Category Archives: akw

Research article abstracts as a tool for disseminating knowledge in

By | 09.10.2020

Addressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge into routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK and internationally. However, there is lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination. Moreover, the expectations and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another. To be included, papers had to present an explicit framework or plan either designed for use by researchers or that could be used to guide dissemination activity.

Papers which mentioned dissemination but did not provide any detail in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework, were excluded. References were screened independently by at least two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by discussion. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.

Thirty-three frameworks met our inclusion criteria, 20 of which were designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities. Twenty-eight included frameworks were underpinned at least in part by one or more of three different theoretical approaches, namely persuasive communication, diffusion of innovations theory, and social marketing.

There are currently a number of theoretically-informed frameworks available to researchers that can be used to help guide their dissemination planning and activity.

Given the current emphasis on enhancing the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could consider encouraging researchers to adopt a theoretically-informed approach to their research dissemination.

Unexpected Error

Peer Review reports. Healthcare resources are finite, so it is imperative that the delivery of high-quality healthcare is ensured through the successful implementation of cost-effective health technologies.

However, there is growing recognition that the full potential for research evidence to improve practice in healthcare settings, either in relation to clinical practice or to managerial practice and decision making, is not yet realised.

Addressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge to routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK [ 1 — 5 ] and internationally [ 6 ]. As interest in the research to practice gap has increased, so too has the terminology used to describe the approaches employed [ 78 ]. Diffusion, dissemination, implementation, knowledge transfer, knowledge mobilisation, linkage and exchange, and research into practice are all being used to describe overlapping and interrelated concepts and practices.

In this review, we have used the term dissemination, which we view as a key element in the research to practice knowledge translation continuum. We define dissemination as a planned process that involves consideration of target audiences and the settings in which research findings are to be received and, where appropriate, communicating and interacting with wider policy and health service audiences in ways that will facilitate research uptake in decision-making processes and practice.

Most applied health research funding agencies expect and demand some commitment or effort on the part of grant holders to disseminate the findings of their research. However, there does appear to be a lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination [ 9 ]. Moreover, although most consider dissemination to be a shared responsibility between those funding and those conducting the research, the expectations on and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another [ 9 ].

We have previously highlighted the need for researchers to consider carefully the costs and benefits of dissemination and have raised concerns about the nature and variation in type of guidance issued by funding bodies to their grant holders and applicants [ 10 ]. The search terms were identified through discussion by the research team, by scanning background literature, and by browsing database thesauri. There were no methodological, language, or date restrictions.

Details of the database specific search strategies are presented Additional File 1Appendix 1. As this review was undertaken as part of a wider project aiming to assess the dissemination activity of UK applied and public health researchers [ 16 ], we searched the websites of 10 major UK funders of health services and public health research.Integrated knowledge translation IKT refers to collaboration between researchers and decision-makers.

While advocated as an approach for enhancing the relevance and use of research, IKT is challenging and inconsistently applied. This study sought to inform future IKT practice and research by synthesizing studies that empirically evaluated IKT and identifying knowledge gaps.

We performed a scoping review. Data were extracted on study characteristics, IKT intervention theory, content, mode, duration, frequency, personnel, participants, timing from initiation, initiator, source of funding, decision-maker involvementand enablers, barriers, and outcomes reported by studies.

We performed content analysis and reported summary statistics. Thirteen studies were eligible after screening 14, titles and reviewing full-text studies. Details about IKT activities were poorly reported, and none were formally based on theory. Studies varied in the number and type of interactions between researchers and decision-makers; meetings were the most common format. All studies reported barriers and facilitators. Studies reported a range of positive and sub-optimal outcomes.

Outcomes did not appear to be associated with initiator of the partnership, dedicated funding, partnership maturity, nature of decision-maker involvement, presence or absence of enablers or barriers, or the number of different IKT activities. The IKT strategies that achieve beneficial outcomes remain unknown. We generated a summary of IKT approaches, enablers, barriers, conditions, and outcomes that can serve as the basis for a future review or for planning ongoing primary research.

Future research can contribute to three identified knowledge gaps by examining 1 how different IKT strategies influence outcomes, 2 the relationship between the logic or theory underlying IKT interventions and beneficial outcomes, and 3 when and how decision-makers should be involved in the research process.

Future IKT initiatives should more systematically plan and document their design and implementation, and evaluations should report the findings with sufficient detail to reveal how IKT was associated with outcomes. The online version of this article doi It has long been suggested that partnerships between those who produce research and those who use it are likely to enhance the relevance of research and facilitate its use [ 12 ].

A variety of terms have been used to label this concept, each are subtly unique, and none are viewed as the over-arching or gold-standard term [ 3 ]. In the health sector in Canada and elsewhere, this co-production of knowledge is commonly referred to as integrated knowledge translation IKT and defined as an ongoing relationship between researchers and decision-makers clinicians, managers, policy-makers, etc. IKT is viewed as an approach or set of processes that can lead to the generation of knowledge for optimizing health care delivery systems and improving health system performance and associated outcomes [ 5 ].

Decision-making research in health care settings shows that complex problems require complex solutions involving input from individuals with different expertise and perspectives and iterative, generative processes to formulate, execute, and evaluate solutions [ 6 ].

Collaborative knowledge generation, as promoted through IKT approaches, involves ongoing, dynamic interactions among researchers and decision-makers, and represents an ideal means by which to address complex health care problems [ 7 ].

Empirical research in health care settings has demonstrated the concrete benefits of IKT. For example, in-person contact with researchers has been repeatedly cited by decision-makers as the most influential factor determining their use of research evidence [ 89 ]. Interviews with participants of nine researcher-decision-maker partnerships funded by the United Kingdom National Health Service revealed that all achieved improved clinical care through a variety of IKT approaches [ 10 ]. An exploratory study of a partnership among university administrators and Scottish health authority social workers revealed several impacts including enhanced dialogue among partners about priority health issues, and incorporation of research results into a training curriculum for social workers.

As a result, social workers reported the use of research in formal health authority processes and enhanced skill and confidence in using research in their practice [ 11 ]. IKT appears to improve the uptake of research into policy and practice through a variety of mechanisms. Collaboration between researchers and decision-makers may reveal differing perspectives, expectations, and values, leading to greater understanding and improved communication, which creates trust and a shared vision that enable more effective and sustained partnership, thereby contributing to the capacity for IKT [ 12 ].

Decision-makers benefit from interaction with researchers through a broadened reflection on their own activities, enhanced knowledge and skills, information about other pertinent research, and new contacts with other researchers or decision-makers [ 14 ].

Researchers benefit as they gain a nuanced understanding of the policy or practice environment, develop and pursue research questions that have real-world applicability, and, through ongoing conversations with decision-makers, interpret results with a deeper understanding of contextual circumstances which, in turn, enhances the usefulness of the research findings.Metrics details.

Integrated knowledge translation IKT refers to collaboration between researchers and decision-makers. While advocated as an approach for enhancing the relevance and use of research, IKT is challenging and inconsistently applied.

Writing an article

This study sought to inform future IKT practice and research by synthesizing studies that empirically evaluated IKT and identifying knowledge gaps. We performed a scoping review. Data were extracted on study characteristics, IKT intervention theory, content, mode, duration, frequency, personnel, participants, timing from initiation, initiator, source of funding, decision-maker involvementand enablers, barriers, and outcomes reported by studies.

We performed content analysis and reported summary statistics. Thirteen studies were eligible after screening 14, titles and reviewing full-text studies. Details about IKT activities were poorly reported, and none were formally based on theory.

Studies varied in the number and type of interactions between researchers and decision-makers; meetings were the most common format. All studies reported barriers and facilitators. Studies reported a range of positive and sub-optimal outcomes.

Outcomes did not appear to be associated with initiator of the partnership, dedicated funding, partnership maturity, nature of decision-maker involvement, presence or absence of enablers or barriers, or the number of different IKT activities. The IKT strategies that achieve beneficial outcomes remain unknown. We generated a summary of IKT approaches, enablers, barriers, conditions, and outcomes that can serve as the basis for a future review or for planning ongoing primary research.

Future research can contribute to three identified knowledge gaps by examining 1 how different IKT strategies influence outcomes, 2 the relationship between the logic or theory underlying IKT interventions and beneficial outcomes, and 3 when and how decision-makers should be involved in the research process.

Future IKT initiatives should more systematically plan and document their design and implementation, and evaluations should report the findings with sufficient detail to reveal how IKT was associated with outcomes. Peer Review reports. It has long been suggested that partnerships between those who produce research and those who use it are likely to enhance the relevance of research and facilitate its use [ 12 ].

A variety of terms have been used to label this concept, each are subtly unique, and none are viewed as the over-arching or gold-standard term [ 3 ]. In the health sector in Canada and elsewhere, this co-production of knowledge is commonly referred to as integrated knowledge translation IKT and defined as an ongoing relationship between researchers and decision-makers clinicians, managers, policy-makers, etc. IKT is viewed as an approach or set of processes that can lead to the generation of knowledge for optimizing health care delivery systems and improving health system performance and associated outcomes [ 5 ].

Decision-making research in health care settings shows that complex problems require complex solutions involving input from individuals with different expertise and perspectives and iterative, generative processes to formulate, execute, and evaluate solutions [ 6 ].

Advances in Patient Safety

Collaborative knowledge generation, as promoted through IKT approaches, involves ongoing, dynamic interactions among researchers and decision-makers, and represents an ideal means by which to address complex health care problems [ 7 ]. Empirical research in health care settings has demonstrated the concrete benefits of IKT.An article is potentially the most efficient means for disseminating your research and establishing a publication record; many areas of academic life such as finding employment and winning research grants depend on a good publication record.

Online journals have increased the geographical spread for academic work, reinforcing the importance of articles in creating and furthering your research reputation. This tutorial has been designed to assist you in the process of writing the article. The structure of the tutorial:. The content and structure of your article is determined by the topic you select and the potential reading audience. You are proffering your contribution to the academic field, keeping in mind what is already being discussed by others.

Your article will add to the academic discourse in a particular field. Therefore, choose a journal that best reflects your potential readership. In considering how suitable your article is for publication, the editors will consider various factors, including but not limited to:. A journal article needs to be novel, based on your own ideas and research, and add to current scholarly knowledge. Novelty is not sufficient if there is no purpose or significance in relation to current scholarly writing.

Does your work fill a gap in the current discourse? Does it offer new methods or ways of reconceptualising theory? Does it challenge current assumptions? Your article needs to be written in an academic style, according to what is standard for your discipline. It helps if it is also interesting and engaging. Scholarly writing is not necessarily boring. You do not want to upset the editors by ignoring their requirements; after all, they determine whether your work is worth publishing.

research article abstracts as a tool for disseminating knowledge in

What you write in an article may reflect a distillation of ideas or findings from your thesis but it needs to be written to reflect an alternate academic context and audience.

Different strategies can be used to refine your ideas. These are all important aspects in writing a good journal article. James Hartley offers twelve different types of title, each one emphasising a different way of engaging with readers.This tool was developed to help researchers evaluate their research and develop appropriate dissemination plans, if the research is determined to have "real world" impact.

PDF version - AHRQ is increasingly interested in research that has "real world" impact in the practice of health care. This tool will help you, the Patient Safety Researcher, develop a plan for disseminating your research findings and products to potential users in the health care system. This tool is designed to prompt your thinking about the processes that you would use to disseminate your findings or products, beyond publishing and presenting in peer-reviewed venues.

This tool will ask you to identify the aspects of your research that are ready for dissemination, and to think about who could benefit from your findings or products. It will also encourage you to consider various ways to reach these users—establishing direct links as well as working through intermediary organizations, or tapping into existing networks.

research article abstracts as a tool for disseminating knowledge in

Developing a dissemination plan will facilitate the translation of your research into practice. Your dissemination plan will include six major elements:. Select one research finding or product that you expect to be particularly important in improving patient safety, and that is ready for dissemination. You may want to complete the tool separately if you have several findings or products to disseminate. For each component of a dissemination plan, you will answer a few key questions about the selected finding or product.

At the end, you will integrate your responses into an overall strategy and workplan. Draw the boundary around your research finding or product as broadly or as narrowly as you wish, depending on your dissemination aims.

Be specific. The more concrete you can be in defining your finding or product, the easier it will be to complete the tool. For example. What makes your research finding or product stand out? For example—Is it an innovative way to tackle an existing problem? Does it identify a new problem? Does it support or contradict current practices?

Effective dissemination relies on the use of varied channels—e. Consider what methods and channels you might use to bring your research finding or product directly to your end users or partners.

Consider also how your dissemination partners communicate regularly with their constituencies—your end users. How you might use their channels to disseminate your finding or product?

You should consider all of these channels to ensure that the widest possible audience is exposed to your research finding or product and in ways that are both accessible and easy-to-use. Cost and cost-effectiveness are obviously important considerations in choosing the right medium. After you have considered the components of your dissemination plan, use the last page to write a summary of words that outlines your basic plan, based on the structure in this planning tool, by completing the following statements.

Content last reviewed October Browse Topics. Topics A-Z. Quality and Disparities Report Latest available findings on quality of and access to health care. Funding Opportunity Announcements. Previous Page. Research Findings Peer Reviewers for Volume 2.In recent years, social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have become popular gathering spots for clinicians to connect, engage, and share medical content. Inthe Annals of Surgery was looking to better disseminate the work being published in its pages and looked to Twitter as one way of accomplishing this.

At the time, most journals were only posting the title or a brief description of the published manuscript and hoping their Twitter followers would click on the article link. As journal editors were finding, if the audience was not immediately familiar with the topic or able to quickly capture the nuances of the study, there was a good chance the reader would continue to scroll past the post and never view the article. Recognizing that social media heavily relies on visual material to garner attention, Annals turned to Andrew Ibrahim, MDan architect turned surgeon, to help them rethink their social media strategy.

Using the design training he had previously received in his career as an architect, Dr. Ibrahim created a simple visual tool that could be used to capture the often complicated and nuanced aspects of a research study. But what is a visual abstract? While they can take many different forms and designs, they often consist of three key components: 1 a simple, easy to understand title, 2 a primary focus on outcomes, and 3 the use of visual cues or images to help the reader absorb and remember the take home message.

This simplified delivery of complex information allows the producer to efficiently share complex findings in a format that allows for rapid visualization and interpretation. Since its inception, several studies have examined the influence visual abstracts have on disseminating research.

One study conducted by Dr. Ibrahim and his colleagues found that articles tweeted with a visual abstract had an almost eightfold increase in the number of Twitter impressions a measure of social media dissemination and a threefold increase in article visits, compared with those manuscripts tweeted with the article title only. This knowledge, along with the substantial difference in engagement and dissemination characteristics from Dr.

Medical journals across all practices and disciplines, including several leading journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the Journal of Hospital Medicine JHMare utilizing this new tool to help disseminate their work in social media. Visual abstracts have expanded beyond the social media sphere and are now frequently used in Grand Rounds presentations and as teaching tools among medical educators.

JHM was one of the first journals to adopt the use of visual abstracts and has since published more than in total. Visual abstracts are just one piece of the growing enterprise in social media for JHM. Recognizing the growing utilization of social media among physicians, JHM has taken a leading role in the use of online journal clubs.

SinceJHM has run a monthly Twitter-based journal club that discusses recently published articles and hospital medicine—based topics, called JHMChat. The journal frequently reaches beyond hospital medicine borders and partners with other specialties and interest groups to gain perspective and insights into shared topic areas. To date, JHMChat has one of the most robust online communities and continues to attract new followers each month.

As social media use continues to expand among clinicians, engagement tools like visual abstracts and Twitter chats will certainly continue to grow.

DEF CON 26 - Steven Danneman - Your Banks Digital Side Door

Given that more clinicians are scrolling through websites than flipping through journal pages, medical journals like JHM will continually look for novel ways to engage their audiences and create communities among their followers.

While a former architect who now practices as a surgeon led the way with visual abstracts, it remains to be seen who will create the next tool used to capture our attention on the ever-evolving sphere of social media. He also serves as a digital media and associate editor for the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

Ibrahim AM et al. Visual abstracts to disseminate research on social media: A prospective, case-control crossover study. Ann Surg. Tufte ER. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Second edition. Cheshire, Conn. Graphics Press, Polishing Your Presentation. Accessed May 28, Wray CM et al. The adoption of an online journal club to improve research dissemination and social media engagement among hospitalists. J Hosp Med. Skip to main content.Leeds Institute of Health Sciences Room 2.

Transferring health care research into policy and practice is a messy and complex process which both policymakers and researchers can struggle with. A potential solution is to use individuals or organisations as knowledge brokers. Using a range of literature, this paper explains the theory behind knowledge brokering, identifies three models of brokering and explores the challenges of brokering. We suggest that clarifying these factors is a significant step towards planning well designed and rigorously evaluated brokering interventions.

research article abstracts as a tool for disseminating knowledge in

We also suggest that a clearly defined theoretical framework could help us to find out more about how brokering works and its effectiveness. The importance of transferring research evidence into healthcare policy and practice is widely acknowledged, as failing to do so results in health inequities and wasted resources Berwick ; World Health Organization Finding and using appropriate mechanisms for transferring research into policy and practice has become a major policy driver in the UK and around the world.

Lord Darzi's recent reports on the UK Health Service have urged action on improving the uptake of medical research and evidence-based health technologies Lord Darzi and research funding councils are beginning to mandate the use of activities which link research-generated evidence to policy and practice Tetroe, Graham et al.

These activities include involving users in the research process, using innovative and targeted dissemination methods and providing opportunities for continuing professional development. However, the process of transferring research knowledge into action is recognised as messy and complex Graham, Logan et al. Decision makers and researchers inhabit different worlds Caplan Whilst researchers may revere theories and concepts, decision makers want evidence which is relevant and easy to understand.

And whilst researchers often take years to complete research studies, decision makers want answers quickly Mitton, Adair et al. Each side also speaks its own, highly technical language Choi, Pang et al. Given these difficulties, it is sometimes thought that neither researchers nor decision makers are best placed to drive the translation, transfer and implementation of health research evidence.

One proposal is the use of intermediaries or brokers. Positioned at the interface between the worlds of researchers and decision makers, they are seen as the human force behind knowledge transfer, finding, assessing and interpreting evidence, facilitating interaction and identifying emerging research questions CHSRF The literature was identified as part of a larger review of the knowledge transfer literature Ward, House et al.

Comprehensive searches of all databases were carried out until March In addition, searches on knowledge transfer and knowledge brokering have continued to be carried out in Cambridge Scientific Abstracts on a monthly basis.

Up-to-date grey literature has been located via the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation e-bulletins and website and the KUUC e-watch bulletin on innovation in health services. As a result of these searches 21 papers which focused on describing or evaluating knowledge brokering interventions were the identified.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines brokers as middlemen, intermediaries or agents who act as negotiators, interpreters, messengers or commissioners between different merchants or individuals OED online. Brokers traditionally favour neither individual but instead act as go-betweens, serving the needs of both. For our purposes the role of brokers is to make research and practice more accessible to each other.

Terms such as boundary spanner, research navigator, research liaison officer, knowledge translator and research broker are used widely.

However, the term knowledge broker captures something of the equitable relationship between research and practice which brokering seeks to foster.


Category: akw

thoughts on “Research article abstracts as a tool for disseminating knowledge in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *