Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Research Skills Seminar Series 2019Research Education Program
Knowledge TranslationPlanning for impact and implementation of research outcomes
8 March 2019
ResearchEducationProgram.org
Fenella GillAssociate Professor Acute Paediatric NursingCurtin University, and Perth Children’s Hospital
Research Skills Seminar Series | Research Education Program Department of Child Health Research | Child and Adolescent Health Service
Knowledge Translation
CONTENTS:
1 PRESENTATION .................................................................................................................................. 1
2 KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION – ADDITIONAL NOTES AND RESOURCES ............................................... 14
2.1 USEFUL WEBSITES............................................................................................................................ 14
2.2 WA FUNDING TRANSLATION RESEARCH ......................................................................................... 16
2.3 ADDITIONAL READING ..................................................................................................................... 16
2.4 DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................................... 19
2.5 POSSIBLE RESEARCH TRANSLATION OUTPUTS TO REPORT ............................................................ 19
© Research Education Program, Department of Child Health Research, Child and Adolescent Health Service, WA 2019.
Copyright to this material produced by the Research Education Program, Department of Child Health Research, Child and Adolescent Health Service, Western Australia, under the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (C’wth Australia). Apart from any fair dealing for personal, academic, research or non‐commercial use, no part may be reproduced without written permission. The Department of Child Health Research is under no obligation to grant this permission. Please acknowledge the Research Education Program, Department of Child Health Research, Child and Adolescent Health Service when reproducing or quoting material from this source.
RESEARCH SKILLS SEMINAR SERIES 2019Research Education Program
ResearchEducationProgram.org
Knowledge TranslationPlanning for impact and implementation of research outcomes
Dr Fenella GillAssoc. ProfessorNursing Research, Perth Children’s HospitalSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Curtin University
Research Skills Seminar Series | Research Education Program Department of Child Health Research | Child and Adolescent Health Service
Overview Why does knowledge translation matter?
What is KT?
Theories, frameworks & standards for KT research
Changing behaviour and practice
Impact
• Research Impact Management SystemDr Tobias Schoep, Telethon Kids Institute
2
“Much of the US $100 Billion/year worldwide investment in biomedical and health research is wasted because of dissemination and implementation failures”
Woolf (2006) Washington Post
Research…. all breakthrough, no follow through
3
Consider the evidence
HARMFUL Ineffective Unknown Promising EFFECTIVE
Ineffective“This program has been evaluated and shown to have no positive or negative effect”
Current Practices“We’ve done it and we like it”
Evidence-informed; theory driven“This program is based on sound theory informed by research”
Iatrogenic (Harmful)“This program has been rigorously evaluated and shown to be harmful”
Promising Approaches“We really think is will work, but we need time to prove it”
Evidence-based“This program has been rigorously evaluated and shown to work”
4
1
Why does Knowledge Translation matter? Patient outcomes:
• 30% do not get treatments of proveneffectiveness
• 25% get care that is not needed or harmful
• Up to 75% do not get enough information tomake decisions
Treatment not based on evidence:• Not implemented as intended
• Quality not monitored / outcomes notevaluated
• Often not sustained
5
Minimum of 6.3 years forevidence to reach reviews,papers & textbooks
Estimated 9.3 years transitionperiod to implement evidencefrom reviews, papers andtextbooks
Balas E, Boren S. Managing Clinical Knowledge for Health Care Improvement. In: van Bemmel JH, McCray AT, eds. Yearbook of Medical Informatics. Stuttgart: Schattauer Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, 2000:65–70
7
World Health Organisation
The synthesis, exchange, and application of knowledge by relevant stakeholders to accelerate the benefits of global and local innovation in strengthening health systems and improving people’s health
Knowledge Translation
CIHR
KT is an interactive process underpinned by effective exchanges between researchers who create new knowledge and those who use it.
DiscoveryImplementation
in practiceSUSTAINABLE
IMPACT
Clinical and applied human
research
Basic science research
T0
Informing basic science research
Translation to humans
Translation to practice
Translation to widespread policy and practice
Translation to populations
Translational pipeline
Adapted from: Westfall, et al (2007) Practice-Based Research – “Blue Highways” on the NIH Roadmap. JAMA, 297(4). 403-406
T1 T2
T3 T4
2
Operational Phases of Translational Clinical Research https://goo.gl/images/QaXG1F 10
Balas E, Boren S. Managing Clinical Knowledge for Health Care Improvement. In: van Bemmel JH, McCray AT, eds. Yearbook of Medical Informatics. Stuttgart: Schattauer Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, 2000:65–70
11
2010 2012 2019
3
13
• Funding schemes• Investigator Grants (research impact 20% & knowledge gain 30%)
• Partnership Projects & Partnership Centres
• TRIP & Practitioner Fellowships
• Targeted calls for research
• Boosting Dementia Research initiative
• Annual Research Translation Symposium• November 2019 Melbourne “Research Translation in the digital age: harnessing the power
of data and analytical technologies”
• Initiatives ‐ Advanced Health Research Alliance‐ Centres for Innovations in Regional Health‐ 2018 REWARD prize reducing research waste
WA Funding translation research
WA Dept of Health research translation projects http://ww2.health.wa.gov.au/Articles/S_T/SHRAC‐Research‐Translation‐Projects
Perth Children’s Hospital Foundation Research implementation grants
Telethon – Perth Children’s Hospital Research Fund http://ww2.health.wa.gov.au/Articles/S_T/Telethon‐Perth‐Childrens‐Hospital‐Research‐Fund
WAHTN Early Career Fellowship in Research Translation https://www.wahtn.org/was‐future‐leaders‐in‐health‐research‐recognised/
KT: Dissemination and Implementation Dissemination
Dissemination Practice:Purposive distribution of information and intervention materials to a specific audience.
Dissemination Science:The scientific study of processes and variables that determine and/or influence the spread/sharing of knowledge to various stakeholders
Implementation
Implementation Practice:The use of strategies to adopt and integrate evidence‐based interventions and change practice within specific settings
Implementation Science: The scientific study of the methods to promote the uptake of research findings in clinical, organisational, or policy contexts
15
Effectiveness - Implementation Research
16
4
17
Efficacy -> Effectiveness
Bauer et al. An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC psychology. 2015; 3 :3-32.
Clinical Outcomes
Process outcomes+ Clinical
Outcomes +
Process Outcomes
Clinical outcomes+
Process Outcomes
Type I
Type 3
Type 2
Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Designs
18
1) Theoretical approach for KT research
Needed to develop testable and useful interventions
Individual, team and organization level theories
Multiple theoretical perspectives more powerful than an overarching theory
Theories outside of health; transferability influenced by context
http://dissemination‐implementation.org
Nilsen (2015) Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science, 10,53Tabak et al. (2012) Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med, 43(3),337‐50.
2) Integrated Knowledge Translation or Co-Production
Involves collaboration between researchers and knowledge users at every stage of the research process • from shaping the research question • to interpreting the results • to disseminating the research findings into practice
Co‐production of research increases likelihood that the results of a project will be relevant to end‐users, thereby improving the possibility of uptake and application
http://www.involvingpeopleinresearch.org.au
5
21
3) The importance of context The CIHR Knowledge to Action Cycle
Knowledge to Action Cyclehttp://www.jcehp.com/vol26/2601graham2006.pdf
Measure effectiveness of implementation • Audits parent awareness • Describe parent
involvement (Patient health record review)
Assess barriers & facilitators • Interviews & focus groups
with stakeholders
Tailor and implement
Revised Calling for Help
Evaluate feasibility and acceptability
• Audit parent awareness
• Patient health record review
• Interviews parents & nurses
Identify Problem
Assess barriers & facilitators
Select & tailor interventions
Monitor & evaluate
23
Identify Problem
Assess barriers & facilitators
Select & tailor interventions
Monitor, evaluate, sustain
Theoretical Domains Framework
Knowledge SkillsSocial/Professional Role and Identity
Beliefs about capabilities
Beliefs about consequences
Motivation and goals
Memory, attention and decision processes
Environmental context and resources
Social Influences EmotionBehavioural Regulation
Nature of the behaviours
24
6
Identify Problem
Assess barriers & facilitators
Select & tailor interventions
Monitor, evaluate, sustain
25
Low parent awareness
No use of Calling for Help
Concerns about
• resources
• relationships
Traditional hierarchy
Limited implementation
• Marketing
• Communication
• Opinion leaders
• Influencers
• Champion ward
• Audit & feedback
• Prompts
Increased parent awareness
Acceptable process
Use of Calling for Help
Communication difficulties
Delays to escalation
Gill FJ, et al. (2018). Barriers and facilitators to implementing a process to enable parent escalation of care for the deteriorating child in hospital. Health Expectations, 21(6).Michie, S.et al. (2008). From Theory to Intervention: Mapping Theoretically Derived Behavioural Determinants to Behaviour Change Techniques. Applied Psychology: An international review, 57(4), 660-680.
Implementation CAMHS discharge and transfer policy
26
Cane, J., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Ladha, R., & Michie, S. (2015). From lists of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to structured hierarchies: comparison of two methods of developing a hierarchy of BCTs. Br J Health Psychol, 20Colquhoun, et al. (2017). Methods for designing interventions to change healthcare professionals’ behaviour: a systematic review. Implementation Science, 12(1), 30.
Huijg.,et al. (2014). Measuring determinants of implementation behavior: psychometric properties of a questionnaire based on the theoretical domains framework. Implementation Science, 9(1), 33.
Use of theory Theoretical Domains Framework
Identifying barriers • Determinants of Implementation Behaviour Questionnaire (DIBQ)• Interview staff at Bentley Family Clinic• Knowledge, skill, beliefs about consequences, environmental context &
resources
Selecting intervention strategies (BCT)
5 BCT: education & training intervention
Engaging users Group based practical applied workshop
Impact evaluated DIBQ before and after interventionIncrease in knowledge, skills, awareness negative consequences
Braithwaite (2011) A lasting legacy from Tony Blair? NHS culture change JRSM, 104(2), 87-89
Above the waterline lie the observable
workplace behaviours, practices and discourse: this is the way we do things
around hereBelow the waterline lie the
underlying beliefs, attitudes, values, philosophies and taken-for-granted
aspects of workplace life: “how we think”and “why we do the things we do
around here”
The ʻiceberg modelʼ of culture
Implementation of practice change
28Chen et al. (2019) Lessons learnt from the implementation of same day discharge after percutaneous coronary intervention. Australian Critical Care (in press)
Use of theory Theoretical Domains Framework
Identifying factors that influenced implementation of same day discharge after percutaneous coronary intervention
Interviews 26 nurses and cardiologistsBeliefs about consequences – benefits, concerns about safetyProfessional role and identity – not all staff involved in guideline development, tension and ambiguity over rolesResources – no investment in supporting implementationBehavioral regulation – variable understanding about SDD, its evidence, implementation not communicated, inconsistenciesOptimism
Intervention strategies Improvement over time, communicationsNursing SCRUM, checklists, identify on whiteboard, prioritise same day discharge patients
Lessons learnt Use 3 stage change process (Lewin, Kotter): Preparing for change, implementing change, evaluating and sustaining changeBuy – in Effective communicationAdequate organisational support
7
Learn, Engage and Play (LEaP) Study: Key translation principles
Collaboration between the Child Development Service (CDS) and Curtin University
Initiated and driven by CDS consumers and staff
Research team consisted of Curtin researchers and CDS directors/policy makers
Consumer and end‐users (CDS) involved in each stage of the project
Intervention was designed to target the highest referral numbers of children aged 0‐4 years referred to the service (implementation demand)
Intervention designed to align with CDS governance and policy requirements (implementation ready)
The development and evaluation of a therapeutic playgroup for children with developmental delay
Jodie Armstrong WAHTN Early Career Fellow in Research Translation
30
31
Aim: to develop an evidence based system for recognising and responding to patient deterioration in WA paediatric settings, evaluate its feasibility and factors necessary to ensure successful implementation.
Objectives• To review literature to identify the evidence for core elements of an effective system• To understand contextual factors in WA health setting impacting on the requirements• To develop a set of age appropriate observation and response charts incorporating evidence-based
human factors principles, nurse concern, family concern that takes into consideration WA health settings requirements
• To develop escalation of care plans that incorporate structured communication tailored to WA health setting requirements
• To develop a uniform process for family involvement in escalation of care that meets the needs of WA families
• To pilot implement for feasibility and evaluate a system in a range of WA health settings • To understand key factors required for successful implementation
Fenella Gill WAHTN Early Career Fellow in Research Translation
32
Process evaluation – Medical Research CouncilMoore, G. et al.(2015). Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 350
8
33
Plan • Work with stakeholders• Resources & staffing & relationships ‐ ? separate
process, outcomes, cost effectiveness
Design & conduct
• Describe intervention • Identify key uncertainties & select most
important questions – consider evidence, consult with stakeholders, replicate & build on previous work
• Select methods: key process variables, capture emerging changes, experiences of the intervention, unanticipated or complex causal pathways, generate new theory
• Balance data collection: key process variables & detailed data, consider multiple time points
Process evaluation – Medical Research CouncilMoore, G. et al.(2015). Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 350
• Steering group: Consumer and Community members, Researchers, Clinicians, Directors
• Pilot ‐ process evaluation
• System (charts, clinician and family concern, action plan, communication, family escalation of care)
• Consult, achieve consensus, literature review, consult
• Mixed methods
• Detailed data ‐ pilot sites
Analysis • Descriptive – fidelity dose & reach• Modelling of variations between sites• Integrate data
Report • Identify reporting guidance specific to methods
• Report logic model or intervention theory & clarify selection of research ques & methods
• Disseminate findings• Publish –make clear the context• Full report • Contribution to intervention theory
Moore et al. (2015). Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical research council guidance. BMJ,
Process evaluation – Medical Research Council
• Quantitative – site characteristics, audits, staff survey ‐ dose, reach, fidelity v adaptations
• Qualitative – focus groups & interviews• Detailed data purposively selected pilot sites
• Pinnock et al. (2017). Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement.
• Tong et al. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32‐item checklist for interviews and focus groups
4) Reporting standards for interventions and implementation research
http://www.equator-network.org
Hoffmann, et al. (2014). Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide, BMJ, 348Pinnock et al., (2017). Standards for reporting implementation studies (StaRI) statement, BMJ, 357
Change at different levels
9
Conceptual Framework of Implementation Research
37Proctor et al. (2008) Implementation Research in Mental Health Services: An Emerging Science with Conceptual, Methodological, and Training challenges. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research,36(1),24‐34
Conceptual Framework of Implementation Research in Action
38
Question Measurement Data collection tools Evaluation Strategy
Implementation
outcomes
Are the core components of
Sense for Kids being delivered as
intended?
Therapists must achieve 80%
on the Sense for Kids
treatment fidelity checklist
during training
Observation of treatment
sessions with performance
scored against the
treatment fidelity measure,
self‐reflection report
Quantitative
‐ Proportion of patients
recruited who have
received the Sense for Kids
intervention as intended
Service outcomes Are eligible children receiving the
Sense for Kids intervention?
What are the functional
outcomes for children who
received the Sense for Kids
intervention?
Children are having an
assessment of sensory
function; children with
sensory impairment are
receiving Sense for Kids
File audit, occasions of
service records.
Quantitative
‐ planned at key time
points
Client outcomes Are children and parents/
caregivers satisfied with their
receipt of Sense for Kids?
Purposive sampling based on
receipt of service
Satisfaction Questionnaires,
as well as content questions
designed to identify
moderators and barriers
Quantitative
‐ proportion of patients
recruited who have
received the Sense for Kids
intervention as intended;
Qualitative
– theme analysis of
moderators and barriers
Belinda McLean WAHTN Early Career Fellow in Research Translation
Purpose of Study: Aim: To limit the impact and severity of communication problems in children with CP, by identifying biomarkers of communication impairment in infants at risk of CP (aged 0 – 2 years).
This information will be used to improve clinical care pathways and build knowledge for researchers, clinicians and consumers about the importance and improved outcomes that come with early diagnosis.
Roz Ward WAHTN Early Career Fellow in Research Translation
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)
http://www.cfirguide.org/
Damschroder, L., Aron, D., Keith, R., Kirsh, S., Alexander, J., & Lowery, J. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4(1), 50
Process for implementation
Individuals involved
Individuals who have a role to play in the implementation
processes – health care providers, managers, policy managers, beneficiaries etc.
Outer setting Champions within and outside WA; Aus‐CP‐CTN:CRE
Speech‐Language Pathologists providing EI services within the communityGeneral Practioners
Inner setting
• Early Intervention Service PCH
• Consumers Intervention
10
5) PlanningThe ISLAGIATT principle…
... it seemed like a good idea at the time
41 42
1. A gap exists2. Evidence for the program, treatment to be
implemented3. Conceptual model & justification4. Clear stakeholder engagement process in place5. Readiness, capacity, appetite to adopt x6. Implementation strategies7. Team experience8. Feasibility9. Measurement & analysis clear10. Initiative aligns with policy environment to
sustain change
5) Planning grantapplications
The dissemination of findings generated from research once a project is completed
• publishing in peer‐reviewed journals ?• presenting research at conferences and workshops?
Development and implementation of a plan for making knowledge users aware of the results of a research project
End-of-grant KT
43
Prof Melanie Barwick Email [email protected] www.melaniebarwick.com
5) Planning KT template1. What are your main messages?2. Who needs to know? Who are your target audiences / knowledge
users?3. What are your KT goals for these KUs? Why are you telling them this?4. How will you engage them?5. When will you engage them?6. What KT strategies will you use to achieve your KT goals?7. How will you implement these KT strategies?8. With what impact (how will you evaluate the success of your KT plan
relative to your KT goals)?9. What resources are required (budget, staffing, etc.)
44
11
Next Steps Project
45
Walk Aide device is effective in improving walking ability, strength, balance & muscle size
Next Steps Project
implementation
Dayna Pool Paediatric Rehabilitation
What are your KT goals?
46
To impart knowledge to children and families about the Walk Aide® so that
they can make informed choices about their treatment options.
To impart knowledge to clinicians so that the treatment can be appropriately
identified for suitable candidates then applied safely and effectively.
To change clinical practice for clinicians so that the Walk Aide® can be provided
as a choice of treatment for appropriate children.
To generate awareness and interest in clinicians and consumers about how the
Walk Aide® can be used as a treatment strategy.
To generate policy action with funding bodies: namely the NDIS and the
funding of new technology for children with cerebral palsy.
47
Consumer Clinician Decision Makers
• No of followers on Facebook and Instagram• Engagement: number of interactions i.e.
views/like/comment on posts• Online feedback/surveys on awareness of the
Walk Aide® and understanding of its use• No of consumer initiated referrals for Walk
Aide® trials
• No of clinicians who dial into the webinars and finish watching it
• No of hits on the website to read literature (length of time on website)
• Feedback from webinar and training sessions • No of people who complete and pass the competency
standards• No of clinician lead referrals for Walk Aide® trials• No of trials for the Walk Aide®
• No of Walk Aide® funded
6) Measuring impactThe knowledge translation strategy aims to impact: Healthcare by establishing a suitable referral pathway to ensure that all
suitable candidates can access this service. Clinical practice by increasing the number of clinicians who will be able to
effectively and safely provide this treatment. Policies/systems by establishing clear eligibility guidelines for the funding of
the Walk Aide® and the associated trial supports required to identify suitable candidates.
Summary: Knowledge Translation
Closing the evidence – practice gap
Dissemination and implementation science
Research designs – use of theory
Co‐production – knowledge users and health consumers
Importance of context and culture
Standards: planning and reporting
Measuring Impact
48
12
RESEARCH SKILLS SEMINAR SERIES 2019Research Education Program
ResearchEducationProgram.org
© Research Education Program, Department of Child Health Research, Child and Adolescent Health Service, WA 2019
Copyright to this material produced by the Research Education Program,Department of Child Health Research, Child and Adolescent Health Service, WesternAustralia, under the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (C’wth Australia). Apartfrom any fair dealing for personal, academic, research or non-commercial use, nopart may be reproduced without written permission. The Department of Child HealthResearch is under no obligation to grant this permission. Please acknowledge theResearch Education Program, Department of Child Health Research, Child andAdolescent Health Service when reproducing or quoting material from this source.
13
2 KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION – ADDITIONAL NOTES AND RESOURCES
2.1 USEFUL WEBSITES
Website Description
http://ktclearinghouse.ca/knowledgebase/knowl
edgetoaction
Knowledge to action cycle
http://www.cfirguide.org/. Consolidated Framework for Implementation
Research
http://www.tidierguide.org TIDieR is a guide and reporting checklist that was developed to improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions
Using the TIDieR checklist will improve the reporting of your interventions, make it easier for reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information
http://melaniebarwick.com/training.php KT training tools
http://www.sickkids.ca/Learning/AbouttheInstitu
te/Programs/Knowledge‐Translation/5‐Day‐
Knowledge‐Translation‐Professional‐
Certificate/index.html
http://www.ktecop.ca/wordpress/wp‐
content/uploads/KTPC‐Course‐Brochure‐
2018.pdf
Knowledge translation training course
KTPC resource
http://www.melaniebarwick.com/implementatio
n.php
Implementation tools
https://www.ckt‐ctc.ca/ CKT national training center in the area of
knowledge utilisation and policy
implementation
14
http://www.excellenceforchildandyouth.ca/reso
urce‐hub/learning‐modules
KT learning modules
https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/research/research‐
translation‐0
NHMRC role in research translation
http://ktdrr.org/ktlibrary/index.html KT library
https://www.iwh.on.ca/kte/kte.php Stakeholder audience relationships and
stakeholder audience capacity building
http://www.actionnuggets.ca/ Brief, focused communications about the
primary care needs of special populations in
primary care
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/behaviour‐
change/resources
Resources about Behaviour Change techniques and theories.
http://www.bct‐taxonomy.com/ Resource about behaviour change
interventions
https://www.researchimpact.ca/home/ Knowledge mobilisation services
http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/how‐guides/write‐lay‐summary#6
Resource for writing lay summaries
http://epoc.cochrane.org/publications‐and‐projects
Cochrane group that undertakes systematic
reviews of educational, behavioural, financial,
regulatory and organisational interventions
designed to improve health professional
practice and the organisation of health care
services.
https://vimeo.com/181901095
https://vimeo.com/181901520
Iona Novak presentations:
How to Improve Success in Grant
Knowledge Translation
Implementation: Knowledge
Translation in to Clinical Practice
http://www.involvingpeopleinresearch.org.au Involving consumers and community
http://www.normalizationprocess.org/ Normalisation Process Theory
http://sites.bu.edu/ciis/resources/theoretical‐
model‐resources/
Frameworks and Models – commonly used
fact sheets
15
http://dissemination‐implementation.org/ Dissemination & Implementation Models
in Health Research & Practice
https://www.involvingpeopleinresearch.org.au/ Involving People in Research
2.2 WA Funding Translation Research
WA Dept. of Health Research Translation Projects http://ww2.health.wa.gov.au/Articles/S_T/SHRAC‐Research‐Translation‐Projects
Perth Children’s Hospital Foundation – Research Implementation Grant
Telethon – Perth Children’s Hospital Research Fund http://ww2.health.wa.gov.au/Articles/S_T/Telethon‐Perth‐Childrens‐Hospital‐Research‐Fund
WAHTN Early Career Fellowship in Research Translation https://www.wahtn.org/was‐future‐leaders‐in‐health‐research‐recognised/
2.3 ADDITIONAL READING
Balas, E. A., & Boren, S. A. (2000). Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2000: Patient‐Centered Systems, 65‐70. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10675.2/617990
Bauer MS, Damschroder L, Hagedorn H, Smith J, Kilbourne AM. (2015). An introduction to implementation science for the non‐specialist. BMC psychology (3),3‐32. Doi:10.1186/s40359‐015‐0089‐9.
Bowen, S. and Graham, I. D. (2013). Integrated knowledge translation. In Knowledge Translation in Health Care (eds S. E. Straus, J. Tetroe and I. D. Graham), 1‐425. Doi:10.1002/9781118413555.ch02
Brownson, R. C., Colditz, G. A., & Proctor, E. K. (2012). Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science to practice, [edited by] Ross C. Brownson, Graham A. Colditz and Enola K. Proctor. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cane, J., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Ladha, R., & Michie, S. (2015). From lists of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to structured hierarchies: Comparison of two methods of developing a hierarchy of BCTs. British Journal of Health Psychology, 20(1), 130‐150. Doi:10.1111/bjhp.12102
Colquhoun, H. L., Squires, J., Kolehmainen, N., Fraser, C., & Grimshaw, J. (2017). Methods for designing interventions to change healthcare professionals' behaviour: a systematic review. Implementation Science, 12(1), 30. Doi:10.1186/s13012‐017‐0560‐5
Curran, M. G., Bauer, M. M., Mittman, M. B., Pyne, M. J., & Stetler, M. C. (2012). Effectiveness‐implementation Hybrid Designs: Combining Elements of Clinical Effectiveness and Implementation Research to Enhance Public Health Impact. Medical Care, 50(3), 217‐226. Doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812.
Curtis, K., Fry, M., Shaban, R. Z., & Considine, J. (2017). Translating research findings to clinical nursing practice. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(5‐6), 862‐872. Doi:10.1111/jocn.13586
Damschroder, L., Aron, D., Keith, R., Kirsh, S., Alexander, J., & Lowery, J. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4(1), 50. Doi:10.1186/1748‐5908‐4‐50
Dynarski, M, & Kisker, Ellen. (2014). Going public: Writing about research in everyday language (REL 2014–051). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Analytic Technical Assistance and Development. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Elwyn G, Taubert M, Kowalczuk J. Sticky Knowledge: A Possible Model for Investigating Implementation in Healthcare Contexts. Implementation Science. 2007;2(1). doi:10.1186/1748‐5908‐2‐44.
16
Gill, F, Leslie, G, & Marshall, A. (2016). Family initiated escalation of care for the deteriorating patient in hospital: Family centred care or just “box ticking”. Australian Critical Care, 29, 195‐200. Doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2016.07.004
Gill, F. J., Leslie, G. D., & Marshall, A. P. (2018). Barriers and facilitators to implementing a process to enable parent escalation of care for the deteriorating child in hospital. Health expectations, 21(6). Doi: 10.1111/hex.12806
Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the Public Health Impact of Health Promotion Interventions: The RE‐AIM Framework. American Journal of Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322‐1327. doi:10.2105/ajph.89.9.1322.
Green LW, Kreuter MW. Health Program Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach. 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw‐Hill; 2004. (The Precede‐Proceed Model)
Grimshaw, J., Eccles, M., Lavis, J., Hill, S., & Squires, J. (2012). Knowledge translation of research findings. Implementation Science, 7(1), 50. doi: 10.1186/1748‐5908‐7‐50
Grol, R., Wensing, M., Eccles, M., & Davis, D. (2013). Improving patient care: the implementation of change in health care, [edited by] Richard Grol, Michel Wensing, Martin Eccles and David Davis (Second edition. ed.). Chichester, West Sussex: Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley‐Blackwell/BMJ Books.
Harvey G, Kitson A. PARIHS Revisited: From Heuristic to Integrated Framework for the Successful Implementation of Knowledge Into Practice. Implementation Science. 2015;11(1). doi:10.1186/s13012‐016‐0398‐2.
Huijg, J., Gebhardt, W., Dusseldorp, E., Verheijden, M., van Der Zouwe, N., Middelkoop, B., & Crone, M. (2014). Measuring determinants of implementation behaviour: psychometric properties of a questionnaire based on the theoretical domains framework. Implementation Science, 9(1), 33. Doi: 10.1186/1748‐5908‐9‐33
Kirk, M. A., Kelley, C., Yankey, N., Birken, S. A., Abadie, B., & Damschroder, L. (2016). A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implementation Science, 11(72) 1‐13. Doi:10.1186/s13012‐016‐0437‐z
Lawton, R., Heyhoe, J., Louch, G., Ingleson, E., Glidewell, L., Willis, T. A., . . . Foy, R. (2016). Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to understand adherence to multiple evidence‐based indicators in primary care: a qualitative study. Implementation Science, 11(1). Doi: 10.1186/s13012‐016‐0479‐2
May, C., & Finch, T. (2009). Implementing, Embedding, and Integrating Practices: An Outline of Normalization Process Theory. Sociology, 43(3), 535‐554. Doi:10.1177/0038038509103208
Moher, D., Glasziou, P., Chalmers, I., Nasser, M., Bossuyt, P. M. M., Korevaar, D. A., . . . Boutron, I. (2016). Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening?. The Lancet, 387(10027), 1573‐1586. Doi:10.1016/S01406736(15)00307‐4
McKenzie, A., & Hanley, B. (2014). Planning for Consumer and Community Participation in Health and Medical Research: A practical guide for health and medical researchers. ISBN:9780987278333.
Michie, S., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Lawton, R., Parker, D., & Walker, A. (2005). Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 14(1), 26. Doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.011155
Michie, S., Johnston, M., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., & Eccles, M. (2008). From Theory to Intervention: Mapping Theoretically Derived Behavioural Determinants to Behaviour Change Techniques. Applied Psychology, 57(4), 660‐680. Doi:10.1111/j.14640597.2008.00341.x
Moore, G., Audrey, S., Barker, M., Bond, L., Bonell, C., Cooper, C., . . . Baird, J. (2014). Process evaluation in complex public health intervention studies: the need for guidance. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 68(2), 101. Doi:10.1136/jech‐2013‐202869
Moore, G. F., Audrey, S., Barker, M., Bond, L., Bonell, C., Hardeman, W., . . . Baird, J. (2015). Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical research council guidance. BMJ : British Medical Journal (Online), 350doi:http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1136/bmj.h1258
17
Moullin, J., Sabater‐Hernandez, D., Fernandez‐Llimos, F., & Benrimoj, S. (2015). A systematic review of implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare and resulting generic implementation framework. Health Research Policy and Systems, 13, 1‐11. Doi:10.1186/s12961‐015‐0005‐z
MacVane, F. (2014). Evaluating Improvement and Implementation for Health. Clinical Governance: An International Journal, 19(4), 371‐372. Doi:10.1108/CGIJ‐102014‐ 0033
Nilsen P. Making Sense Of Implementation Theories, Models And Frameworks. Implementation Science. 2015;10(1). doi:10.1186/s13012‐015‐0242‐0. Palinkas, L. A. (2011). Translation and implementation of evidence‐based practice. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (2004). Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage. Retrieved from http://www.communitymatters.com.au/RE_chapter.pdf
Pinnock, H., Barwick, M., Carpenter, C. R., Eldridge, S., Grandes, G., Griffiths, C. J., . . . Taylor, S. J. C. (2017). Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Statement. BMJ, 356, 1‐9. Doi: 10.1136/bmj.i6795
Proctor EK, Landsverk J, Aarons G, Chambers D, Glisson C, Mittman B. Implementation Research in Mental Health Services: An Emerging Science with Conceptual, Methodological, and Training challenges. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2008;36(1):24‐34. doi:10.1007/s10488‐008‐0197‐4.
Proctor E, Powell B, Baumann A, Hamilton A, Santens R. (2012). Writing implementation research grant proposals: ten key ingredients. Implementation Science, 7(1), 96. Doi:10.1186/1748‐5908‐7‐96
Rycroft‐Malone, J. (2004). The PARIHS Framework‐A Framework for Guiding the Implementation of Evidence‐based Practice. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 19(4), 297‐304. Doi:10.1097/00001786‐200410000‐00002
Rycroft‐Malone J. Research Implementation: Evidence, Context and Facilitation ‐ the PARIHS Framework. Practice Development in Nursing. 2008:118‐147. doi:10.1002/9780470698884.ch6
Shaw, R. L., Holland, C., Pattison, H. M., & Cooke, R. (2016). Patients' perceptions and experiences of cardiovascular disease and diabetes prevention programmes: A systematic review and framework synthesis using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Social Science & Medicine, 156, 192‐203. Doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.03.015
Straus, S., Tetroe, J., & Graham, I. D. (2013). Knowledge Translation in Health Care: Moving from Evidence to Practice, 2nd Edition. Doi:10.1002/9781118413555
Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., Graham, I. D., Zwarenstein, M., Bhattacharyya, O., & Shepperd, S. (2010). Monitoring use of knowledge and evaluating outcomes. Canadian Medical Association, 182(2), 94‐98. Doi:10.1503/cmaj.081335
Tabak, R. G., Khoong, E. C., Chambers, D. A., & Brownson, R. C. (2012). Bridging Research and Practice:Models for Dissemination and Implementation Research: Models for Dissemination and Implementation Research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43(3), 337‐350. Doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024
Tricco, A., Cardoso, R., Thomas, S. M., Motiwala, S., Sullivan, S., Kealey, M., . . . Straus, S. (2016). Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review. Implementation Science, 11(4), 1‐20. Doi:10.1186/s13012‐016‐0370‐1
Wells, M., Williams, B., Treweek, S., Coyle, J., & Taylor, J. (2012). Intervention description is not enough: evidence from an in‐depth multiple case study on the untold role and impact of context in randomised controlled trials of seven complex interventions. Trials, 13, 95. Doi:10.1186/1745‐6215‐13‐95
Westfall, J. M., Mold, J., & Fagnan, L. (2007). Practice‐Based Research—“Blue Highways” on the NIH Roadmap. JAMA, 297(4), 403‐406. Doi:10.1001/jama.297.4.403
White, K. M. (2016). Translation of evidence into nursing and health care, second edition. Springer Publishing Company. Retrieved from http://portal.igpublish.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/iglibrary/search/SPCB0001698.html?0
18
2.4 DEFINITIONS
Research translation activities: “the diffusion, dissemination, and application of knowledge that researchers undertake once the findings from a project are available”
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2016.
Impact: “the demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and the economy. Indicators of impact can be instrumental (e.g. influence development of policy, practice or service provision, shaping legislation, altering behaviour), conceptual (e.g., contribute ot understanding of policy issues, reframing debates), and capacity building (e.g., technical and personal skill development)”
Economic and Society Research Council, United Kingdom, 2016.
Knowledge user: “an individual who is likely to be able to use the knowledge generated through research in order to make informed decisions about health policies, programs and/or practices. Examples include practitioner, policy maker, educator, decision making, health care administrator patient, community leader, and media”
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2016.
2.5 POSSIBLE RESEARCH TRANSLATION OUTPUTS TO REPORT
Reporting knowledge translation outputs:
Being cited and/or read by…
H‐index –from Scopus/Web of Science/Google
Research Gate Score
Policy documents, government/health organization reports or clinical practice guidelines that cite your research
Publications awarded “highly accessed” and/or editor’s choice by journals
Commentaries in journals that cite your research
Blogs or websites of others that cite your research
Downloads and/or hits to products or processes that were developed within your research program
Requests for permission to use your material
Reports in media and/or news written about your research program (circulation/listenership/ market share)
Products or processes that were developed within your research program …
Resources to translate research into practice or policy (e.g., knowledge tools, interventions, policy briefs, programs, new positions created, etc)
Website for your research program
Publications in journals targeting specific professions/audiences
Blogs
Book chapters informed by findings from your research studies
Training workshops provided to knowledge users
19
Your participation in meetings or committees for which your research informed the discussion/product …
Invitations to meetings to disseminate research to knowledge users to inform policy, education, practice
List of your memberships on advisory committees/ boards/ regulatory committees
List of your memberships and/or contributions to clinical practice guideline development teams
Consultancies
Training delivered/contracted for health professionals, patients, and/or policy makers
Other indicators of impact …
Award(s) or other formal recognition for research translation activities
Summary statement/bullet points of indicators of impact from your research
Indicators of impact from the research of your graduate students
Elected membership on a society for which membership requires demonstration of research impact
Stories of impact from knowledge users (e.g., changes in practice/processes locally, state‐wide, national including de‐implementation)
Integration of research program materials into services within a community (e.g., most significant research contributions)
Stories of impact
Collaborations with knowledge users (patients, policy makers, clinical decision‐maker):
Contracts from health services for projects focused on changing knowledge users practice
Knowledge users indicated on publications
Knowledge users indicated on grants
Knowledge users indicated on grants
Other research translation activities or indicators of impact …
Course Content or Curriculum (including online training modules) informed by your research program
Twitter followers
20
Research Skills Seminar Series 2018Research Education Program
ResearchEducationProgram.org
© Research Education Program, Department of Child Health Research, Child and Adolescent Health Service, WA 2019
Copyright to this material produced by the Research Education Program,Department of Child Health Research, Child and Adolescent Health Service, WesternAustralia, under the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (C’wth Australia). Apartfrom any fair dealing for personal, academic, research or non-commercial use, nopart may be reproduced without written permission. The Department of Child HealthResearch is under no obligation to grant this permission. Please acknowledge theResearch Education Program, Department of Child Health Research, Child andAdolescent Health Service when reproducing or quoting material from this source.
Research Skills Seminar Series | Research Education Program Department of Child Health Research | Child and Adolescent Health Service
