Dissemination or Knowledge Translation
Dissemination or Knowledge Translation
复制标题
传播或知识翻译
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Corcoran
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Corcoran
职业治疗（AJOT）将成为“发展该专业临床学术的主要力量，这体现在广泛的创造，应用和综合知识和实践的教学中。这样做，AJOT将提高职业治疗对健康、健康、生产力和生活质量的贡献的有效性、有效性、认可度和质量”（Corcoran，2004，第127页）。为了与这一愿景保持一致，在这个编辑空间中引入了几个主题-也许最经常讨论的是循证实践的主题。本主题支持AJOT的观点，即临床学者在将证据应用于实践的过程中“不断比较、对比、更新和反思”（Corcoran，2003，第607页）。迄今为止，大多数关于循证实践的社论都是针对从业者的，目的是帮助忙碌的专业人员识别和使用信息，评价文献，并为该专业的集体研究议程做出贡献。尽管这很重要，但这是对将证据转化为实践的过程的一种相当片面的看法，而这实际上是研究人员和使用研究成果的人的共同责任（国家残疾研究传播中心，1996年）。因此，这篇社论针对的是那些旨在创建和传播对实践和课堂有价值且适用的信息的研究人员。这里有一个警告知识的翻译需要艰苦的工作、努力和网络，而传播相对容易。NCDDR将传播与知识转化区分开来。传播意味着努力广泛传播信息，而知识转化则描述了一种广泛的方法，涉及用户和研究人员，以解决证据研究利用不足的问题（Davis，如国家荒漠化和减少灾害问题国家委员会所引，2006年）。在1996年的文献综述中，NCDDR将证据利用不足问题的一个方面定义为过度依赖传播;采用传播方法，发表证据是为了“把它传播出去”。Louis（如1996年国家减灾委员会所引用）批评了这种传播知识的观念，认为知识似乎是“只需要找到一个好归宿的东西”（第6页），并谈到了“根据好的想法最终会被使用的理论，将知识投入实践世界”的谬论（第6页）。相反，她建议知识应该被概念化为“可定义的、可用的单元，可以摆在实践者面前，然后他们会在其中找到解决问题的东西”（第6页）。这样的哲学将引导研究者仔细考虑目标受众是谁，他们对实践（或教学）的可能担忧，以及研究结果将如何解决这些担忧。如果研究人员没有考虑或清楚地了解受众的关注，则信息将不被视为相关。用Becker的话说（引自NCDDR，1996年），“人们和组织在面对真实的痛苦时会产生改变的能量”（第7页），因此研究人员必须了解这种痛苦的根源，并提供一个可用的信息单位来解决它，研究人员如何才能了解他们的听众的关切，并测试他们对研究产生的证据的反应？一种方法是更多地了解主要数据库（如OTseeker）的用户正在寻找哪些主题（参见班尼特等人，这个问题）。知识翻译的支持者会说，用户的偏好和观点必须参与研究的各个方面，从最初的概念化开始。知识翻译的概念将研究过程的重点放在研究的用户上，包括从业者和消费者，
Occupational Therapy (AJOT) is to become “a major force in developing the clinical scholarship of the profession, as evidenced by widespread creation, application, and teaching of integrated knowledge and practice. In doing so, AJOT will enhance the validity, effectiveness, recognition, and quality of occupational therapy contributions to health, wellness, productivity, and quality of life” (Corcoran, 2004, p. 127). In keeping with that vision, several topics have been introduced in this editorial space—perhaps most frequently discussed is the topic of evidence-based practice. This topic supports the AJOT vision in that clinical scholars use evidence in a process of “continually comparing, contrasting, updating, and reflecting” on the application of evidence to practice (Corcoran, 2003, p. 607). Most of the editorials on evidence-based practice to date have been directed at practitioners in an effort to help busy professionals identify and use information, appraise the literature, and contribute to the collective research agenda of the profession. Although important, this is a rather onesided view of the process of translating evidence to practice, which is actually a shared responsibility of both researchers and those who use the research (National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research [NCDDR], 1996). For that reason, this editorial is directed toward researchers whose intention is to create and disseminate information that is valuable and applicable to practice and the classroom. A caveat is in order here—translation of knowledge requires hard work, effort, and networking, whereas dissemination is comparatively easy. The NCDDR distinguishes dissemination from the term knowledge translation. Whereas dissemination suggests an effort to spread information widely, knowledge translation describes a broad approach that involves the user as well as the researcher to address the problem of underutilizing evidence-based research (Davis, as cited by NCDDR, 2006). In a 1996 literature review, NCDDR defined one aspect of the problem of underutilized evidence as an overreliance on dissemination; with a dissemination approach, evidence is published to “get it out there.” Louis (as cited in NCDDR, 1996) criticized this notion of disseminating knowledge as if it were a “thing that simply needs to find a good home” (p. 6) and talks about the fallacy of “casting knowledge out into the world of practice, under the theory that a good idea would ultimately be used” (p. 6). Instead, she proposed that knowledge should be conceptualized as “definable, useable units that can be arrayed in front of practitioners who will then find among them something to solve their problems” (p. 6). Such a philosophy would lead a researcher to consider carefully who the target audience is, their likely concerns about practice (or teaching), and how the research findings will address those concerns. If the researcher does not consider or clearly understand the audience’s concerns, the information will not be regarded as relevant. In the words of Becker (cited in NCDDR, 1996), “People and organizations develop the energy to change when faced with real pain” (p. 7), so the researcher must understand the source of that pain and offer a usable unit of information to resolve it. How can researchers learn about the concerns of their audience and test their responses to evidence generated from a study? One way is to understand more about which topics are being sought by users of major databases, such as OTseeker (see Bennett et al., this issue). Proponents of knowledge translation would say that users’ preferences and perspectives must be involved in all aspects of the study, beginning with its initial conceptualization. The concept of knowledge translation focuses the process on the users of research, including practitioners and consumers, and