 Jun;28(2):233-43
pubmed: 22237939
BMJ. 2006 Aug 26;333(7565):417
pubmed: 16908462
Healthc Q. 2016;19(2):38-43
pubmed: 27700972
Implement Sci. 2017 Dec 19;12(1):150
pubmed: 29258551
Implement Sci. 2016 Mar 17;11:38
pubmed: 26988000
Int J Nurs Stud. 1993 Jun;30(3):227-37
pubmed: 8335432
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017 Feb 08;6(5):299-300
pubmed: 28812820
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003 Oct;8 Suppl 2:26-34
pubmed: 14596745
Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 03;7:28
pubmed: 22472001
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Jul 12;16:256
pubmed: 27405465
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000 Jun;54(6):461-8
pubmed: 10818123