Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks

Paul M Wilson, Mark Petticrew, Mike W Calnan, Irwin Nazareth, Paul M Wilson, Mark Petticrew, Mike W Calnan, Irwin Nazareth

Abstract

Background: 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. Against this background, we performed a systematic scoping to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activity.

Methods: We searched twelve electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO), the reference lists of included studies and of individual funding agency websites to identify potential studies for inclusion. 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. For each included paper, the source, the date of publication, a description of the main elements of the framework, and whether there was any implicit/explicit reference to theory were extracted. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Identification of conceptual frameworks.

References

    1. Cooksey D. A review of UK health research funding. London: Stationery Office. 2006.
    1. Darzi A. High quality care for all: NHS next stage review final report. London: Department of Health; 2008.
    1. Department of Health. Best Research for Best Health: A new national health research strategy. London: Department of Health; 2006.
    1. National Institute for Health Research. Delivering Health Research. National Institute for Health Research Progress Report 2008/09. London: Department of Health. 2009.
    1. Tooke JC. Report of the High Level Group on Clinical Effectiveness A report to Sir Liam Donaldson Chief Medical Officer. London: Department of Health. 2007.
    1. World Health Organization. World report on knowledge for better health: strengthening health systems. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2004.
    1. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26:13–24.
    1. World Health Organization. Bridging the 'know-do' gap: meeting on knowledge translation in global health 10-12 October 2005. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.
    1. Tetroe JM, Graham ID, Foy R, Robinson N, Eccles MP, Wensing M, Durieux P, Légaré F, Nielson CP, Adily A, Ward JE, Porter C, Shea B, Grimshaw JM. Health research funding agencies' support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study. Milbank Q. 2008;86:125–55.
    1. Wilson PM, Petticrew M, Calnan MW, Nazareth I. Why promote the findings of single research studies? BMJ. 2008;336:722.
    1. Winkler JD, Lohr KN, Brook RH. Persuasive communication and medical technology assessment. Arch Intern Med. 1985;145:314–17.
    1. Lomas J. Diffusion, Dissemination, and Implementation: Who Should Do What. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:226–37.
    1. Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Cockerill R, Barnsley J, DiCenso A. A framework for the dissemination and utilization of research for health-care policy and practice. Online J Knowl Synth Nurs. 2002;9:7.
    1. Jacobson N, Butterill D, Goering P. Development of a framework for knowledge translation: understanding user context. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8:94–9.
    1. Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J. Knowledge Transfer Study G. How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q. 2003;81:221–48.
    1. Wilson PM, Petticrew M, Calnan MW, Nazareth I. Does dissemination extend beyond publication: a survey of a cross section of public funded research in the UK. Implement Sci. 2010;5:61.
    1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews. 3. York: University of York; 2009.
    1. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews. York: University of York. 1994.
    1. National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research. A Review of the Literature on Dissemination and Knowledge Utilization. Austin, TX: National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. 1996.
    1. Hughes M, McNeish D, Newman T, Roberts H, Sachdev D. What works? Making connections: linking research and practice. A review by Barnardo's Research and Development Team. Ilford: Barnardo's. 2000.
    1. Harmsworth S, Turpin S, Rees A, Pell G, TQEF National Co-ordination Team; Bridging the Gap Innovations Project. Creating an Effective Dissemination Strategy. An Expanded Interactive Workbook for Educational Development Projects. Centre for Higher Education Practice: Open University. 2001.
    1. Herie M, Martin GW. Knowledge diffusion in social work: a new approach to bridging the gap. Soc Work. 2002;47:85–95.
    1. Scullion PA. Effective dissemination strategies. Nurse Res. 2002;10:65–77.
    1. Farkas M, Jette AM, Tennstedt S, Haley SM, Quinn V. Knowledge dissemination and utilization in gerontology: an organizing framework. Gerontologist. 2003;43(Spec 1):47–56.
    1. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Communication Notes. Developing a dissemination plan Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. 2004.
    1. Economic and Social Research Council. Communications strategy: a step-by-step guide. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council. 2004.
    1. European Commission. European Research. A guide to successful communication. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2004.
    1. Carpenter D, Nieva V, Albaghal T, Sorra J. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation, Programs, Tools and Practices. Vol. 4. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005. Development of a Planning Tool to Guide Dissemination of Research Results.
    1. Bauman AE, Nelson DE, Pratt M, Matsudo V, Schoeppe S. Dissemination of physical activity evidence, programs, policies, and surveillance in the international public health arena. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(1 Suppl):S57–S65.
    1. Formoso G, Marata AM, Magrini N. Social marketing: should it be used to promote evidence-based health information? Soc Sci Med. 2007;64:949–53.
    1. Zarinpoush F, Sychowski SV, Sperling J. Effective Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: A Framework. Toronto: Imagine Canada. 2007.
    1. Majdzadeh R, Sadighi J, Nejat S, Mahani AS, Gholami J. Knowledge translation for research utilization: design of a knowledge translation model at Tehran University of Medical Sciences. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2008;28:270–7.
    1. Friese B, Bogenschneider K. The voice of experience: How social scientists communicate family research to policymakers. Fam Relat. 2009;58:229–43.
    1. Yuan CT, Nembhard IM, Stern AF, Brush JE Jr, Krumholz HM, Bradley EH. Blueprint for the dissemination of evidence-based practices in health care. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 2010;86:1–16.
    1. McGuire WJ. In: Handbook of social psychology. Lindzey G, Aronsen E, editor. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Publishing; 1969. The nature of attitudes and attitude change; pp. 136–314.
    1. McGuire WJ. In: Public communication campaigns. 3. Rice R, Atkin C, editor. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001. Input and output variables currently promising for constructing persuasive communications; pp. 22–48.
    1. Lasswell HD. In: The communication of ideas. Bryson L, editor. New York: Harper and Row; 1948. The structure and function of communication in society; pp. 37–51.
    1. National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research. Developing an Effective Dissemination Plan. Austin, Tx: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL); 2001.
    1. Freemantle N, Watt I. Dissemination: implementing the findings of research. Health Libr Rev. 1994;11:133–7.
    1. Rogers EM. The diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press; 1962.
    1. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5. New York, London: Free Press; 2003.
    1. Kotler P, Zaltman G. Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned Social Change. J Market. 1971;35:3–12.
    1. Caplan N. The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. Am Behav Sci. 1979;22:459–70.
    1. Funk SG, Tornquist EM, Champagne MT. A model for improving the dissemination of nursing research. West J Nurs Res. 1989;11:361–72.
    1. Lomas J. Teaching old (and not so old) docs new tricks: effective ways to implement research findings. CHEPA working paper series No 93-4. Hamiltion, Ont: McMaster University; 1993.
    1. Elliott SJ, O'Loughlin J, Robinson K, Eyles J, Cameron R, Harvey D, Raine K, Gelskey D. Canadian Heart Health Dissemination Project Strategic and Research Advisory Groups. Conceptualizing dissemination research and activity: the case of the Canadian Heart Health Initiative. Health Educ Behav. 2003;30:267–82.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Bate P, Macfarlane, Kyriakidou O, Peacock R. How to spread good ideas. A systematic review of the literature on diffusion, dissemination and sustainability of innovations in health service delivery and organisation. London: National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation (NCCSDO) 2004.
    1. Green LW, Orleans C, Ottoson JM, Cameron R, Pierce JP, Bettinghaus EP. Inferring strategies for disseminating physical activity policies, programs, and practices from the successes of tobacco control. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(1 Suppl):S66–S81.
    1. Owen N, Glanz K, Sallis JF, Kelder SH. Evidence-based approaches to dissemination and diffusion of physical activity interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(1 Suppl):S35–S44.
    1. Landry R, Amara N, Ouimet M. Determinants of Knowledge Transfer: Evidence from Canadian University Researchers in Natural Sciences and Engineering. J Technol Transfer. 2007;32:561–92.
    1. Baumbusch JL, Kirkham SR, Khan KB, McDonald H, Semeniuk P, Tan E, Anderson JM. Pursuing common agendas: a collaborative model for knowledge translation between research and practice in clinical settings. Res Nurs Health. 2008;31:130–40.
    1. Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE. A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008;34:228–43.
    1. Clinton M, Merritt KL, Murray SR. Using corporate universities to facilitate knowledge transfer and achieve competitive advantage: An exploratory model based on media richness and type of knowledge to be transferred. International Journal of Knowledge Management. 2009;5:43–59.
    1. Mitchell P, Pirkis J, Hall J, Haas M. Partnerships for knowledge exchange in health services research, policy and practice. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14:104–11.
    1. Ward V, House A, Hamer S. Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14:156–64.
    1. Ward V, Smith S, Carruthers S, House A, Hamer S. Knowledge Brokering. Exploring the process of transferring knowledge into action Leeds: University of Leeds. 2010.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Millbank Q. 2004;82:581–629.
    1. Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Manage J. 1984;5:171–80.
    1. Grant R. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Manage J. 1996;17:109–22.
    1. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Findings: Linking research and practice. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 2000.
    1. Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Waye Perry B. Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q. 2007;85:729–68.
    1. Hanney S, Gonzalez-Block M, Buxton M, Kogan M. The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health Res Policy Syst. 2003;1:2.
    1. Ebener S, Khan A, Shademani R, Compernolle L, Beltran M, Lansang M, Lippman M. Knowledge mapping as a technique to support knowledge translation. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84:636–42.
    1. Grol R, Bosch M, Hulscher M, Eccles M, Wensing M. Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q. 2007;85:93–138.
    1. Kuruvilla S, Mays N. Reorienting health-research communication. Lancet. 2005;366:1416–18.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する