通过应用卫生研究产生的知识通常是决策者和从业人员无法轻易获得或采取行动的形式,这阻碍了它的实施。我们的目标是确定可以支持为政策和实践提供信息的知识生产的研究活动。要做到这一点,我们研究了一种操作研究方法,以改善应用健康研究结果的产生。
对多学科应用健康研究项目的业务研究贡献进行了为期2年的定性研究,该项目成功地快速告知了国家政策。对该项目的研究团队和咨询小组的所有成员(患者和健康专业代表和学者)进行了半结构化访谈(n=20)。参与者(>150小时)和非参与者(>15小时)的观察重点是尝试支持知识生产的过程和经验。使用QSRNVivo软件对数据进行主题分析。
运筹学发挥了知识调解的作用,这种作用是以问题为中心的方法,并且意图执行那些产生易于实施的知识所必需的任务,但超出了项目其他学科的职权范围。发现该角色的三个特征可以支持这一点:通过捕获一系列卫生专业人员和患者观点以及定量和定性研究证据,吸引和融合不同的观点来改善服务;通过以可访问和吸引不同受众的形式创建和呈现证据来使数据有意义,使他们能够理解它的实际用途;并通过建立信誉来保持感知的客观性和严谨性,感知的中立性和对研究稳健性的信心,以便团结不同的专业人员创造性地思考全系统服务的改进。
我们的研究为多学科应用健康研究项目中的知识调解活动提供了有用的经验见解,这些研究项目支持可访问,实践相关和可操作的知识。结合这些活动,或者一个专门的角色,在此类项目中调解知识生产可能有助于提高研究成果在常规医疗保健中的应用,并值得进一步考虑。
Knowledge produced through applied health research is often of a form not readily accessible to or actionable by policymakers and practitioners, which hinders its implementation. Our aim was to identify research activities that can support the production of knowledge tailored to inform policy and practice. To do this, we studied an operational research approach to improving the production of applied health research findings.
A 2-year qualitative study was conducted of the operational research contribution to a multidisciplinary applied health research project that was successful in rapidly informing national policy. Semi-structured interviews (n = 20) were conducted with all members of the project\'s research team and advisory group (patient and health professional representatives and academics). These were augmented by participant (> 150 h) and non-participant (> 15 h) observations focusing on the process and experience of attempting to support knowledge production. Data were analysed thematically using QSR NVivo software.
Operational research performed a knowledge mediation role shaped by a problem-focused approach and an intent to perform those tasks necessary to producing readily implementable knowledge but outwith the remit of other disciplinary strands of the project. Three characteristics of the role were found to support this: engaging and incorporating different perspectives to improve services by capturing a range of health professional and patient views alongside quantitative and qualitative research evidence; rendering data meaningful by creating and presenting evidence in forms that are accessible to and engage different audiences, enabling them to make sense of it for practical use; and maintaining perceived objectivity and rigour by establishing credibility, perceived neutrality and confidence in the robustness of the research in order to unite diverse professionals in thinking creatively about system-wide service improvement.
Our study contributes useful empirical insights about knowledge mediation activities within multidisciplinary applied health research projects that support the generation of accessible, practice-relevant and actionable knowledge. Incorporating such activities, or a dedicated role, for mediating knowledge production within such projects could help to enhance the uptake of research findings into routine healthcare and warrants further consideration.