Information Interpretation into Approaches and Projects: Lessons from 18 Year's Experience Teacher John Honest.

Uploaded on:
Learning Interpretation into Approaches and Projects: Lessons from 18 Year's Experience Teacher John Straight to the point Chief Scottish Coordinated effort for General Wellbeing Exploration and Strategy, Seat, General Wellbeing Examination and Arrangement, College of Edinburgh Layout Foundation: "What is information exchange"
Slide 1

Information Translation into Policies and Programs: Lessons from 18 Year’s Experience Professor John Frank Director Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy, Chair, Public Health Research and Policy, University of Edinburgh

Slide 2

Outline Background: “What is learning transfer” Transfer to whom? Which information? – a recommended typology Some perceptions from the author’s Canadian experience: Provostial Advisor for Population Health, University of Toronto, 1994-7 Research Director, Institute for Work and Health, 1991-2008 Scientific Director, Canadian Institutes of Health Research: “KT” (2000-8) as seen from a PH perspective Chair, Advisory Council, National Collaborating Centers for Public Health - Public Health Agency of Canada (2004-9) Progress Report: Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy (2008-9) Final musings

Slide 3

Background: What is “Knowledge Transfer”? For all intents and purposes each significant wellbeing examination subsidizing office in the Western world has grasped the need to encourage “knowledge transfer”*: ”The utilization of exploration results to strategy, program and practice settings, by means of the blend and interpretation of discoveries for utilization by leaders in those settings – i.e. getting information into action.” The most advanced of these endeavors – e.g. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (established by Jonathan Lomas 10 years back) – underscore a few key standards of effective “KT” in the realms of wellbeing administrations and general wellbeing – instead of the universe of translational (bio)medicine (i.e. “bench to bedside”):

Slide 4

Some Established KT Principles (focussed on HS and PH Research) Joint scientist and chief arranging and execution of exploration, from the begin Selection and “framing” of the examination question(s), to be tended to, in order to identify with leader needs Pro-dynamic insight gathering, all through the undertaking, about plausible leader responses to the outcomes, and their evolving needs, educating key redesigns of task KT technique Passive dispersal of results through conventional scholastic channels (meetings, distributions) is insufficient – the media used must fit the group of onlookers KT process must be driven by both exploration client “pull” and by focused on, between dynamic specialist “push” Timelines can be long – James Lind and citrus for scurvy Reference: Lomas J. Utilizing linkage and trade to move research into approach at a Canadian establishment. Wellbeing Affairs 2000; 19(3):236-240 .

Slide 5

ASIDE: Why did Lind’s RCT and other scurvy examination take > 4 decades to impact Navy strategy? In an attentive revaluation of Lind’s work, Michael Bartholomew of the Open University focuses out*: Lind himself waffled for a considerable length of time all alone conclusions, and quite a bit of his composition was impervious Powerful option logical perspectives had solid hypothetical motivations to dismiss the thought of a nutritious lack Many contending theories had proportionate episodic backing (the evidentiary standard of the time) The Royal Navy did not have any point of reference for science-based choice making – at any rate in the wellbeing field *Bartholomew, M. James Lind and scurvy: a revaluation. J Maritime Res 2002, accessible at:

Slide 6

General Principles are fine, but… Experience demonstrates that best practices in KT fluctuate incredibly over the essential group of onlookers of exploration clients being focused on Some broadly perceived sorts of crowds , requiring distinctive KT approaches , include: The overall population, incorporating patient populaces with specific conditions Health experts in clinical practice Managers of wellbeing administrations - both clinical and general wellbeing Higher-level arrangement creators (typically open part, yet in some cases “third sector” and private division too) ERGO: “TRANSFER TO WHOM?” IS A CRITICAL CONSIDERATION

Slide 7

What (sorts of) information? Some KT groups of onlookers have solid inclinations for specific sorts of “knowledge”: general society : regularly favor a drawing in story, with convincing samples – subjective exploration has the edge; yet the expenses of far-span and long-effect are high, as all commercial men know! Clinical experts : incline toward pre-processed information (e.g. pertinent studies have been discovered, basically assessed for quality and freshly condensed) and after that consequently “pushed” to them– ideally by a trusted and arm’s length source – in a rapidly check capable arrangement , in a perfect world coordinated into their work (e.g. in essential consideration; screen pop-ups signaled by magic words in the client’s purpose behind the experience, for example, “Chief Complaint,” or “Age and Gender” for preventive measures.) Higher-level system administrators and arrangement creators : basically never settle on significant choices alone ; they require the utilization of confirmation incorporated into their organizations’ ordinary gathering procedures of choice making; exceptionally succinct lay-adaptations of “the facts,” with a specific end goal to be perused by such occupied persons, ought to come in no less than 3 sizes: 1,3,5+ pages. ERGO,“WHICH KNOWLEDGE?” IS ALSO A CRITICAL CONSIDERATION

Slide 8

Experience # 1: Making Heath Data Maps: a Community-University Research Collaboration (University of Toronto, 1994-7) Experience* with scientist cum research-client (i.e. chief) consortia - for arranging/planning, executing and utilizing connected exploration of enthusiasm to both - proposes: “cultural” contrasts between these two universes are huge, and set aside time to connect –e.g. their preparation, fundamental suspicions, dialect, motivations and prize frameworks at work, contending requests, time-scales, and so forth * Buckeridge DB, Mason R, Robertson A, Frank JW, Glazier R, Purdon L, et al. Making wellbeing information maps: a contextual analysis of a group/college joint effort. Sociology & Medicine 2002; 55(7):1189-1206.

Slide 9

Lessons from Researcher/User Consortia (cont’d) The extensive variety of exploration inquiries that are significant in such work, particularly on the off chance that it includes new arrangement or project mediations, frequently compasses: ecological outputs – i.e. “who has done what in this field?”; combinations of accessible confirmation, of numerous sorts; point by point sociology investigations of new approach or system “acceptability” among key partners; novel adequacy trials to evaluate both mean impacts and subgroup impacts (re impartiality); wellbeing financial studies; nitty gritty usage and adaptability studies; and arrangement explanatory studies on the facilitators and boundaries to reception of another intercession.

Slide 10

Lessons from Researcher/User Consortia (cont’d ) The blend of methodological methodologies in this way required is frequently extremely expansive, obliging more than one university’s/research-centre’s engagement and a trans - disciplinary methodology (now and again obliging specific associate audit, and joined forces financing by a scope of allowing offices and different sources.) Trans-disciplinary examination is a delicate plant, obliging rich soil, and some “deeply silo’d” colleges just aren’t suitable for such investigations!

Slide 11

Experience # 2: Institute for Work and Health - Toronto (1991 to 2007) Some fields of connected exploration have especially untrusting partners, with long histories of “ battled science ” – e.g. word related wellbeing IWH was set up to beat this doubt, and chose a “ edge of grounds ,” free organization model, with a few key components: Seconded teachers from >1 college, and numerous graduate understudies, all very much financed in an inviting setting Multi-partite BoD, with reps from government and the college, notwithstanding work, administration, and the guarantor (giving the center subsidizing – $5 million p.a.) Peer-looked into stipends give correlative subsidizing Separate associate audit of every single investigative activitie, at first twice yearly, by a universal Scientific Advisory Committee (first Chair: Sir Michael Marmot, 1991-1996).

Slide 12

KT Lessons from IWH, 1991-2008 (cont’d) Some points are excessively combative, making it impossible to research in a manner that all partners will concede to – e.g. recording presentation to built up lethal substances in the working environment needs solid administrative/authoritative activity FIRST [“ You can’t do research in a saloon fight ”]. A few sorts of examination oblige YEARS of trans-disciplinary mix , and new techniques advancement , before key apparatuses are prepared to handle extensive experimental ventures – e.g. figuring out how to utilize laborers pay protection (authoritative) information for examination on the long haul visualization of low back agony/RSIs. Reference: IWH site:

Slide 13

KT Lessons from IWH, 1991-2008 (cont’d) “ Keeping your notoriety for autonomy and respectability in place ” is the main course to long haul survival: the edge-of-grounds model has numerous favorable circumstances in such manner. The full word related wellbeing KT process, from doing new research to completely captivating the OSH group in its utilization, takes numerous years – one must be tolerant! Reference: IWH site:

Slide 14

Experience # 3: The KT Journey at the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, 2000-2008 In 2000, the Canadian government consented to significantly expand hailing wellbeing examination consumptions IF there was a more noteworthy duty, by the financing organization – the old MRC (Ca

View more...