Cargando…

Does the process of developing products for knowledge mobilisation from healthcare research influence their uptake? A comparative case study

BACKGROUND: Getting knowledge from healthcare research into practice (knowledge mobilisation) remains a global challenge. One way in which researchers may attempt to do this is to develop products (such as toolkits, actionable tools, dashboards, guidance, audit tools, protocols and clinical decision...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sharp, Charlotte A., Boaden, Ruth J., Dixon, William G., Sanders, Caroline
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9749197/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36517868
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00360-9
_version_ 1784849992717959168
author Sharp, Charlotte A.
Boaden, Ruth J.
Dixon, William G.
Sanders, Caroline
author_facet Sharp, Charlotte A.
Boaden, Ruth J.
Dixon, William G.
Sanders, Caroline
author_sort Sharp, Charlotte A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Getting knowledge from healthcare research into practice (knowledge mobilisation) remains a global challenge. One way in which researchers may attempt to do this is to develop products (such as toolkits, actionable tools, dashboards, guidance, audit tools, protocols and clinical decision aids) in addition to journal papers. Despite their increasing ubiquity, the development of such products remains under-explored in the academic literature. This study aimed to further this understanding by exploring the development of products from healthcare research and how the process of their development might influence their potential application. METHODS: This study compared the data generated from a prospective, longitudinal, comparative case study of four research projects which aimed to develop products from healthcare research. Qualitative methods included thematic analysis of data generated from semi-structured interviews (38), meeting observations (83 h) and project documents (300+). Cases were studied for an average of 11.5 months (range 8–19 months). RESULTS: Case comparison resulted in the identification of three main themes with the potential to affect the use of products in practice. First, aspects of the product, including the perceived need for the specific product being identified, the clarity of product aim and clarity and range of end-users. Second, aspects of development, whereby different types of stakeholder engagement appear to influence potential product application, which either needs to be ‘meaningful’, or delivered through the implicit understanding of users’ needs by the developing team. The third, overarching theme, relates to the academic context in which products are developed, highlighting how the academic context perpetuates the development of products, which may not always be useful in practice. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that aspects of products from healthcare research (need/aim/end-user) and aspects of their development (stakeholder engagement/implicit understanding of end-users) influence their potential application. It explored the motivation for product development and identifies the influence of the current academic context on product development. It shows that there is a tension between ideal ‘systems approaches’ to knowledge mobilisation and ‘linear approaches’, which appear to be more pervasive in practice currently. The development of fewer, high-quality products which fulfil the needs of specified end-users might act to counter the current cynicism felt by many stakeholders in regard to products from healthcare research. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-022-00360-9.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9749197
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97491972022-12-15 Does the process of developing products for knowledge mobilisation from healthcare research influence their uptake? A comparative case study Sharp, Charlotte A. Boaden, Ruth J. Dixon, William G. Sanders, Caroline Implement Sci Commun Research BACKGROUND: Getting knowledge from healthcare research into practice (knowledge mobilisation) remains a global challenge. One way in which researchers may attempt to do this is to develop products (such as toolkits, actionable tools, dashboards, guidance, audit tools, protocols and clinical decision aids) in addition to journal papers. Despite their increasing ubiquity, the development of such products remains under-explored in the academic literature. This study aimed to further this understanding by exploring the development of products from healthcare research and how the process of their development might influence their potential application. METHODS: This study compared the data generated from a prospective, longitudinal, comparative case study of four research projects which aimed to develop products from healthcare research. Qualitative methods included thematic analysis of data generated from semi-structured interviews (38), meeting observations (83 h) and project documents (300+). Cases were studied for an average of 11.5 months (range 8–19 months). RESULTS: Case comparison resulted in the identification of three main themes with the potential to affect the use of products in practice. First, aspects of the product, including the perceived need for the specific product being identified, the clarity of product aim and clarity and range of end-users. Second, aspects of development, whereby different types of stakeholder engagement appear to influence potential product application, which either needs to be ‘meaningful’, or delivered through the implicit understanding of users’ needs by the developing team. The third, overarching theme, relates to the academic context in which products are developed, highlighting how the academic context perpetuates the development of products, which may not always be useful in practice. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that aspects of products from healthcare research (need/aim/end-user) and aspects of their development (stakeholder engagement/implicit understanding of end-users) influence their potential application. It explored the motivation for product development and identifies the influence of the current academic context on product development. It shows that there is a tension between ideal ‘systems approaches’ to knowledge mobilisation and ‘linear approaches’, which appear to be more pervasive in practice currently. The development of fewer, high-quality products which fulfil the needs of specified end-users might act to counter the current cynicism felt by many stakeholders in regard to products from healthcare research. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-022-00360-9. BioMed Central 2022-12-14 /pmc/articles/PMC9749197/ /pubmed/36517868 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00360-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Sharp, Charlotte A.
Boaden, Ruth J.
Dixon, William G.
Sanders, Caroline
Does the process of developing products for knowledge mobilisation from healthcare research influence their uptake? A comparative case study
title Does the process of developing products for knowledge mobilisation from healthcare research influence their uptake? A comparative case study
title_full Does the process of developing products for knowledge mobilisation from healthcare research influence their uptake? A comparative case study
title_fullStr Does the process of developing products for knowledge mobilisation from healthcare research influence their uptake? A comparative case study
title_full_unstemmed Does the process of developing products for knowledge mobilisation from healthcare research influence their uptake? A comparative case study
title_short Does the process of developing products for knowledge mobilisation from healthcare research influence their uptake? A comparative case study
title_sort does the process of developing products for knowledge mobilisation from healthcare research influence their uptake? a comparative case study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9749197/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36517868
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00360-9
work_keys_str_mv AT sharpcharlottea doestheprocessofdevelopingproductsforknowledgemobilisationfromhealthcareresearchinfluencetheiruptakeacomparativecasestudy
AT boadenruthj doestheprocessofdevelopingproductsforknowledgemobilisationfromhealthcareresearchinfluencetheiruptakeacomparativecasestudy
AT dixonwilliamg doestheprocessofdevelopingproductsforknowledgemobilisationfromhealthcareresearchinfluencetheiruptakeacomparativecasestudy
AT sanderscaroline doestheprocessofdevelopingproductsforknowledgemobilisationfromhealthcareresearchinfluencetheiruptakeacomparativecasestudy