Knowledge mobilization

知识动员
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:将最终用户与研究证据联系起来可以提高患者的知识并为健康决策提供信息。最终用户的文化和语言差异可能会影响知识动员(KMb)的有效性。此范围审查旨在了解为文化和语言多样化(CALD)受众创建或改编KMb产品时的当前方法和方法。
    方法:我们搜索了3个数据库(OvidMedline,CINAHL通过EBSCOhost,PsychINFO)从2011年到2023年8月。我们纳入了任何有关KMb产品创建或为CALD社区服务的适应过程的文献。主要审稿人筛选了所有已确定的出版物,第二个审稿人筛选了被主要审稿人排除的出版物。数据由一名审阅者使用标准化形式提取,并由另一名审阅者验证。研究按适应类型(\'表面\'和/或\'深层\'结构)进行分类,并根据研究方法(i2S模型)中使用的利益相关者参与类型进行映射,和最终用户的参与(内容,设计,评估和传播)在KMb产品创建或改编中。
    结果:回顾了1万2百99个独特的标题和摘要,检索并回顾了670项全文研究,78项研究纳入最终数据提取和映射。24项研究(31%)创建或改编了专门基于文本的KMb产品,例如传单和小册子,49项(63%)制作了数字产品,例如视频(n=16,33%)。移动应用(n=14,29%),和电子健康网站(n=7,14%)。25项研究(32%)报告了其创建或适应工作的框架或理论。28项研究(36%)让利益相关者参与研究方法。几乎所有(96%)都涉及最终用户通过参与内容开发来创建或改编KMb产品(n=64)。设计特征(n=52),评价(n=44)和传播(n=20)。32项(41%)研究包括研究团队对为CALD社区创建或改造KMb产品的过程的反思。
    结论:包括的研究引用了多种方法来为CALD社区创建或适应KMb产品。成功采用创建或改编的KMb产品通常是与最终用户合作和参与的结果,以获得更多的适用性,可访问和有意义的产品。需要进一步研究开发指导和最佳实践,以支持与CALD社区一起创建或改编KMb产品。
    背景:协议于2022年8月16日提交给开放科学框架(https://osf.io/9jcw4/)。
    BACKGROUND: Connecting end-users to research evidence has the power to improve patient knowledge and inform health decision-making. Differences in the culture and language of the end users may shape the effectiveness of knowledge mobilization (KMb). This scoping review set out to understand current approaches and methods when creating or adapting KMb products for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) audiences.
    METHODS: We searched 3 databases (Ovid Medline, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, PsychINFO) from 2011 until August 2023. We included any literature about KMb product creation or adaptation processes serving CALD communities. A primary reviewer screened all identified publications and a second reviewer screened publications excluded by the primary. Data were extracted using a standardized form by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Studies were categorized by type of adaptations (\'surface\' and/or \'deep\' structure) and mapped based on type of stakeholder engagement used in the research approach (i2S model), and end-user involvement (content, design, evaluation and dissemination) in KMb product creation or adaptation.
    RESULTS: Ten thousand two hundred ninety-nine unique titles and abstracts were reviewed, 670 full-text studies were retrieved and reviewed, and 78 studies were included in final data extraction and mapping. Twenty-four studies (31%) created or adapted exclusively text-based KMb products such as leaflets and pamphlets and 49 (63%) produced digital products such as videos (n = 16, 33%), mobile applications (n = 14, 29%), and eHealth websites (n = 7, 14%). Twenty-five studies (32%) reported following a framework or theory for their creation or adaptation efforts. Twenty-eight studies (36%) engaged stakeholders in the research approach. Nearly all (96%) involved end-users in creating or adapting the KMb products through involvement in content development (n = 64), design features (n = 52), evaluation (n = 44) and dissemination (n = 20). Thirty-two (41%) studies included reflections from the research teams on the processes for creating or adapting KMb products for CALD communities.
    CONCLUSIONS: Included studies cited a variety of methods to create or adapt KMb products for CALD communities. Successful uptake of created or adapted KMb products was often the result of collaboration and involvement with end-users for more applicable, accessible and meaningful products. Further research developing guidance and best practices is needed to support the creation or adaptation of KMb products with CALD communities.
    BACKGROUND: Protocol submitted to Open Science Framework on August 16, 2022 ( https://osf.io/9jcw4/ ).
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    弥合课堂上教育利益相关者之间的差距,学校,和系统水平对于实现中小学教育的可持续变革至关重要。然而,在这个松散耦合的利益相关者网络中转移知识或建设能力的要求很高。经纪概念有望研究这些复杂的互动模式,因为它指的是特定的参与者(经纪人)如何连接松散耦合或断开的个人(经纪)。然而,不同的研究传统,在理论框架和方法论方面,以及各种利益相关者作为桥梁建设者所扮演的角色,让他们理解经纪人的角色,经纪,和经纪在改变教育实践中具有挑战性。因此,这项研究的目的是提供有关教育变革研究中这些概念的当前文献的概述。在基于42项研究的系统文献综述中,我们分析了每项研究的理论假设,方法论方法,涉及的利益相关者的范围,和实证研究结果。首先,文献综述显示,当关注经纪人时,关于教育变革的研究指的是四个不同的理论框架,经纪,或经纪。第二,我们的结果表明,主要采用定性方法。第三,使用内容网络图,我们确定教师和校长是最经常分析的经纪人之一。第四,提出了实证研究结果的四个相关方面:经纪人的个人特征,促成经纪的条件,成功的经纪策略,和经纪结果。最后,我们根据经验证据基础和不足概述了未来的研究议程。
    Bridging gaps between educational stakeholders at the classroom, school, and system levels is essential to achieve sustainable change in primary and secondary education. However, transferring knowledge or building capacity within this network of loosely coupled stakeholders is demanding. The brokerage concept holds promise for studying these complex patterns of interaction, as it refers to how specific actors (brokers) link loosely coupled or disconnected individuals (brokering). However, different research traditions, in terms of theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches, and various stakeholders examined in their role as bridge builders make understanding the role of brokers, brokering, and brokerage in changing educational practice challenging. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the current literature on these concepts in educational change research. In a systematic literature review based on 42 studies, we analyzed each study\'s theoretical assumptions, methodological approach, scope in terms of stakeholders involved, and empirical findings. First, the literature review revealed that research on educational change refers to four different theoretical frameworks when focusing on brokers, brokering, or brokerage. Second, our results indicate that predominantly qualitative approaches have been applied. Third, using content network graphs, we identified teachers and principals as among the most frequently analyzed brokers. Fourth, four relevant aspects of the empirical findings are presented: brokers\' personal characteristics, conditions that enable brokering, successful brokering strategies, and outcomes of brokerage. Finally, we outline a future research agenda based on the empirical evidence base and shortcomings.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Systematic Review
    背景:实现证据知情决策(EIDM)需要通过识别和综合证据将证据整合到所有实践决策中,然后制定和执行计划来实施和评估实践的变化。这种快速的系统审查综合了跨组织实施EIDM战略的证据,将促进者和障碍映射到COM-B(能力,机会,动机,行为)行为改变模型。进行审查是为了支持提供公共卫生服务的组织的领导(健康促进,传染病预防)推动向循证公共卫生转变。
    方法:在多个数据库中进行了系统检索,并回顾了主要作者的出版物。描述在团队中推动EIDM的干预措施的文章,部门,或组织有资格入选。对于每个包含的文章,质量进行了评估,以及干预的细节,设置,结果,推动者和障碍被提取出来。采取了一种融合的综合方法来分析定量和定性结果。
    结果:共37篇。在初级保健中进行了研究,公共卫生,社会服务,和职业健康环境。实施EIDM的策略包括建立知识经纪人型角色,建设员工的EIDM能力,和研究或学术伙伴关系。促进者和障碍与行为改变的COM-B模型一致。能力的促进者包括员工知识和技能的发展,建立专门的角色,和整个组织的知识共享,尽管员工更替和随后的知识流失是能力的障碍。为了机会,促进者包括开发支持新做法的程序或机制,学习和技能发展论坛,保护时间,障碍包括相互竞争的优先事项。确定动机的促进者包括支持性组织文化,对新实践的期望,认可和积极强化,强有力的领导支持。障碍包括对新做法的消极态度,缺乏管理层的理解和支持。
    结论:本综述全面分析了在公共卫生组织中实施EIDM的促进者和障碍,映射到COM-B模型以进行行为更改。在公共卫生中支持EIDM的策略的现有文献说明了与实现EIDM相关的几个促进因素和障碍。了解这些因素将有助于高级领导层制定和实施适合其组织的EIDM战略,导致实施成功的可能性增加。
    背景:PROSPEROCRD42022318994。
    BACKGROUND: Achievement of evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) requires the integration of evidence into all practice decisions by identifying and synthesizing evidence, then developing and executing plans to implement and evaluate changes to practice. This rapid systematic review synthesizes evidence for strategies for the implementation of EIDM across organizations, mapping facilitators and barriers to the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation, behaviour) model for behaviour change. The review was conducted to support leadership at organizations delivering public health services (health promotion, communicable disease prevention) to drive change toward evidence-informed public health.
    METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in multiple databases and by reviewing publications of key authors. Articles that describe interventions to drive EIDM within teams, departments, or organizations were eligible for inclusion. For each included article, quality was assessed, and details of the intervention, setting, outcomes, facilitators and barriers were extracted. A convergent integrated approach was undertaken to analyze both quantitative and qualitative findings.
    RESULTS: Thirty-seven articles are included. Studies were conducted in primary care, public health, social services, and occupational health settings. Strategies to implement EIDM included the establishment of Knowledge Broker-type roles, building the EIDM capacity of staff, and research or academic partnerships. Facilitators and barriers align with the COM-B model for behaviour change. Facilitators for capability include the development of staff knowledge and skill, establishing specialized roles, and knowledge sharing across the organization, though staff turnover and subsequent knowledge loss was a barrier to capability. For opportunity, facilitators include the development of processes or mechanisms to support new practices, forums for learning and skill development, and protected time, and barriers include competing priorities. Facilitators identified for motivation include supportive organizational culture, expectations for new practices to occur, recognition and positive reinforcement, and strong leadership support. Barriers include negative attitudes toward new practices, and lack of understanding and support from management.
    CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive analysis of facilitators and barriers for the implementation of EIDM in organizations for public health, mapped to the COM-B model for behaviour change. The existing literature for strategies to support EIDM in public health illustrates several facilitators and barriers linked to realizing EIDM. Knowledge of these factors will help senior leadership develop and implement EIDM strategies tailored to their organization, leading to increased likelihood of implementation success.
    BACKGROUND: PROSPERO CRD42022318994.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:当可以使用或受益于研究发现的人作为研究团队的合作伙伴时,结果的质量和影响更好。这些人可以包括患者/消费者和不确定为研究人员的临床医生。他们被称为“知识用户”。这种合作方法称为集成知识翻译(IKT)。我们对知识用户参与系统审查的情况知之甚少。我们旨在评估团队成员在更新Cochrane患者决策辅助审查时的有意义参与程度及其对使用IKT方法的看法。
    方法:我们进行了前后混合方法研究。我们在两个时间点调查了所有团队成员。在进行系统审查之前,所有参与的团队成员都表示了他们在系统审查过程的12个步骤中的每一个步骤中的参与程度,从“屏幕标题/摘要”到“提供对条款草案的反馈”。之后,他们使用患者参与研究量表(PEIRS-22),从100分(极有意义的参与)到0分(无有意义的参与)的7个领域,报告了他们对每个步骤的参与程度和有意义的参与程度的满意度.我们使用开放式问题征求了他们对IKT方法的经验。我们使用内容分析对定量数据进行了描述性分析,对定性数据进行了分析。我们在研究设计和解释的水平上对数据进行了三角测量。
    结果:在21名团队成员中,20人完成了基线调查(95.2%的应答率)和17/20(85.0%的应答率)的后续调查。有11名(55%)研究人员,3(15%)患者/消费者,5名(25%)临床医生-研究人员,和1名(5%)研究生。在基线,参与12个系统评价步骤的首选水平从n=3(15%)(搜索灰色文献来源)到n=20(100%)(提供系统评价文章的反馈)不等.在后续行动中,16名(94.1%)参与者对他们参与这些步骤的程度完全或非常满意。所有人(17,100%)都同意该过程是共同生产的。PEIRS-22总得分显示,大多数参与者报告的参与度非常(13,76.4%)或非常(2,11.8%)。三角数据显示,参与者表示参与了一个融合了不同观点的真实研究过程,产生更好和更相关的产出。报道的挑战是时间,资源,以及与大型集团合作的后勤。
    结论:在进行系统评价期间使用IKT方法后,团队成员报告了高水平的有意义的参与。这些结果有助于我们理解共同产生系统评价的方法。
    当能够使用或受益于研究结果的人作为研究团队的合作伙伴时,结果的质量和影响更好。这些人可以包括患者/消费者和不确定为研究人员的临床医生。这种合作方法称为集成知识翻译(IKT)。很少使用这种方法,并且很少有关于将其与系统评论一起使用的信息。系统评价是一种研究,通过结合所有现有研究的数据,提供关于给定主题的最佳可用证据。这项研究的目的是了解我们的团队成员在合作进行有关患者决策辅助的系统评价时的投入程度。21名团队成员中有20名参与了这项研究,包括11名研究人员,3名患者/消费者,5名临床医生-研究人员,和1名研究生。作为IKT研究过程的一部分,我们要求团队成员在两个时间点完成关于他们的经历的调查:开始研究之前和研究完成之后。大多数团队成员感到非常或非常参与这个过程。所有团队成员都觉得自己是合作伙伴。他们举例说明了如何实现这一目标。使用IKT方法的优势包括知识共享,包含更多不同的声音,更真实的研究过程,更好和更相关的结果,和个人利益(例如参与的享受)。使用这种方法的缺点是需要更多的时间和资源。三名团队成员说没有缺点。患者/消费者和临床医生可以与研究团队合作并参与进行系统评价。我们的发现可能有助于研究人员将知识用户作为研究团队的平等伙伴。
    BACKGROUND: When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. They are referred to as \"knowledge users\". This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). We know little about knowledge users\' involvement in the conduct of systematic reviews. We aimed to evaluate team members\' degree of meaningful engagement and their perceptions of having used an IKT approach when updating the Cochrane Review of Patient Decision Aids.
    METHODS: We conducted a pre-post mixed methods study. We surveyed all team members at two time points. Before systematic review conduct, all participating team members indicated their preferred level of involvement within each of the 12 steps of the systematic review process from \"Screen titles/abstracts\" to \"Provide feedback on draft article\". After, they reported on their degree of satisfaction with their achieved level of engagement across each step and the degree of meaningful engagement using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS-22) across 7 domains scored from 100 (extremely meaningful engagement) to 0 (no meaningful engagement). We solicited their experiences with the IKT approach using open-ended questions. We analyzed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using content analysis. We triangulated data at the level of study design and interpretation.
    RESULTS: Of 21 team members, 20 completed the baseline survey (95.2% response rate) and 17/20 (85.0% response rate) the follow-up survey. There were 11 (55%) researchers, 3 (15%) patients/consumers, 5 (25%) clinician-researchers, and 1 (5%) graduate student. At baseline, preferred level of involvement in the 12 systematic review steps varied from n = 3 (15%) (search grey literature sources) to n = 20 (100%) (provide feedback on the systematic review article). At follow-up, 16 (94.1%) participants were totally or very satisfied with the extent to which they were involved in these steps. All (17, 100%) agreed that the process was co-production. Total PEIRS-22 scores revealed most participants reported extremely (13, 76.4%) or very (2, 11.8%) meaningful degree of engagement. Triangulated data revealed that participants indicated benefit to having been engaged in an authentic research process that incorporated diverse perspectives, resulting in better and more relevant outputs. Reported challenges were about time, resources, and the logistics of collaborating with a large group.
    CONCLUSIONS: Following the use of an IKT approach during the conduct of a systematic review, team members reported high levels of meaningful engagement. These results contribute to our understanding of ways to co-produce systematic reviews.
    When people who can use or benefit from research findings are engaged as partners on study teams, the quality and impact of findings are better. These people can include patients/consumers and clinicians who do not identify as researchers. This partnered approach is called integrated knowledge translation (IKT). This approach is rarely used and there is little information about using it with systematic reviews. A systematic review is a type of study that provides the best available evidence on a given topic by combining data from all existing studies. The aim of this study was to find out how engaged our team members felt when partnering on our systematic review about patient decision aids. Twenty of 21 team members participated in the study, including 11 researchers, 3 patients/consumers, 5 clinician-researchers, and 1 graduate student. We asked our team members to complete a survey about their experience as part of our IKT research process at two time points: before starting the study and after the study was done. Most team members felt extremely or very engaged in the process. All team members felt like partners. They gave examples of how this was achieved. Advantages to using the IKT approach included knowledge sharing, inclusion of more diverse voices, a more authentic research process, better and more relevant results, and personal benefits (e.g. enjoyment from being involved). Disadvantages to using this approach was that it took more time and resources. Three team members said there were no disadvantages. It is possible for patients/consumers and clinicians to partner and feel engaged with research teams doing systematic reviews. Our findings may help researchers engage knowledge users as equal partners on study teams.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Review
    背景:评估知识动员策略(KMb)为寻求了解其影响以提高KMb有效性的组织带来了挑战。此外,大量的理论,模型,和可用的框架(TMF)可能会让用户感到困惑。因此,本范围审查的目的是确定和描述文献中用于评估KMb策略的TMF的特征.
    方法:使用范围审查方法。通过在电子数据库中搜索确定了文章,以前的评论和所附文章的参考列表。标题,摘要和全文一式两份进行筛选。数据是使用试点数据图表表格绘制的。提取的数据包括研究特征,KMb特性,以及用于或提议用于KMb评估的TMF。Nilsen(实施科学10:53,2015)分类法和实施变更(ERIC)分类法的专家建议(Powell等人。在实施科学10:21,2015)指导数据合成中。
    结果:在4763个搜索结果中,已检索505,88篇文章符合审查条件。其中包括40篇理论文章(45.5%),44项实证研究(50.0%)和4项协议(4.5%)。大多数是在2010年之后发表的(n=70,79.5%),并且与健康相关(n=71,80.7%)。研究的KMb战略中有一半仅在四个国家实施:加拿大,澳大利亚,美国和英国(n=42,47.7%)。三分之一使用现有的TMF(n=28,31.8%)。根据改编的尼尔森分类法,过程模型(n=34,38.6%)和评估框架(n=28,31.8%)是用于或建议用于评估KMb的两种最常见的TMF类型。根据ERIC分类法,“培训和教育利益相关者”的活动(n=46,52.3%)是最常见的,其次是“发展利益相关者相互关系”的活动(n=23,26.1%)。对确定的TMF的分析揭示了评估KMb策略的相关兴趣因素,分为四个维度:上下文,process,效果和影响。
    结论:本范围审查概述了使用或提议的许多KMbTMF。结果提供了对评估KMb策略时要考虑的潜在维度和组件的洞察力。
    BACKGROUND: Evaluating knowledge mobilization strategies (KMb) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve KMb effectiveness. Moreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) available can be confusing for users. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of TMFs that have been used or proposed in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies.
    METHODS: A scoping review methodology was used. Articles were identified through searches in electronic databases, previous reviews and reference lists of included articles. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form. Data extracted included study characteristics, KMb characteristics, and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation. An adapted version of Nilsen (Implement Sci 10:53, 2015) taxonomy and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy (Powell et al. in Implement Sci 10:21, 2015) guided data synthesis.
    RESULTS: Of the 4763 search results, 505 were retrieved, and 88 articles were eligible for review. These consisted of 40 theoretical articles (45.5%), 44 empirical studies (50.0%) and four protocols (4.5%). The majority were published after 2010 (n = 70, 79.5%) and were health related (n = 71, 80.7%). Half of the studied KMb strategies were implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom (n = 42, 47.7%). One-third used existing TMFs (n = 28, 31.8%). According to the adapted Nilsen taxonomy, process models (n = 34, 38.6%) and evaluation frameworks (n = 28, 31.8%) were the two most frequent types of TMFs used or proposed to evaluate KMb. According to the ERIC taxonomy, activities to \"train and educate stakeholders\" (n = 46, 52.3%) were the most common, followed by activities to \"develop stakeholder interrelationships\" (n = 23, 26.1%). Analysis of the TMFs identified revealed relevant factors of interest for the evaluation of KMb strategies, classified into four dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts.
    CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review provides an overview of the many KMb TMFs used or proposed. The results provide insight into potential dimensions and components to be considered when assessing KMb strategies.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:现有的证据库表明对知识翻译(KT)的兴趣增加,或者,传播研究,以确保吸收和影响。鉴于这个定义,本研究旨在回顾现有的关于残疾人健康研究知识翻译(KT)的奖学金(PLWD),并评估残疾人健康知识的可及性现状。
    方法:鉴于文献中现有的异质性以及残疾和知识翻译的许多不同定义,一个反身,采用三阶段方法来提高方法学的健全性。第一阶段认识到已经对残疾KT进行了现有的审查风格研究。分析了针对康复和物理医学领域的KT的现有系统综述,以评估残疾人包容性和可及性的潜在最佳实践。第二阶段使用残疾和康复研究知识翻译中心(KTDRR)数据库作为对残疾健康KT具有高度特异性的信息来源。第三阶段寻求快速评估与残疾健康相关的系统评价的现状,有四项系统评价符合Cochrane的纳入标准,Psycinfo,CINAHL,PubMed,WebofScience,和EMBASE。
    结果:目前的残疾健康KT主要针对为PLWD服务的卫生专业人员。PLWD包含在KT中,主要是作为关键线人,或作为设计为健康干预措施的KT研究的研究参与者。关于残疾健康KT存在多个系统评价,呈现截然不同的焦点,阻碍了对最佳实践的评估。
    结论:KT的努力是丰富的,可以在与残疾有关的健康研究中看到,产生大量的文献和系统的评论。关于实现平等和增加获得健康知识的公共卫生目标,旨在为PLWD提供最新的健康研究的未来知识翻译工作可能具有重要价值。
    BACKGROUND: The existing evidence base indicates increased interest in knowledge translation (KT), or, the dissemination of research to ensure uptake and impact. Given this definition, this study aimed to review existing scholarship on knowledge translation (KT) of health research to people living with disabilities (PLWD), and assess the current state of accessibility of health knowledge for people living with disabilities.
    METHODS: Given existing heterogeneity in literature as well as a number of varying definitions for both disability and knowledge translation, a reflexive, three-phase approach was utilized to improve methodological soundness. Phase I recognizes that existing review-style studies have been conducted on disability-KT. An existing systematic review on KT specific to the field of rehabilitation and physical medicine was analyzed to assess potential best practices towards inclusivity and accessibility for people living with disability. Phase II used the Center on Knowledge Translation for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (KTDRR) database as an information-source with high-specificity to disability-health KT. Phase III sought to rapidly assess the current landscape of systematic reviews relevant to disability-health KT, with four systematic reviews meeting the inclusion criteria across Cochrane, Psycinfo, CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE.
    RESULTS: The current landscape of disability-health KT is primarily targeted at health professionals who serve PLWD. PLWD are included in KT, mostly as key informants, or as study participants in KT-studies designed as health interventions. Multiple systematic reviews on disability-health KT exist, presenting vastly different foci which prevent assessment of best practices.
    CONCLUSIONS: KT efforts are abundant and can be seen across health research related to disabilities, generating considerable literature and systematic reviews. With regards to meeting the public health objective of equalizing and enhancing access to health knowledge, future knowledge translation efforts intending to provide PLWD with up-to-date health research can be of significant value.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:将性别和性别纳入健康研究是设计和实施公平的最佳实践,严谨的科学研究。存在许多基于证据的资源来支持研究人员的这一努力,但是这些资源往往没有得到充分利用,因为它们很难找到,不能公开访问,或者特定于特定的研究阶段,context,或人口。人们认为,开发和评估资源库对于创建一个可访问的平台以促进健康研究中的性别和性别融合很重要。
    方法:对开展性和性别健康研究的关键资源进行了快速回顾。这些被集成到一个原型网站设计(GenderfulResearchWorld;GRW)中,为研究人员提供了一个交互式数字景观来访问这些资源。一项试点研究评估了GRW网站的适用性,可取性,和可用性与来自不同学科和职业阶段的31名健康研究人员的国际样本。用描述性统计方法总结了试点研究的定量数据。对定性数据进行了叙述性总结,并用于确定在第二次设计迭代中需要改进的具体元素。
    结果:初步研究结果表明,GRW被健康研究人员认为是用户友好和可取的,并帮助他们获得相关信息。反馈表明,以有趣的方式提供这些资源可以增强用户的体验,特别是考虑到高的“可取性”分数,并且用户强调交互式布局是他们打算将其融入教学工作的关键。试点研究的关键反馈(例如,增加针对跨性别人群研究的资源,网站布局的修订)已集成到网站的当前版本中:www。genderfulresearchworld.com.
    结论:本研究表明,将性别和性别因素纳入研究的资源库具有实用性,提供一个合乎逻辑的,对这些资源进行编目和导航的直观手段对于可用性至关重要。这项研究的结果可能会为其他新颖的研究人员指导的资源策展工作的发展提供信息,以解决健康公平问题,并鼓励和支持健康研究人员将性别和性别观点纳入其工作。
    Integration of sex and gender into health research is best practice for designing and conducting equitable, rigorous scientific research. Many evidence-based resources exist to support researchers in this endeavour, but such resources often remain underutilized as they are difficult to find, are not publicly accessible, or are specific to a particular research phase, context, or population. The development and evaluation of a repository of resources was deemed important to create an accessible platform for promoting sex- and gender-integration in health research.
    A rapid review was conducted of critical resources for conducting sex and gender health research. These were integrated into a prototype website design (the Genderful Research World; GRW) that provided an interactive digital landscape for researchers to access these resources. A pilot study evaluated the GRW website for applicability, desirability, and usability with an international sample of 31 health researchers from various disciplines and career stages. Quantitative data from the pilot study was summarized with descriptive statistics. Qualitative data was summarized narratively and used to identify concrete elements for improvement in a second design iteration.
    Results of the pilot study revealed that the GRW was considered user friendly and desirable by health researchers and helped them access relevant information. Feedback suggested that providing these resources in a playful way may enhance the experience of the user, particularly given the high \'desirability\' scores and that users emphasized the interactive layout as being key to their intention to integrate it into their teaching endeavors. Key feedback from the pilot study (e.g., addition of resources specific to research with transgender populations, revision of website layout) was integrated into the current version of the website: www.genderfulresearchworld.com .
    The present research suggests a utility for a repository of resources for integrating sex and gender considerations into research, and that providing a logical, intuitive means of cataloguing and navigating such resources is critical for usability. The results of this study may inform the development of other novel researcher-directed resource curation efforts to address health equity issues and encourage and support health researchers to integrate a sex and gender perspective in their work.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:社会处方计划代表了将初级保健患者与非医疗社区资源联系起来以改善患者福祉的可行解决方案。然而,他们的成功取决于患者需求与当地资源的整合。这种整合可以通过使用表达本体来组织知识资源的数字工具来加速,从而能够无缝导航各种社区干预措施和适合个人用户需求的服务。这种基础设施对老年人特别重要,他们经历了一系列影响他们健康的社会需求,包括社会孤立和孤独。促进知识动员和成功实施社会处方举措以满足老年人的社会需求的一个重要的第一步是纳入关于什么有效的循证学术文献,在社区中提供实地解决方案。
    目的:本研究旨在将科学证据与实地知识相结合,以建立与减少老年人社会孤立和孤独感相关的干预术语和关键词的综合列表。
    方法:使用搜索策略结合与老年人群相关的术语进行了元审查,社会孤立和孤独,以及与使用5个数据库的综述相关的研究类型。综述提取包括干预特征,结果(社会[例如,孤独,社会孤立,和社会支持]或心理健康[例如,心理健康,抑郁症,和焦虑]),和有效性(报告为一致,混合,或不支持)。从综述的文献中提取与已识别的干预类型相关的术语,以及对蒙特利尔相应社区服务的描述,加拿大,可从基于网络的区域获得,市政,和社区数据源。
    结果:元审查确定了11种干预类型,通过增加社交互动来解决老年人的社会孤立和孤独感。提供仪器支持,促进身心健康,或提供家庭和社区护理。以团体为基础的社会活动,有教育因素的支持团体,娱乐活动,培训或使用信息和通信技术在改善成果方面最有效。在社区数据源中可以找到大多数干预类型的示例。从文献中得出的术语与描述现有社区服务的术语最普遍一致,与远程医疗有关,娱乐活动,和心理治疗。然而,在基于审查的术语和处理现有服务的术语之间观察到一些差异.
    结论:从文献中发现了一系列有效解决社会孤立和孤独或其对心理健康影响的干预措施。许多这些干预措施在蒙特利尔老年居民可获得的服务中都有代表,加拿大。然而,有时会使用不同的术语来描述或分类跨数据源的类似服务。建立识别和构建此类来源的有效方法对于促进老年人的转介和寻求帮助的行为以及资源的战略规划非常重要。
    Social prescription programs represent a viable solution to linking primary care patients to nonmedical community resources for improving patient well-being. However, their success depends on the integration of patient needs with local resources. This integration could be accelerated by digital tools that use expressive ontology to organize knowledge resources, thus enabling the seamless navigation of diverse community interventions and services tailored to the needs of individual users. This infrastructure bears particular relevance for older adults, who experience a range of social needs that impact their health, including social isolation and loneliness. An essential first step in enabling knowledge mobilization and the successful implementation of social prescription initiatives to meet the social needs of older adults is to incorporate the evidence-based academic literature on what works, with on-the-ground solutions in the community.
    This study aims to integrate scientific evidence with on-the-ground knowledge to build a comprehensive list of intervention terms and keywords related to reducing social isolation and loneliness in older adults.
    A meta-review was conducted using a search strategy combining terms related to older adult population, social isolation and loneliness, and study types relevant to reviews using 5 databases. Review extraction included intervention characteristics, outcomes (social [eg, loneliness, social isolation, and social support] or mental health [eg, psychological well-being, depression, and anxiety]), and effectiveness (reported as consistent, mixed, or not supported). Terms related to identified intervention types were extracted from the reviewed literature as well as descriptions of corresponding community services in Montréal, Canada, available from web-based regional, municipal, and community data sources.
    The meta-review identified 11 intervention types addressing social isolation and loneliness in older adults by either increasing social interactions, providing instrumental support, promoting mental and physical well-being, or providing home and community care. Group-based social activities, support groups with educational elements, recreational activities, and training or use of information and communication technologies were the most effective in improving outcomes. Examples of most intervention types were found in community data sources. Terms derived from the literature that were the most commonly congruent with those describing existing community services were related to telehealth, recreational activities, and psychological therapy. However, several discrepancies were observed between review-based terms and those addressing the available services.
    A range of interventions found to be effective at addressing social isolation and loneliness or their impact on mental health were identified from the literature, and many of these interventions were represented in services available to older residents in Montréal, Canada. However, different terms were occasionally used to describe or categorize similar services across data sources. Establishing an efficient means of identifying and structuring such sources is important to facilitate referrals and help-seeking behaviors of older adults and for strategic planning of resources.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Systematic Review
    当前的知识创造和动员工作集中在学术机构。社区参与的知识中心(CEKH)具有知识生产者之间跨学科和跨部门合作的潜力,动员者,和用户制定更相关和有效的研究实践,并提高社区在知识生产方面的能力。目标:总结有关知识中心或平台的现有原始研究文章,并确定其好处,挑战,以及在开发CEKH时应对挑战的方法。方法:本研究遵循系统综合综述设计。在对学术和灰色文献数据库进行全面搜索之后,我们使用预定的纳入标准筛选了9030篇独特文章,并确定了20篇研究作为最终综合.我们采用主题分析来总结结果。结果:大多数这些知识动员中心的重点与健康和保健有关。知识中心对包括学者在内的主要利益相关者有很多好处,社区,服务提供商,和政策制定者,包括改善传播过程,提供更有效的社区干预措施,确保知情护理,并创建政策评估工具。创建知识中心的挑战对所有利益相关者来说通常是一致的,而不是针对单个利益相关者,通常与资金有关,资源,和相互矛盾的观点。因此,应对挑战的战略也得到强调,应该一致执行。结论:本研究通过识别益处为未来CEKH的发展提供了信息,挑战,以及在发展知识中心时缓解挑战的策略。本研究解决了有关知识中心和利益相关者经验比较的文献空白。
    Current knowledge creation and mobilization efforts are concentrated in academic institutions. A community-engaged knowledge hub (CEKH) has the potential for transdisciplinary and cross-sectorial collaboration between knowledge producers, mobilizers, and users to develop more relevant and effective research practices as well as to increase community capacity in terms of knowledge production. Objective: To summarize existing original research articles on knowledge hubs or platforms and to identify the benefits, challenges, and ways to address challenges when developing a CEKH. Methods: This study followed a systematic integrative review design. Following a comprehensive search of academic and grey literature databases, we screened 9030 unique articles using predetermined inclusion criteria and identified 20 studies for the final synthesis. We employed thematic analysis to summarize the results. Results: The focus of the majority of these knowledge mobilization hubs was related to health and wellness. Knowledge hubs have a multitude of benefits for the key stakeholders including academics, communities, service providers, and policymakers, including improving dissemination processes, providing more effective community interventions, ensuring informed care, and creating policy assessment tools. Challenges in creating knowledge hubs are generally consistent for all stakeholders, rather than for individual stakeholders, and typically pertain to funding, resources, and conflicting perspectives. As such, strategies to address challenges are also emphasized and should be executed in unison. Conclusions: This study informs the development of a future CEKH through the identification of the benefits, challenges, and strategies to mitigate challenges when developing knowledge hubs. This study addresses a literature gap regarding the comparisons of knowledge hubs and stakeholder experiences.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    知识翻译(KT)是任何应用健康研究的关键组成部分。土著人民的健康研究和KT在很大程度上继续被教授,开发,设计,受管制,并以不优先考虑当地土著人民分享知识的方式进行。这篇综述由土著健康学者管理和通报,知识守护者,和长者。我们的系统审查侧重于回答,在土著健康研究领域,KT有哪些有希望和明智的做法?在筛选了来自任何国家的已发表文献和来自现在称为加拿大的灰色文献后,纳入了51份文件。这包括联系联邦的73个政府机构,领土,和可能资助土著健康研究的省一级。只有以下研究:a)专注于土著人民的健康和保健;b)记录知识共享活动和理由;c)评估知识共享过程或结果;以及d)使用WellLivingHouse质量评估工具以英文印刷并进行评估。分析是使用迭代和叙事综合方法完成的。我们的系统审查方案已在其他地方发表。我们强调并总结了土著健康研究KT的不同目标,使用的KT方法和方法的类型,KT努力的有效性,KT对土著人民健康和福祉的影响,以及建议和经验教训。很少有作者报告使用严格的KT评估或披露他们的身份和与参与研究的土著社区的关系(即自我定位)。这篇综述的发现强调了这一点,重申并强调,KT是土著卫生研究过程和内容所固有的,作为一种知道和做的形式。土著健康研究必须包括固有的KT过程,如果研究是通过的,for,和/或与土著人民。
    Knowledge translation (KT) is a critical component of any applied health research. Indigenous Peoples\' health research and KT largely continues to be taught, developed, designed, regulated, and conducted in ways that do not prioritize local Indigenous Peoples\' ways of sharing knowledges. This review was governed and informed by Indigenous health scholars, Knowledge Guardians, and Elders. Our systematic review focused on answering, what are the promising and wise practices for KT in the Indigenous health research field? Fifty-one documents were included after screening published literature from any country and grey literature from what is now known as Canada. This included contacting 73 government agencies at the federal, territorial, and provincial levels that may have funded Indigenous health research. Only studies that: a) focused on Indigenous Peoples\' health and wellness; b) documented knowledge sharing activities and rationale; c) evaluated the knowledge sharing processes or outcomes; and d) printed in English were included and appraised using the Well Living House quality appraisal tool. The analysis was completed using an iterative and narrative synthesis approach. Our systematic review protocol has been published elsewhere. We highlight and summarize the varied aims of Indigenous health research KT, types of KT methodologies and methods used, effectiveness of KT efforts, impacts of KT on Indigenous Peoples\' health and wellness, as well as recommendations and lessons learned. Few authors reported using rigorous KT evaluation or disclosed their identity and relationship with the Indigenous communities involved in research (i.e. self-locate). The findings from this review accentuate, reiterate and reinforce that KT is inherent in Indigenous health research processes and content, as a form of knowing and doing. Indigenous health research must include inherent KT processes, if the research is by, for, and/or with Indigenous Peoples.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号