2008 IHP Annual Report

7/29/2019 2008 IHP Annual Report

1/58

annual report

A Knowledge Translaton Initatve


2/58

ACTION

OUR PRIMARY MISSION: to translate public health

research into evidence-based policies and

programs to enhance the health of communies.

A Knowledge Translation Initiative

Copyright 2009 Research Into Action, Institute for Health Policy, The University of Texas School of Public Health.


3/58

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summ ary

How I t All Began

Developing a New Model

Mapping the Evidence

Active Bodies, Active Minds

SBI RT Expert Analysis

World 2.0

I dentifying the Health of Houston

What Weve Accomplished

What W e Will Accomplish

Societal Benefit s

Appendices

5

8

10

14

17

20

23

26

29

32

35

39


4/58

4

Executive Summary


5/58

5

A Knowledge Translation InitiativeResearch Into Action

Executive Summary

How It All Began Through a gener-

ous gif from the ExxonMobil Foun-

daon, the Instute for Health Policy

at the University of Texas School of

Public Health was able to formalize a

commitment to its KT efforts via a new

iniave, Research Into Acon (RIA).

This project developed and launched

an innovave KT model, tested it with

two research projects from the School

ofPublic Health, and plans to serve as

a catalyst for policy-relevant research

and as a broker for faculty opportuni-

es to inform current policy debates.

Developing a New Model Much of

the exisng literature on KT is spread

widely across different disciplines and

ofen lacks explicit direcon on how to

conduct successful translaons. The

RIA team reviewed this literature and

idenfied a set of best pracces in

the field. RIA then developed a unique

model for KT that prescribes different

levels of effort and acvity based on

the perceived gaps between research-

er and user. This departure from the

classic model is an advance in the con-

ceptualizaon of the KT process.

Mapping the Evidence To support

KT, a broad array of directly relevant

supporng evidence must be assem-

bled. The RIA team used evidence

mapping to accomplish this. Evi-

dence maps can be created that

display general results and clus-

ters of evidence in a way that best

summarize the findings. The team

weighs the evidence by mapping

published study results to answer

specific quesons about the central

topic under consideraon.

Actve Bodies, Actve Minds One

of the IHPs first two research proj-

ects was PASS & CATCH, which

draws a correlaon between physi-

cal acvity and improved academic

achievement. Working with the

principal invesgator, the RIA team

developed advocacy and presen-

taon materials that explain the

results to public audiences, and

reached out to the U.S. Centers for

Disease Control & Prevenon (CDC)

for support. The CDC expressed

interest in collaborang with us in

the naonal distribuon of these

results, once the study is published.

SBIRT-Expert Analysis SBIRT is a

program mandated for use in alllevel I trauma centers. Doctors and

other medical personnel are re-

quired to screen accident paents

for signs of substance abuse. If the

paents are found to be under the

his Research Into Acon (RIA) annual report summarizes the acvies of the RIA

knowledge translaon (KT) iniave, based in the Instute for Health Policy at The

University of Texas School ofPublic Health. It is organized into 10 secons with

eight appendices. For your convenience, we provide a brief summary.

T


6/58

6


Research Into Action

influence, medical professionals will either con-

duct a brief intervenon or refer them to facilies

where they can receive treatment. RIA focused

on Harris Countys level III and level IV trauma

centers (which are not required to provide SBIRT

services), translang the exisng evidence on pro-

gram effecveness and providing resource links

and opons to assist in the adopon decision.

World 2.0 As the IHP and the RIA team delved

further into KT, it became clear that there was no

central repository for KT informaon on the Inter-

net. With that in mind, the RIA team launched a

second major iniave developing a Web portal

that would be a one-stop-shop for all KT-related

public health informaon.

What Weve Accomplished During its first full

year of acvity, RIA has:

What We Will Accomplish In

2009, we will be evaluang our

first two projects, as well as se-

lecng two new projects for our

second year.RIA also ancipates

the compleon of two major

Web iniaves by mid-summer

the KT Web portal and the

completely renovated IHP/RIAWeb pages will be unveiled.

These Internet iniaves will

substanally raise the public

profile of the IHP and RIA.

Benefit to Society Our fore-

most goal is to have effecve KT

become the norm. We hope to

set a standard that is adopted

widely in public health research

and pracce. Our translaon

ofPASS & CATCH findings con-

nects us to naonal efforts onobesity prevenon and the

pressing need to address the

obesity epidemic. Likewise, our

efforts promong the adopon

of SBIRT, a program proven to

reduce injury and substance

abuse, can have an impact on

thousands of lives a year.

Developed the axial model of KT

Developed the three-level project selecon

matrix

Conducted several user surveys to create a

foundaon for current and future research

Conducted its first two KT projects PASS &

CATCH and SBIRT

Completed the specificaon of a

comprehensive Web-based KT portal

Met its matching requirements for next year

through a gif to the IHP from the Houston

Endowment


7/58

7

How It All Began

The Institute or

Health Policy

Knowledge Translatio


8/58

8



How It All Began

With a generous gif from the ExxonMo-

bil Foundaon, the IHP was able to ex-

tend its commitment to KT with a new

program iniave called Research Into

Acon (RIA). The RIAs primary mission

is to translate public health research into

evidence-based policies and programs to

enhance the health of communies.

This concept of translang research into

useful acon can be traced to the

agricultural extension services at the be-

ginning of the 20th century. Applying this

concept to medicine, nursing, and pub-

lic health is relavely new in the United

States, but it is already an established

pracce in Europe and Canada.

The IHP is devoted to raising awareness

of KT in the United States, and using it to

bring research from the pages of peer-

reviewed journals to those who can use

and benefit from it the most.

At the IHP, the pracce of KT is carried

out through the Research Into Acon

(RIA) iniave. Using a KT model de-

signed by the staff, the RIA is dedicated to

sharing informaon and best pracces to

advance the field of KT. Typically

that is accomplished by choos-

ing specific research projects and

working with the principal inves-

gators to share their findings with

targeted populaons.

The RIA conducts systemac re-

views and translaons of scienfic

content and disseminaon of re-

sults through a number of com-

municaon channels, including

the media, scholarly arcles, and

presentaons at conferences.

The IHP also plans to serve as a

catalyst for policy-relevant re-

search and brokering opportuni-

es for faculty to apply their ex-

perse to inform current policy

debates. In addion, specialized

training and educaon in policy

analysis, design and development

is currently being offered as a part

of the graduate-level curriculum

here at the UT School of Public

Health.

he Instute for Health Policy (IHP) was established at The University of Texas

School ofPublic Health to assist researchers throughout the UT Health Science

Center in translang their technical findings into usable advice for program

administrators and praccal recommendaons for health policymakers. This

pracce is commonly referred to as knowledge translaon, and is ofen

referred to as simply KT.

T


9/58

9

RIAs Latest Thinking

Developing a New

Model


10/58

10



uch of the exisng literature on KT is

spread widely across different disciplines

and ofen lacks explicit direcon on how

to conduct successful translaons. The RIA

team reviewed this literature and idenfied

a set of best pracces in the field.

Success appears to depend upon what in-

formaon gets exchanged, when, by whom,

and through what kind of media.

The RIA teams task was to think beyond

the classic KT model, which is based on a

simple communicaon cycle with feed-

back. Many groups have devised KT mod-

els which describe theorecal processes, or

which aempt to describe communicaon

processes afer the fact.

RIA developed a unique model for KT that

allows for varying degrees of readiness on

the part of the user, or gaps between the

user and researcher of varying size and

complexity.

The RIA model prescribes different levels of

effort and acvity based on the perceived

gaps. This departure from the classic model

represents an advance in the conceptual-

izaon of the KT process. An abstract de-

tailing this model has been submied to

the third Naonal Conference on Health

Communicaons, Markeng and Media,

sponsored by the U.S. Centers for Disease

Control and Prevenon. We also parci-

pated in last years conference, presenng

material from our audit of KT Web sites and

user survey.

The graphic on the opposite page illustrates

the RIA teams current thinking on this pro-

acve model of KT.

As demonstrated in the models spectrum

of encounters, researchers and end-users

(be they policy-makers, administrators,

health professionals or the general public),

depending on their placement on the spec-

trum, will have varying degrees of conver-

gence on the topic being disseminated. This

represents RIAs latest thinking, and conn-

ues to be refined.

Developing a New Model

M


11/58

11


3FROV

$GYRFDWHV

'HFLVLRQ0DNHUV

6HUYLFH3URYLGHUV

3FROV $GYRFDWHV

'HFLVLRQ0DNHUV

6HUYLFH3URYLGHUV

3FROV

/LQNDJH0RGHOV

'HFLVLRQ0DNHUV

'HFLVLRQ0DNHUV

3FROV

6HUYLFH3URYLGHUV

6HUYLFH3URYLGHUV

3FROV

([FKDQJH0RGHOV

3URPRWLRQ0RGHOV

3FROV

'HFLVLRQ0DNHUV

6HUYLFH3URYLGHUV

.7 &LUFXLW

'LVVHPLQDWLRQ0RGHOV

(

(

W

W

/

/

%URNHUDJH0RGHOV

3FROV'HFLVLRQ0DNHUV

6HUYLFH3URYLGHUV

$GYRFDWHV

The Axial Model or KT Research

and Development


12/58

12



Analysis

Review all material

Meet with principal investigator

and staf

Second round o targeted

evidence mapping

Translation

Develop broad expertise on

potential users

Translate scientic ndings into

actionable messages

Frame key messages to meet

users needs

Speciy Relevant Forms o

Communication

Inventory targets and tactics

Match tactics to a media plan

Review Model Elements

Evaluate e cacy o initial

analysis, translation, and

tactic selection

Execution

Create timeline

Set budget

Products/Reporting

Develop communications

materials

Direct user interaction

Interactions with media

Interactions with intermediary

organizations

Evaluation

Design evaluation measures

Track implementation and user

uptake

Final report

To simplify the process of planning for KT efforts,

RIA staffcreated a comprehensive list of projects

and acvies derived from the best pracces

compiled from all sources. This comprehensive

list is intended to funcon like a clinical algo-

rithm, allowing staff to plug in the appropriate

acvies based on the scenario idenfied by the

model. This chart illustrates a sampling of the ac-vies and the categories they fall under.


13/58

13


A Systematic Approach


14/58

14



he RIA project began in the fall of 2007.

At the outset, staff produced a mission

statement and logo, a revised logic model,

and a set of operaonal objecves to guide

implementaon.

Staff also created a systemac screening

process to guide the choice of research

findings for translaon. The projects

focus was on research completed at the UT

School ofPublic Health in the prior three

years.

An outline of our screening process is

shown in Appendix A.

To accomplish the selecon task, an exhaus-

ve inventory of studies was completed, a

custom database to organize the applica-

on of the screening criteria was designed,

and a weight-of-evidence assessment from

the published scienfic literature was com-

pleted on the final set of candidate studies.

The assessors used 15 criteria to screen

144 research studies over the course of

three rounds. From this, a set of 10 candi-

date studies were idenfied. Afer further

invesgaon, these 10 were then narrowed

down to three. The staff then conducted

a full weight-of-evidence assessment on

these three studies.

RIA staff found that no single study had significant enough re-

sults to stand alone. This is frequently the case; progress in pub-

lic health is made in small increments. For the purpose of creat-

ing a persuasive case for KT, a broad array of directly relevant

supporng evidence must be assembled. How is this done? The

IHP uses a tool called evidence mapping.

An example of our evidence mapping appears in Appendix B.

Evidence maps can be created that display general results and

clusters of evidence in a way that best summarize the find-

ings. Evidence mapping begins with a search of the research

literature for previous systemac reviews. If the literature has

already been synthesized in a systemac review, it is then up-

dated with more recent research or search terms are modified

to widen the breadth of review.

Next, the team weighs the evidence by mapping published study

results to answer specific quesons, for example:

Descriptive questions What clinical contexts have been

investigated? What are the diferent types o interventions

studied in the population o interest?

Outcome questions How efective was the interven-

tion? What is the efectiveness o intervention on special

populations?

PICO Principle Population (who), Intervention (what),

Compared to, and Outcome (consequences/efective-

ness). For example, in [X] population, did [Y] treatment,

compared to none or little [W] treatment, reduce/

increase [Z] outcome?


T

Adopted from Evidence Mapping Systemac Review, and Meta-

Analysis, Patricia Mullen, Dr. PH.


15/58

15


Next, the group determines selecon criteria

(both inclusion and exclusion) for studies; con-

ducts a document search; and develops a strat-

egy for capturing relevant study characteriscs,

such as:

Search strategy

Report identifcation author, title, jour-

nal or other pub. type, publication date

Population

Program or treatment

Setting, time

Study design/methods/quality rating

Outcome measures

Applicability to dierent populations

and settings

An example of our project selecon matrix can

be found in Appendix B.

Using this systemac approach, the IHP staff is

able to take large amounts of data and turn it

into praccal, useful informaon.

Two of the studies that were subjected to evi-

dence mapping were finally selected for trans-

laon. One was a physical acvity supplement

to the coordinated approach to child health

(CATCH) program, and the other concerned

screening and brief intervenon during emer-

gency care.

The next months involved translang content

into aconable messages, building a network

of collaborators for disseminaon, and engag-

ing policymakers as potenal users of these

results.


16/58

16

Active Bodies,

Active Minds

Boosting Academic

Achievement


17/58

17


ne of the IHPsfirst two research projects

was PASS & CATCH, which draws a correla-

on between physical acvity and improved

academic achievement.

Dr. Nancy Murray, the principal invesgator,

has gone further than other researchers by

focusing on how teachers can use physicalacvity in the classroom as a teaching aid

and demonstrang the benefits of physical

acvity for poorly adapng students.

The IHP staff, with input from Dr. Murray,

developed a variety of collateral materials

for PASS & CATCH. These were (and are)

used at conferences, public meengs, and

other gatherings to spread the word about

PASS & CATCH.

As a first step in the KT efforts on behalf of

the PASS & CATCH pilot project, the IHP de-

veloped and began distribuon of an advo-

cacy flyer highlighng the posive results of

the PASS & CATCH research.

A copy of the flyer is available in Appendix C.

The flyer is designed to transmit the rel-

evant research to interested lay people like

teachers, principals, school district adminis-

trators, and parents. It features not only the

PASS & CATCH research, but also related re-

search on the beneficial effects of increased

physical acvity in the classroom. This ad-

vocacy flyer has already been used several

mes by Dr. Murray in her presentaons,

and she reports a very posive response.

A revised version of this advocacy flyer,

targeted to legislators and policymakers,

is being developed. The revised flyer more

strongly emphasizes the cumulave impact

of research into the beneficial effects of

classroom physical acvity, and accentuates

the relaonship between physical acvity

and improved academic performance.

This version of the flyer clearly calls for ac-

on on the part of the intended audience,

in the form of policy and funding changes.

The RIA staffalso worked with Dr.Murray to

develop a PowerPoint presentaon suitable

for use at various school district and School

Health Advisory Council meengs, as well

as other educaon-focused audiences.

Active Bodies, Active Minds

O


18/58

18



RIA staffhas reached out to interested par-

es at the Centers for Disease Control on

behalf of PASS & CATCH. The CDC would

support implementaon of a naonal dis-

seminaon effort in support of PASS &

CATCH, once the findings are published.

In addion, the RIA staff is currently com-pleng a stand-alone PowerPoint presen-

taon that details the correlaon between

physical acvity and academic achievement.

Leading up to the conclusion of the PASS &

CATCH project, the IHP plans to work with

Dr. Murray to develop an evaluaon tool for

the presentaon; schedule more presenta-

ons to groups of decision makers and other

influenal people in school curricula; and

work with her on perfecng her presenta-

on skills.

The goal is to complete all pending PASS

& CATCH support acvies by June 2009,

conngent on the U.S. Centers for Disease

Control and Prevenons collaboraon in a

naonal media campaign.

The implicaons of successful KT of this re-

search are manifold. Dr. Murrays research

indicates that poorly adapng children, in

parcular, benefit from increased physical

acvity.

Her PASS & CATCH study, and the rapidly ac-

cumulang supporng evidence, all point toimproved academic, social, classroom man-

agement, and producvity outcomes from

increased physical acvity.

While this KT project focused on academic

outcomes, the results have the side ben-

efit of lending further support to the bale

against childhood obesity, which is a bur-

geoning epidemic in the United States.

An example of communicaons material

developed for the disseminaon ofPASS &

CATCH findings appears in Appendix C.


19/58

19

SBIRT - Expert Analysis


20/58

20



SBIRT - Expert Analysis

he second research project for RIAs inial

year was Screening, Brief Intervenon and

Referral to Treatment (SBIRT).

SBIRT is a program mandated for use in all

level I trauma centers. Doctors and other

medical personnel are required to screen

accident paents for signs of substanceabuse (level II trauma centers are required

to have a screening component only). If the

paents are found to be under the influ-

ence, the issue is discussed with them and

the medical professionals will either con-

duct a brief intervenon or refer them to

facilies where they can receive treatment.

RIA decided to focus its efforts on Houston-

area level III and level IV trauma centers,

which are not required to provide SBIRT

services, to translate the exisng evidence

on program effecveness, provide resource

links and opons to assist in the adopon

decision.

RIA, working with an external expert, Dr.

Larry Genlello, developed a survey for area

trauma centers regarding the barriers to the

adopon ofSBIRT. Dr. Genlello is one of

the leaders in the SBIRT field.

The survey was administered online and was

completed by either trauma program manag-

ers or coordinators. Nine of the 11 level III and

IV trauma centers in Harris County responded.

The team soon found that the level III and level

IV trauma centers in the Houston area did not

have the comprehensive framework in place tosupport the SBIRT iniave, through no fault of

their own. Resources are ght, and as a result

many of the smaller hospitals do not have the

tools necessary to run an effecve SBIRT pro-

gram.

Only three trauma centers reported providing

paents with alcohol/drug abuse counseling.

However, a majority of respondents thought

that between 15-30 percent of their paents

would be posive for alcohol and drug use if

tested, and more than 10 percent would be

re-admied for re-injury in the next five years.

With most centers adming between 500-

3,000 paents annually, 10 percent of paents

would be a large number of re-admiances.

Also, a majority of respondents believed that

alcohol/drug abuse was a significant burden,

and that their paents would benefit from

T


21/58

21


having an alcohol intervenon. Six organi-

zaons were interested in a presentaon

of the effecveness and cost savings of the

SBIRT program, providing the RIA an oppor-

tunity to improve the care provided to pa-

ents in level III and level IV trauma centers

in Houston.

Now that the survey is complete, the data is

being analyzed by IHP personnel and shared

with outside experts in the field. Using the

informaon gathered in the survey and its

own environmental assessment, RIA staff

will present the results to an upcoming

meeng of the Harris County Regional Advi-

sory Council on Trauma.

The staff will also develop a portolio of

communicaons materials idenfying

the most likely obstacles in developing an

SBIRT program and how they can be over-

come basically an expansive toolkit

that will provide these hospitals with the

informaon and strategies necessary to

implement their own SBIRT protocol. Thiswill be presented to level III and level IV

trauma program managers/coordinators

throughout the Houston area by the end of

April, 2009.

Addionally, the RIA plans to release the

survey results to the media and acvely

pursue media coverage of the issue.


22/58

22

World 2.0

Web Site Re-design


23/58

23


World 2.0

s the IHP and the RIA team delved further

into knowledge transfer, it became clear

that there was no central repository for KT

informaon no search engine, Web portal,

or comprehensive Web site where KT pro-

fessionals and others could go to find out

the latest news and informaon, and con-

nect with other KT professionals.

With that in mind, the RIA team launched a

second major iniave developing a Web

portal that would be a one-stop-shop for all

KT public health informaon.

To accomplish this, the team first conducted

an audit and in-depth assessment of all KT-

related sites using mulple keywords and

three different search engines.

Next, the team created and conducted a

survey of potenal users that would pin-

point what features people are looking for

in a KT Web portal, and how they currently

use the Web to conduct research, establish

networks, and disseminate scholarly and

technical informaon.

An example of the Web audit appears in

Appendix D.

As menoned earlier, these results were

analyzed and presented at last years CDC

Health Communicaons Conference. Afer

the conference, the IHP staffsent the survey

to hundreds of conference aendees asking

for their input, as well.

The results were striking. More than 70 per-

cent of all respondents indicated that they

use the Internet regularly to track down KT

informaon, but they also indicated dissat-

isfacon with the amount of informaon

available and the ease of locang it.

A


24/58

24



The findings of the user survey appear in

Appendix E.

Using the survey results and the teams own

research, they developed a blueprint for a

comprehensive Web portal dedicated to

knowledge transfer. The IHP envisions the

site as a central repository for all things KTrelated. It will include a glossary of terms,

best pracces, links to relevant instuons

and the latest KT arcles and research, a cal-

endar of events, an electronic bibliography,

current KT funding sources, and areas for

user comments.

An outline of the Web portal appears in

Appendix F.

The staff created a request for proposal,

which was sent out to potenal vendors.

Bids were submied for consideraon by

six companies interested in developing the

Web portal. These bids are currently under-

going a careful review, as this project will

become a cornerstone of the IHPs contri-

buon to the world of KT. The portal will

launch mid-summer 2009.

At the same me, the IHP is undertaking a

major redesign of its Web site (www.sph.

uth.tmc.edu/ihp/). A graphic designer

with extensive Web design experience

was hired in March, and she is respon-sible for designing a site that takes into

account the unique needs of the users.

This user-friendly site, which will be main-

tained in-house, will be implemented

mid-summer 2009.

The RIA is also exploring the new Web 2.0

communicaons technologies. An IHP

Facebook page was established in Febru-

ary, and the use of vehicles such as Twit-

ter are also under consideraon.

The IHP is dedicated to using the power

of the World Wide Web to spread the

word about KT, and to posion itself as a

leader in the field.


25/58

25

Health o Houston

2010 Survey

Identiying the Health

o Houston


26/58

26



Identifying the Health of Houston

s a condion of our ExxonMobil Founda-

on funding, the IHP has pursued matching

funds from other sources. One significant

iniave of ours currently being funded

by the Houston Endowment is called the

Health of Houston.

One of the projects under this iniave isthe Health of Houston 2010 survey. This

survey, the first of its kind in the greater

Houston area, will assess the self-reported

health of Houstonians and provide com-

munity-level esmates of health status and

health care needs.

The survey will support the efforts of health

agencies, service providers, and commu-

nity organizaons with more accurate and

up-to-date health informaon, and provide

specialized analyses, topical reports, and

training in the use of survey informaon.

The IHP staffhas been researching the vari-

ous groups and organizaons dedicated to

health in the Houston area, idenfying a

network of hundreds of potenal users of

the report, and securing their support.

The staff is emphasizing governmental,

community, and stakeholder involvement

in the survey planning, implementaon,

and disseminaon process.

Driving the inial development of the sur-

vey is the queson: What do these orga-

nizaons want to know about the health

needs of the people they serve? Working

directly with the groups to develop thesurvey will enable the IHP to custom-de-

sign a survey that will be the most useful

to its audience.

The IHP is using this informaon to de-

velop a comprehensive health needs

survey of the Houston area. Results will

be provided to the organizaons so that

they can use it to apply for grants, target

care based on areas of need, and develop

policy recommendaons.

The Health of Houston 2010 survey will

involve 3,000-4,000 Houston households.

It will queson the members of these

households regarding their access to

health care, their general health, their ex-

periences with chronic diseases, and their

primary health care needs.

A


27/58

27


Up to this point, health organizatons have had to cobble together informa-

ton from a variety of sources, said Jessica Tullar, Ph.D., an epidemiologist

on the survey team. We want to connect the unknown to the known we

want to provide people with the informaton they need about the health

topics specific to their neighborhoods, something thats never been done

before in a systematc way.

The survey results are expected to be released at the beginning of 2011.


28/58

28

What Weve

Accomplished


29/58

29


What Weve Accomplished

uring its first full year of acvity, RIA has

moved from research, review, and planning,

to the execuon of a variety of significant

projects.

For an overview of the RIA process, see

Appendix G.

First, the team developed the axial modelas a new way of conceptualizing the KT task

and as a contribuon to the state of the art.

The axial model describes various poten-

al scenarios from simple to complex, and

then prescribes appropriate taccs for ac-

complishing the appropriate KT goals. The

methods (taccs) are drawn from current

pracces in social markeng, public rela-

ons, and adversing. An exhausve list

of these methods and their potenal targets

was compiled for future efforts, thus reduc-

ing planning me.

Second, the team introduced a three-level

tool for analyzing the suitability of research

projects for KT the project selecon ma-

trix. This was used to narrow down the more

than 140 eligible research projects from the

UT School ofPublic Health. Evidence map-

ping could then be applied in a targeted way

to establish the state of the science for each

of the priority areas idenfied.

To create a foundaon for current and fu-

ture projects, the RIA team conducted three

online surveys. The first was a survey of KT

professionals on their use of the Internet for

KT research.

A revised version of this survey was con-

ducted with the aendees at the 2008 Cen-

ters for Disease Control (CDC) health mar-keng conference, adding several quesons

on their use of social networking (Web 2.0).

Finally, a county-wide survey of all level III

and level IV trauma centers idenfied im-

portant informaon about emergency room

admissions, substance abuse, and the use of

intervenons.

As the first two projects (PASS & CATCH and

SBIRT) moved forward, staffbegan a broad

outreach program to create strategic link-

ages not only for the two inial projects, but

for future projects as well. Among the morethan 30 organizaons contacted so far are

the CDC, the Canadian Instutes for Health

Research, and the Southwest Educaonal

Development Laboratory.

For the PASS & CATCH project, RIA created

an advocacy flyer and PowerPoint presenta-

on suitable for lay audiences, and assisted

the principal invesgator (PI) in tailoring her

presentaon to lay audiences consisng of

D


30/58

30



teachers, principals, school health profes-

sionals, and parent volunteers. Using our

KT model, we idenfied the PI as a product

champion, and built the KT program around

her fluency with the research. We are now

idenfying and booking more presentaons

with area independent school districts and

School Health Advisory Councils.

For the SBIRT project, RIA staff is now in the

process of developing a communicaons

portolio that will idenfy likely obstacles

to SBIRT implementaon and potenal so-

luons. This is a direct outcome of our sur-

vey of level III and level IV trauma centers,

which pinpointed the issues and obstacles

emergency room directors and trauma

coordinators had with SBIRT.

The RIA project has met its matching re-

quirements for next year via a gif to the

IHP from the Houston Endowment for theHealth of Houston Project.


31/58

31

The Future

o the RIA

What We Will

Accomplish


32/58

32



he Research Into Acon group ancipates an extremely busy 2009. We will be

wrapping up our two inial research projects, as well as choosing two new projects to

focus on.

To determine what public health topics are currently at the forefront of research, the

staffconducted an audit of dozens of prominent public health organizaons such as

the Centers for Disease Control, the Texas Public Health Associaon, and the Naonal

Instutes of Health. Based on that research, the group has narrowed down the re-search paradigm to the following:

The staffis connuing to evaluate these

topics, and will, within the next several

weeks, idenfy two research topics to

focus on in the coming months.

What We Will Accomplish

Insurance issues

Environmental health

Obesity prevention initiatives, policies, etc.

Diabetes management

Aging and disability issues

Alcohol abuse and proposals to lower the drinking age

HPV vaccinationsAccess to mental health care

Language barriers to accessing health care

The ate and impact o evidence-based guidelines

Meanwhile, the group ancipates the com-

pleon of two major iniaves mid-sum-

mer. Both the KT Web portal, the first of

its kind, and the completely renovated IHP/

RIA Web pages will be unveiled. These two

T


33/58

33


projects are the cornerstones of the RIAs

communicaons outreach and represent a

huge amount ofme and effort. Each of

these Internet iniaves will substanally

raise the profile of the IHP and RIA, both in

the United States and globally.


34/58

34

Societal Benets


35/58

35


Societal Benefits

he RIA iniave is built on the assumpon

that the publics health can be improved

with beer KT. This belief, supported by cur-

rent findings in the KT literature, promotes

the idea that research will improve health

pracces and policy decision-making, and

that evidence-based decision-making about

health is superior to current pracce.

Through our research and assessments of

KT organizaons, the RIA has idenfied gaps

between the opmal KT pracce and what

is currently being done. The RIA proposes

a beer way of conducng KT and is dedi-

cated to sharing this model through a Web

portal that will also create an environment

for connued advances in the KT process.

By engaging in KT in public health priority

areas, we are able to address large-scale

problems with evidence-based programs

and policies that have proven effecve. Ourtranslaon of the PASS & CATCH research

connects us to larger efforts on obesity pre-

venon and the great need to address the

obesity epidemic.

Likewise, our efforts promong the adop-

on ofSBIRT, a program proven to reduce

injury and substance abuse, can have an

impact on thousands of lives in a single

year.

Our foremost goal is to have effecve KT

become the norm. We hope to set the

standard in public health research andpracce our naons quality of life and

economic future depend on it.

T


36/58

Dr. Stephen Linder

Interim Director

RAS E1023

[email protected]

O ce: 713/500-9494

Oluwaolakemi (Folake) AdedejiGraduate Assistant

RAS E1003M

[email protected]

Desk: 713/500-9498

Richard (Rick) Austin

Senior Communications Specialist RIA

RAS E1015

[email protected]

O ce: 713/500-9486

Amy BeavenResearch Associate

RAS E1021

[email protected]

O ce: 713/500-9409

Larissa EstesGraduate Assistant

RAS E1003N

[email protected]

Dr. Dritana MarkoFaculty Associate

San Antonio campus

[email protected]

O ce: 210/562-5541

Syed Noor

Graduate Assistant

RAS E1003L

[email protected]

Desk: 713/500-9497

Patricia (Patty) Poole

Executive AssistantRAS E1025

[email protected]

O ce: 713/500-9318

Shannon RaspSenior Communications Specialist RIA

RAS E1013

[email protected]

O ce: 713/500-9490

Thomas (Tom) Reynolds

Research Associate

RAS E931

[email protected]

O ce: 713/500-9387

Nickalos (Nick) RochaProgram Manager RIA

RAS E1019

[email protected]

O ce: 713/500-9488

Denise TruongGraduate Assistant

RAS 1003J

[email protected]

Desk: 713/500-9480

Dr. Jessica Tullar

Faculty Associate

RAS E1007

[email protected]

O ce: 713/500-9481

Li YuGraphic Designer

RAS E1003S

[email protected]

Desk: 713/500-9484

The Institute or Health Policy

The University o Texas School o Public Health

1200 Herman Pressler

Houston, Texas 77030

713/500-9318


37/58

37


Institute

Director

Executive

Assistant

Fellowship

Program

Health o

Houston

Research

Into Action

Program

Manager

Program

Manager

Faculty

Aliates

Faculty

Aliates

Sr. Comm.

Specialist

Sr. Comm.

Specialist

Research

Associate

Research

Associate

Research

Associate

Research

Associate

Research

Associate

Faculty

Associate

Graphic

Designer

Graduate

Assistants

GraduateAssistants

Graduate

Assistants

Interns

Clean Air

Project

Decision

Support


38/58

Appendices


39/58

Three-LevelProject ScreeningCriteria

Appendix A


40/58

Three-Level Project Screening Criteria

Introduction

For the first two knowledge translation (KT) projects undertaken by Research Into Action A Knowledge

Translation Initiative, the staff used a three-level, 15-step screening process to evaluate and select suitable

projects. All current UT SPH research projects were loaded into a Microsoft Access database, which allowedeasy rating, recording, organization, and analysis of the screening results.

The level one review contained five screening criteria; the level two review contained four screening criteria;

and the level three review contained six criteria. For each screening round, the database presented reviewers

with each screening criterion and an accompanying checkbox. Checking the box indicated that the reviewerfound the proposed project acceptable under that criterion. Leaving the box unchecked indicated that the

reviewer found the proposed project unacceptable under that criterion.

During the level one review, generally speaking, a project needed to be acceptable under all five criteria. Levelstwo and three were subject to discussion and negotiation among the reviewers if there was a substantial amount

of disagreement as to whether a project was acceptable.

Level One Screening Criteria

Criteria Description

1.1 Is the project a UT SPH project? In the first year of the RIA project, staff reviewers only consideredresearch that was based in the UT School of Public Health

1.2 Are the research sites in-state? For ease of access and logistics, staff reviewers only considered

research where the primary sites were within the state of Texas

1.3 What is the political index for the

project?

Political index refers to the political and public sensitivity of the

research under consideration. Research that was considered to be

highly sensitive was ruled out. As a hypothetical example, a well-designed, well-supported study on birth control among sexually

active teenagers; with significant results, would still be screened out

because of the sensitivity of the subject in a highly conservative

state like Texas

1.4 What is the market/user/mediareceptivity to the project?

Reviewers considered how mass media and the general public wouldview the importance of the research project under consideration. For

example, a study on genetic markers for a pre-disposition to Type II

diabetes would only be of interest to other geneticists; there would

be little chance of successful knowledge translation to a broadaudience

1.5 What is the potential health impactof the project?

Reviewers considered the breadth of impact of the research results.For example, a study of HIV-positive Hispanic teenagers in

economically depressed areas along the Texas-Mexico border is

worthwhile, but the audience is self-limiting. The broader thepotential user audience, the more likely that the project would be

kept in


41/58

Three-Level Project Screening Criteria

Level Two Screening Criteria


2.1 What is the cost of this project toour office?

Based on the principal investigators description of the researchproject and its results, reviewers considered which modalities might

be most appropriate for KT, and what their potential cost might be.No actual estimate of costs was entered; the reviewers indicated

whether they thought the potential cost was acceptable

2.2 What is the level of effort required? Reviewers considered the level of work impact on staff if the project

under deliberation was accepted

2.3 How simply can the issue betranslated?

This criterion relates to the complexity of the issues raised by theresearch and how easily they might be translated to the intended

audience. Research featuring complicated, difficult-to-comprehend

results would be screened out

2.4 What is the likelihood of KT

success?

This criterion asked the reviewer to consider the cost, level of effort,

complexity of the issue, and the potential audiences likely

acceptance or rejection of the research, and make a subjectivejudgment about the potential for success

Level Three Screening Criteria


3.1 What is the quantity and quality of

the published evidence supporting

this project?

By this stage, a preliminary evidence map has been created for all of

the research projects still under consideration, and reviewers are

asked to judge whether or not the supporting evidence is sufficientto warrant further consideration

3.2 How generalizable is the project? This criterion asks the reviewer to judge how broad an audience is

affected by the project under consideration; the broader theaudience, the more likely the project will be kept in for

consideration

3.3 How personalizable is the project? For this criterion, the reviewer considers whether the project can bepositioned as having a personal impact on the health and well-being

of the end-user. If its easy for the end-user to say this doesnt

affect me, or I would never have that problem, then the project is

likely to be screened out

3.4 How easy will it be to evaluate ourprogress/success/failure on this

project?

The reviewer considers how and when milestones for progressmight be assessed, and whether there are easily definable measures

of success or failure. If the project does not lend itself to concrete

measurement in this regard, it is likely to be screened out3.5 Are there potential advocates/

promoters/champions for thisproject?

This criterion asks the reviewer to consider what, and how many,

ancillary audiences might be supportive of the project, and whetherthey could be recruited to help support KT efforts

3.6 What is the cost effectivenessimplication for the user on this

project?

For this criterion, the reviewer assesses the pocketbook impact ofthe project on the end-user. The more cost-effective the project can

be demonstrated to be, the more likely it is to be kept in for

consideration


42/58

Appendix B

SBIRT Evidence Map

We synthesized the results of many individual studies conducted on SBIRT and childhood physical

activity to apply the best research evidence to our two projects. We also reviewed databases of peer-

reviewed literature for our two topics. We then sorted articles according to established criteria and

integrated the findings. From this, we generated a map of clustered ideas representing the multiple

dimensions of each research question. Our maps are visual diagrams showing related concepts, aswell as differences in study populations or settings, and serve as a guide for an interventions

applicability and effectiveness. In the case of SBIRT, we reviewed over 100 articles and categorized

98 of them into four primary categories and 15 secondary categories. Fewer studies have been

conducted around childrens physical activity and academic achievement, but a majority of the 27

relevant articles we reviewed reported positive impacts on school performance.

Topical

Dimensions of

98 Articles

Assessment

Tools

15 Articles

Sub-Populations

20 Articles

Implementation

or Barriers

51 Articles

Economic

Evaluation

14 Articles

SBI Effect Size

48 Articles

Who delivers?

Nurses or GPs

Screening Instrumen

Web & Electronic

Screening

Elderly

Youth, Adolescen

College-Age, 18-2

Ethnicity and Cultura

Sensitivity

Physician and

Patient Attitudes

Motivational

Interviewing

Training Requirements

and Quality Guides

Women and Pregnant

Women

Long-term and

short-term

In EDs, Trauma Centers and

Primary Care

Cost of SBIRT

Programs

Cost/Benefit

Analysis for States

Reduced Drinking and

Reduced Visits to ED


43/58

Classroom Physical

Making the

Both reading and math scophysical activity. (Murray, et. al.and Fourth Grade Students in Texas

San Diego, CA [Funded through Prev

All students improve theirPASS & CATCH Fitness and Acad

of Sports Medicine, May 30, 2008, Ind

Disease Control and Prevention])

Increased classroom activ(Mahar, et. al., Effects of a Classroom

Sports and Exercise, 2006)

Increased physical activital., Coordinated School Health Progr

Health, 2007)

The evidence is clear:

Increased classroom physical activit

help teachers improve classroommanagement, math and reading scor

concentration and time on task, and

their students make healthy choices

develop healthy habits.

Fitness + FocusFitness + Focus)Fitness + Focus)Fitness + Focusxxxx

Time on TaskTime on TaskTime on TaskTime on Task====Better PreparedBetter PreparedBetter PreparedBetter Prepared22222222x 8x 8x 8x 8176176176176

5(x + 2) = 255(x + 2) = 255(x + 2) = 255(x + 2) = 25[[[[5(x + 25(x + 25(x + 25(x + 2]/5]/5]/5]/5 = 25= 25= 25= 25/5/5/5/5 x + 2 = 5 x + 2x + 2 = 5 x + 2x + 2 = 5 x + 2x + 2 = 5 x + 2 ----2222 = 5= 5= 5= 5 ----2222x = 3x = 3x = 3x = 3

*Classroom activities such as those used in tTAKE 10 program,www.take10.net.

Physical Activity Adds UpChildren and adolescents should do 60 minutphysical activity every day to receive substantaccording to the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelpublished by the U.S. Department of Health a

The good news is that basically any activity cdone at a moderate or vigorous intensity for atime. When combined with PE or structured r10-, 20-, or 30-minute classroom physical acticloser to the daily goal. Adding physical activitthat match their abilities will help ensure thatwith them to see both health and academic re

A endix C

Activity and Academic A

ealthy Choice an Easy CThere is growing scientific evidence that shophysical activity and student success. Being a

mind and we function better throughout the d

administrators, teachers, and students. Teache

years that students are more attentive, less fid

and some can improve scholastically after ph

recess, or after physical education. So why no

and fun physical activity into your educationa

es improve for poorly adapting** students whe

, PASS & CATCH Classroom Physical Activity and Stanford

ith Adaptive Skills Problems, American Public Health Associ

ntion Research Center Program of Centers for Disease Contro

ath scores when they increase their physical acmic Achievement Among Third and Fourth Grade Students in

ianapolis, IN [Funded through the Prevention Research Center

ity leads to significant, systematic improvemen-Based Program on Physical Activity and On-Task Behavior,

does not take away from classroom academicms and Academic Achievement: A Systematic Review of the Lit

can

s,

elp

nd

A Knowledge

Institute for Health Policy

P.O. Box 20186 Houston, TX

**Poorly adapting students are those who score below aveskills, coping skills, and adaptation to school.

e PASS & CATCH study are low-cost, easy to use, and immedi

s or more of aerobicial health benefits,ines for Americansnd Human Services.

unts, as long as it'sleast 10 minutes at acess minutes, simpleities get students

ies that kids enjoy andou and the class stickwards.

hievement

oice

s the link between

tive stimulates the

y. This is true for

rs have known for

gety, behave better,

sical activity like

t build movement

l curriculum?*

they increase their

10 Scores Among Third

tion, October 29, 2008,

l and Prevention])

ivity. (Murray, et al.,exas, American College

Program of Centers for

in on-task behavior.edicine and Science in

outcomes. (Murray, et.rature, Journal of School

ranslation Initiative

7225 713.500.9318

rage on measures of social

tely available through the


44/58

This program lets my mind your best.PASS & CATCH student

I also liked the game where wmultiplication tables. This gapumping.PASS & CATCH student

I really enjoyed the activitipositive energy from the acPASS & CATCH teacher

My students were able tothe different activities.PASS & CATCH teacher

My students were more fo& CATCH activities.

PASS & CATCH teacher

PASS

P

ake up because you always have to concentrat

e would pass the ball around the room and givee we would play before math in the morning to

s the kids enjoyed them also. We were able ttivities.

et out their pent-up energy in a positive way. T

used and when students were getting off task, I

& CATCH Reading Scores

SS & CATCH Math Scores

on doing

each otherget our heart

get a lot of

ey really enjoyed

would use PASS


45/58


46/58

Appendix E

Survey of Social Marketers Knowledge

Translation and Social Networking

Survey Results

January 2009

Institute for Health Policy

Copyright 2009 Research Into Action A Knowledge Translation Initiative


47/58

A Research Into Action Survey of Social Marketers Knowledge Translation and Social Networking

Page 2 of9

OverviewIn December 2008, Research Into Action A Knowledge Translation Initiative (RIA), an

Institute for Health Policy project at the University of Texas School of Public Health, surveyed

all of the attendees from the 2008 CDC social marketing conference, Engage and Deliver.

Attendees were invited to respond to our online survey via CDCs Health Communication,Marketing, and Media (HCMM) listserv. Of the 914 conference attendees contacted, 167 (18%)

responded. Following is a snapshot of the results.

The majority of respondents:

Are from the United States Use the Internet often for work

Over 90 percent of respondents:

Are satisfied with the Internet as a source of information about KT Feel the need for a comprehensive, healthcare-related KT Web site Would be likely to use a comprehensive, healthcare-related KT Web site

Respondents ranked a list of features to incorporate into a comprehensive healthcare-

related KT Web site in the following order, from most desirable to least desirable:

Searchable database Bibliography Glossary Listserv Calendar of events Audio/video clips Audio/text chats Blog

The most frequently cited features that would motivate respondents to visit a KT Web site

regularly are:

Listserv Searchable database Web sites usability, accessibility, and applicability

The most frequently cited other tools or features respondents would like to see in a

comprehensive KT Web site are:

A current database containing KT players/contact information and KT projects/funders Analysis tools, such as case studies, to assess KTs impact and show how to

replicate/adapt strategies

Please feel free to share this report with others. If you have any comments and/or are interested

in being notified of future RIA projects, please contact Nickalos Rocha, RIA Program Manager,

at 713-500-9488.


48/58


Page 3 of9

The Survey

0% 1%

8%

15%

76%

Q1: How often do you use the Internet to help accomplish

your daily tasks at work?

(167 of 167 responded, all use Internet at least once a week)

Less than once a week

1-2 times a week

3-10 times a week

11-20 times a week

More than 20 times a week

2.4% 5.4% 22.2% 39.5% 28.7% 3.6%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1- Not at all

satisfactory

2 3-

Somewhat

satisfactory

4 5- Very

satisfactory

Not

applicable

Q2: On a scale of 1-5, how do you rate your

satisfaction with the Internet as a source of

information about KT?(167 of 167 responded, average rating: 3.96)


49/58


Page 4 of9

0.6% 4.3% 22.7% 36.2% 37.4%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%25%

30%

35%

40%

1- Not at all

important

2 3- Somewhat

important

4 5- Very

important

Q3: How do you rate the need for a

comprehensive healthcare-related KT Website?(163 of 167 responded, average rating: 4.09)

0.6% 4.3% 22.7% 36.2% 37.4%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1- Not at all

important

2 3- Somewhat

important

4 5- Very

important

Q4: How likely would you be to use a

comprehensive healthcare-related KT Website?(165 of 167 responded, average rating: 4.07)


50/58


Page 5 of9

Q6: What feature or features would motivate you to visit a KT Website regularly?(148 of 167 responded)

Searchable database of relevant KT research (64)

Bibliography of journals, papers, and related research (32)

Audio/video clips of related seminars and workshops (22)

Listserv for distribution of new KT research and information (18)

Regularly updated calendar of events in the field (14)

KT blog written by someone actively engaged in KT (14)

Live, scheduled audio or text chat on related KT topics (9)

Glossary of terms used in KT (5)

Feature not suggested by survey: Twitter, RSS feed, and searchable database of audio material (3)

Only if pertinent to own specific field of work or cannot find information elsewhere (3)

Only if it is truly comprehensive, regularly updated and has working search capability (3)Only if it is user-friendly and uses simple language (3)

Only if access is free (2)

Still not sure what KT is (2)

No need for site at this time (1)

*Some responses fell into multiple categories therefore sum of category frequencies will total to more than 148.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Q5: Following are some of the tools and features we are

considering incorporating. Please rate how likely you would be

to use each tool or feature.(167 of 167 responded, average rating for each tool below)

Blog

Live, scheduled audio/text chat

Audio/video clips of

seminars/workshops

Regularly updated calendar of

events

Listserv

Glossary

Bibliography

Searchable database


51/58


Page 6 of9

Question 8: Do you currently use any social

networking Internet sites for any purpose,

personal or professional?(167 of 167 responded)

Yes

No73.8%

26.2%

Q7: Apart from those listed in question 6, are there any other tools or features you

would like to see in a comprehensive KT Website?(84 of 167 responded)No (30)

Case studies whether they are successful or not (14)

Best practices or How to KT guides for different types of users and target audiences (10)

Ability to tailor or breakdown sites resources for different users and audiences (4)Ability to read about and network with others in the field including industry experts (6)

Ability to share or link KT Websites resources to other websites (4)

Interactive Wiki-like tools: list of other KT sites with user ratings to determine usefulness, allow users to addtools to KT Website and discuss issues in forums (4)

Interactive prevention page/site for public groups such as teens and parents (1)

Area for ancillary resources such as actual translated documents in plain language for public use, information onhealth communication campaigns, information containing rigorous or theoretically-based decisions about KT,opinion pieces, news articles (10)

Alert systems: RSS feed, email prompt when new info available, progress tracker for previous queries (3)

Career, mentoring, educational, and training opportunities (3)

Ability to download full reports and papers (1)

Summaries of papers in bibliography (1)

Plain language throughout site (3)

Consensus definitions of KT and include all synonyms such as T3 or T4 research and diffusion (1)

Suggestion to make sites objectives clear, one size fits all usually fits none (3)

Repeated features surveyed: searchable database, listserv (3)



52/58


Page 7 of9

Q9: If you answered yes to the previous question, please describe what social

networking site you use, and what you use it for. (120 of 167 responded)Facebook (95 unique users): networking, business, engage in and monitor dialogue with different audiencesabout different issues, build public awareness of key issues in communities, other professional use (31); keepingin touch with family and friends, social networking, music, videos, other personal use (70); not specified (21)

LinkedIn (59 unique users): professional (39); personal (7); not specified (17)

MySpace (19 unique users): professional (3); personal (14); not specified (4)

Twitter (11 unique users): internal agency communication (6); personal use (1); not specified (5)YouTube (4 unique users): disease outbreaks, health promotion initiatives and other news (3); not specified (1)

Other: Flickr to share public health images or not specified (2); Orkut to keep personal and professionalcontacts in order (1); Care2 - social activism for healthy and green living (1); WetPaint - wiki/collaborativedocument sharing tool used in past (1); Ning - professional and personal use (1); BOP Source personal use(1); BlogSpot (1); GovCoop (1); internal and external blogs (1)

Professional use confirmed but did not specify specific sites (4)

Personal use confirmed but did not specify specific sites (2)

Future professional use planned (1)

Funding issues prevent professional use (1)

No time to use, not matter of interest (1)


Q10: If you answered yes to question 8, would you find social networking useful in

the pursuit of your work? If so, describe how.(113 of 167 responded)Maintain, expand and/or use network to find others with similar professional interests/work (26)

Receive fast feedback from a big network (5)

Share resources and best practices, prevent reinventing the wheel (14)

Create partnerships, coalition building, interdisciplinary team development, lead to action and change (9)

As an intervention or awareness campaign vehicle to target hard to reach or unexposed audiences (7)

Probably only to keep up with campaigns and other events (2)

Probably only if in specific formats: LinkedIn, Twitter, blog (5)

Interest in a KT/health communications/social marketers social networking group (2)

Comment about probable importance of social networking in KT (1)

Comment about high importance of social networking in public health (5)

Yes but concerned about disconnect between generations if used (1)

Yes but concerned about limited access in workplace (5)

Probably only for job searching (5)

Probably only to maintain personal or informal connections (3)

Yes but no reason given (7)

Unsure (23): open to idea but not sure how, only if utilizes existing application or depends on format/usage

No (15): time-consuming, unnecessary, limited utility, not very reliable, not yet or no reason given



53/58


Page 8 of9

49%

18%

20%

10%

3%

Q11: What setting do you currently work

in?(166 of 167 responded)

Government

University

Nonprofit

Private/Commercial

Other (please specify)

96%

2%

1% 1%

Q12. Where is your organization located?(166 of 167 responded)

United States

Canada

Europe

Asia

Question 13: Do you currently work inknowledge translation?

(164 of 167 responded)

Yes

No52.1%

47.9%


54/58


Page 9 of9

Q15: Do you have any other comments or questions about the survey or the

Institute for Health Policy's knowledge translation activities?(45 of 167 responded)Defined terms, disagreed with given terms and suggested different term usage (6)

Confusion about how knowledge translation (i.e., the survey) relates to their work even given the explanation(4)

Pointed out errors in the survey design (2)

Suggested defining the focus/purpose because dangerous to get too broad (2)

Provide only best information to prevent information overload (2)

Make information pertinent and available to groups that need it most (community groups, non-profit anduniversity described) (3)

Some work computer systems limit access to networking sites (2)

Suggested another website for knowledge transfer, etc. information (1)

Interest in Survey Results (3)

Interest in Site once created (2)

Interest in working together (2)

Generic support of IHP efforts (5)*Some responses fell into multiple categories therefore sum of category frequencies will total to more than 35.

SummaryThis survey represents a preliminary attempt to gather information about knowledge translation,

social marketing, social networking, and the use of Web 2.0 technologies for the dissemination

of knowledge translation information. It should be considered a general descriptive report, rather

than a rigorous investigation.

The Institute for Health Policy at the University of Texas School of Public Health, through its

Research Into Action program, is committed to expanding the conversation among knowledge

translation professionals and social marketers about our models, tools, experiences, and best

practices.

6%

45%24%

8%

17%

Q14: How many years have you been

working in knowledge translation?(84 of 167 reponded)

Less than one year

1 to 5 years6 to 10 years

11 to 15 years

More than 15 years


55/58

Appendix F

KT Web Portal Features

1. Home page and other content pages1.1. Editable text for Knowledge Translation (KT) history/definition/organizational context/glossary of terms1.2. Links to other pages such as About Us page and specific RIA and KT community project pages1.3. Graphics

1.3.1. Clean layout with current color schemes and extremely user-friendly features1.3.2. Example sites:

http://www.who.int/kms/en/, http://www.ncddr.org/kt/products/focus/focus10/

2. Searchable literature database (programming)2.1.

Ability for web administrator to upload citations in AP format, including title, author, publication date,journal details, abstract, and optional rating text box (see example)

2.1.1. Example site: http://www.ncddr.org/ktinfocenter/articles.html Site is not ideal as a list butthe rating boxes and the information provided in the citations is user-friendly

2.2.Users can keyword search and advance search by author, publication date, or journal2.2.1. Example site: http://www.ahprc.dal.ca/kt/library.cfm Database is searchable by topic area

but we prefer keyword and advanced search capabilities likehttp://www.healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/html/html_search/search_bib.php

2.3.Users can click to upload new citations in the same format above, which will go through the webadministrator for approval and final uploading

2.4.Users can rate citations and post comments and add to threads either anonymously or with a username2.4.1. Example site: http://www.implementationscience.com/content/4/1/1/comments Also like

the bookmark feature of this site allowing users to post citations to other tracking and networking sites

3. Searchable contact database (programming)3.1. Users can upload a picture, name, contact info, areas of research interest, CV file

3.1.1. Example site: http://www.ginnn.com/4. Project funders information database (programming)

4.1. Users can upload funding information, including funding organization name and contact information, briefdescription of opportunity, and link to application

4.1.1. Example site: http://www.researchnet-recherchenet.ca/rnr16/search.do?view=search&fodAgency=CIHR&fodLanguage=E


56/58

4.1.2. Example site: http://philanthropy.com/giving/5. Listserve and E-alert subscription (programming)

5.1. Users have the ability to select items they will receive such as newsletters, funding alerts, citation alerts5.1.1. Example sites: http://www.galen.org/, http://www.iwh.on.ca/knowledge-transfer-exchange

6. Searchable calendar of events (programming)6.1. Users have the ability to search by US or International events6.2.Users have the ability to search by date, location, and theme and post events, final approval being from our

identified Webmaster.

6.2.1. Example sites: http://www.library.nhs.uk/knowledgemanagement/ Click on KM events onright panel to see full appeal of this feature, http://www.auril.org.uk/pages/home.php This is analternative display of the event calendar

7. Formatted pages7.1. E-Newsletter (text)7.2.KT community project specific pages. This pages will consist of members existing KT Projects

8. Login to site and social networking (programming)8.1. Possibility of a My Portal features with sign in that allows users to save searches, bookmark or tag

favorite articles, manage listserve and e-alert subscriptions (users can choose what type of information theyreceive through e-mail), be added to contact list (and be visible to other users), and other social networkingfeatures.

8.1.1. Example sites: http://www.brookings.edu/, http://www.idealist.org/,http://www.auril.org.uk/pages/home.php

9. Other features9.1. Survey on the site that is preferably not a pop-up but one that remains on the side of a page

9.1.1. Example site: http://www.sac.ac.uk/knowledge/9.2.RSS feeds (upload and software)9.3.Podcast capabilities9.4.Google Analytics services incorporated


57/58

Appendix G

Research into Action Process Timeline

Short Term: Model Development and Testing

Long Term: Build Infrastructure and Formally Establish KT Role

Review KT

Literature

Establish Criteria

and Select Projects

1. Screening, BriefIntervention and

Referral to Treatment

(SBIRT)

2. PASS-CATCH ClassroomPhysical Activity

Messaging and

Translation

Derive Master Protocol from Best

KT Practices and Fit with Model

Develop Model

Evidence

Mapping

Apply Protocols to Each

Project (Promotion and

Linkage for our selecte

projects)

Survey of KT

Professionals

Web Audit

of KT Sites

Branding Research into Action

Developing a KT Web Portal


58/58

Appendix H

Research Into Action Operating Budget

(from project inception to March 2009)

Budget Expense Encumbrance Pre-Encumbrance Balance

Salaries andBenefits $611,415.17 $449,989.46 $161,425.11 $ 0 $ .60

Maintenance andOperations $61,536.08 $14,534.39 $2,005.48 $42,761.84 $2,234.37

Travel $5,900.00 $2,926.81 $402.74 $430.00 $2,140.45

Official Functions $1,576.92 $1,032.52 $ 0 $ 0 $544.40

Reserves $239,571.83 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $239,571.83

Totals $920,000.00 $468,483.18 $163,833.33 $43,191.84 $244,491.65

Documents

2008 IHP Annual Report