Cargando…

Reviewer training to assess knowledge translation in funding applications is long overdue

BACKGROUND: Health research funding agencies are placing a growing focus on knowledge translation (KT) plans, also known as dissemination and implementation (D&I) plans, in grant applications to decrease the gap between what we know from research and what we do in practice, policy, and further r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scarrow, Gayle, Angus, Donna, Holmes, Bev J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5803621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29451528
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0037-8
_version_ 1783298688865533952
author Scarrow, Gayle
Angus, Donna
Holmes, Bev J.
author_facet Scarrow, Gayle
Angus, Donna
Holmes, Bev J.
author_sort Scarrow, Gayle
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Health research funding agencies are placing a growing focus on knowledge translation (KT) plans, also known as dissemination and implementation (D&I) plans, in grant applications to decrease the gap between what we know from research and what we do in practice, policy, and further research. Historically, review panels have focused on the scientific excellence of applications to determine which should be funded; however, relevance to societal health priorities, the facilitation of evidence-informed practice and policy, or realizing commercialization opportunities all require a different lens. DISCUSSION: While experts in their respective fields, grant reviewers may lack the competencies to rigorously assess the KT components of applications. Funders of health research—including health charities, non-profit agencies, governments, and foundations—have an obligation to ensure that these components of funding applications are as rigorously evaluated as the scientific components. In this paper, we discuss the need for a more rigorous evaluation of knowledge translation potential by review panels and propose how this may be addressed. CONCLUSION: We propose that reviewer training supported in various ways including guidelines and KT expertise on review panels and modalities such as online and face-to-face training will result in the rigorous assessment of all components of funding applications, thus increasing the relevance and use of funded research evidence. An unintended but highly welcome consequence of such training could be higher quality D&I or KT plans in subsequent funding applications from trained reviewers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5803621
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58036212018-02-15 Reviewer training to assess knowledge translation in funding applications is long overdue Scarrow, Gayle Angus, Donna Holmes, Bev J. Res Integr Peer Rev Commentary BACKGROUND: Health research funding agencies are placing a growing focus on knowledge translation (KT) plans, also known as dissemination and implementation (D&I) plans, in grant applications to decrease the gap between what we know from research and what we do in practice, policy, and further research. Historically, review panels have focused on the scientific excellence of applications to determine which should be funded; however, relevance to societal health priorities, the facilitation of evidence-informed practice and policy, or realizing commercialization opportunities all require a different lens. DISCUSSION: While experts in their respective fields, grant reviewers may lack the competencies to rigorously assess the KT components of applications. Funders of health research—including health charities, non-profit agencies, governments, and foundations—have an obligation to ensure that these components of funding applications are as rigorously evaluated as the scientific components. In this paper, we discuss the need for a more rigorous evaluation of knowledge translation potential by review panels and propose how this may be addressed. CONCLUSION: We propose that reviewer training supported in various ways including guidelines and KT expertise on review panels and modalities such as online and face-to-face training will result in the rigorous assessment of all components of funding applications, thus increasing the relevance and use of funded research evidence. An unintended but highly welcome consequence of such training could be higher quality D&I or KT plans in subsequent funding applications from trained reviewers. BioMed Central 2017-08-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5803621/ /pubmed/29451528 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0037-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Commentary
Scarrow, Gayle
Angus, Donna
Holmes, Bev J.
Reviewer training to assess knowledge translation in funding applications is long overdue
title Reviewer training to assess knowledge translation in funding applications is long overdue
title_full Reviewer training to assess knowledge translation in funding applications is long overdue
title_fullStr Reviewer training to assess knowledge translation in funding applications is long overdue
title_full_unstemmed Reviewer training to assess knowledge translation in funding applications is long overdue
title_short Reviewer training to assess knowledge translation in funding applications is long overdue
title_sort reviewer training to assess knowledge translation in funding applications is long overdue
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5803621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29451528
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0037-8
work_keys_str_mv AT scarrowgayle reviewertrainingtoassessknowledgetranslationinfundingapplicationsislongoverdue
AT angusdonna reviewertrainingtoassessknowledgetranslationinfundingapplicationsislongoverdue
AT holmesbevj reviewertrainingtoassessknowledgetranslationinfundingapplicationsislongoverdue