Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review
Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s13012-016-0399-1
复制
发表时间：
2016-03-17
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Urquhart, Robin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gagliardi, Anna R.;Berta, Whitney;Urquhart, Robin
背景：整合知识翻译（IKT）是指研究者和决策者之间的合作。虽然IKT被提倡作为提高研究的相关性和使用的一种方法，但它具有挑战性，而且应用不一致。本研究旨在通过综合经验评估IKT和识别知识缺口的研究，为未来的IKT实践和研究提供信息。我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE和科克伦图书馆2005年至2014年的英语语言研究，这些研究评估了研究人员和组织或政策层面决策者参与的IKT干预措施。数据提取的研究特征，IKT干预（理论，内容，模式，持续时间，频率，人员，参与者，从启动时间，发起人，资金来源，决策者参与），使能因素，障碍和研究报告的结果。结果：共筛选出14，754篇文献，并对106篇文献进行了回顾性分析，共纳入13篇文献。关于IKT活动的细节报道很少，没有一个是正式的理论基础。研究人员与决策者之间互动的数量和类型各不相同;会议是最常见的形式。所有研究报告的障碍和促进因素。研究报告了一系列积极和次优的结果。结果似乎并没有与发起人的伙伴关系，专用资金，伙伴关系的成熟度，决策者参与的性质，存在或不存在的使能因素或障碍，或不同的IKT activities.Conclusions的数量：IKT战略，实现有益的结果仍然未知。我们总结了IKT的方法、推动因素、障碍、条件和结果，这些可以作为未来审查或规划正在进行的主要研究的基础。未来的研究可以通过检查（1）不同的IKT策略如何影响结果，（2）IKT干预措施和有益结果之间的逻辑或理论之间的关系，以及（3）决策者何时以及如何参与研究过程来弥补三个已确定的知识差距。未来的IKT倡议应更系统地规划和记录其设计和实施，评价应充分详细地报告调查结果，以揭示IKT与成果的关系。
Background: Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) refers to collaboration between researchers and decision-makers. While advocated as an approach for enhancing the relevance and use of research, IKT is challenging and inconsistently applied. This study sought to inform future IKT practice and research by synthesizing studies that empirically evaluated IKT and identifying knowledge gaps.Methods: We performed a scoping review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 2005 to 2014 for English language studies that evaluated IKT interventions involving researchers and organizational or policy-level decision-makers. Data were extracted on study characteristics, IKT intervention (theory, content, mode, duration, frequency, personnel, participants, timing from initiation, initiator, source of funding, decision-maker involvement), and enablers, barriers, and outcomes reported by studies. We performed content analysis and reported summary statistics.Results: Thirteen studies were eligible after screening 14,754 titles and reviewing 106 full-text studies. Details about IKT activities were poorly reported, and none were formally based on theory. Studies varied in the number and type of interactions between researchers and decision-makers; meetings were the most common format. All studies reported barriers and facilitators. Studies reported a range of positive and sub-optimal outcomes. Outcomes did not appear to be associated with initiator of the partnership, dedicated funding, partnership maturity, nature of decision-maker involvement, presence or absence of enablers or barriers, or the number of different IKT activities.Conclusions: The IKT strategies that achieve beneficial outcomes remain unknown. We generated a summary of IKT approaches, enablers, barriers, conditions, and outcomes that can serve as the basis for a future review or for planning ongoing primary research. Future research can contribute to three identified knowledge gaps by examining (1) how different IKT strategies influence outcomes, (2) the relationship between the logic or theory underlying IKT interventions and beneficial outcomes, and (3) when and how decision-makers should be involved in the research process. Future IKT initiatives should more systematically plan and document their design and implementation, and evaluations should report the findings with sufficient detail to reveal how IKT was associated with outcomes.