Knowledge translation (KT) is an emerging field of practice and study. Its advocates argue that it has the potential to increase the use of knowledge in all levels and sectors of decision making (e.g. clinicians, policy makers, patients, general public), to improve health outcomes, and thus to concur to maximize return on research investments.
Defining KT is challenging given the overabundance of terms currently used by various authors to refer to this concept. However, a few years ago the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) came up with a definition that is now becoming widely used in the Canadian health research community and contributes to clarify the term. CIHR defines KT as a dynamic and iterative process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically-sound application of knowledge to improve the health of Canadians, provide more effective health services and products and strengthen the health care system.
And what is knowledge dissemination (KD)?
The same profusion of descriptors exist with other knowledge translation-related concepts, such as knowledge dissemination (KD). Some authors use knowledge dissemination as a synonym for other terms such as “knowledge transfer”, “knowledge transfer and exchange”, “knowledge translation”, “end-of-grant knowledge translation”, and “diffusion”. Others consider that knowledge transfer and knowledge translation are different types, and thus subsets of knowledge dissemination. Still others posit that dissemination is a subset of knowledge translation. Similarly, the “object” to be disseminated varies significantly between authors: “evidence-based (EB) practices”, “EB programs”, “EB policies”, “EB interventions”, “research”, “research findings”, “results”, “knowledge”, “ideas”, “innovations” or “information”. It is difficult to establish if all authors mean the same thing, but with different words, or if they intend to introduce particular nuances by using a specific term. Depending on the authors, the dissemination process can be active, interactive or passive, planned and systematic, or on the contrary, unplanned. Finally, some definitions limit dissemination to specific audiences, such as individuals in clinical settings, end-users who have the capacity to utilize the knowledge in their practice, or to an audience that the researchers want to influence.
Given that the definitions of knowledge dissemination published in the literature vary significantly, we define KD as an active intervention that aims at communicating research data to a target audience via determined channels using planned strategies.
Darquise Lafrenière, OMICS-ETHICS Research Group, 2011.
Aita M, Richer MC, Héon M. Illuminating the processes of knowledge transfer in nursing. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2007; 4:146–155.
Crane J. Using research in practice. Research utilization: Theoretical perspectives. Western J Nurs Res 1985; 7: 261–268.
Cronenwett LR. Effective methods for disseminating research findings to nurses in practice. Nurs Clin North Am 1995; 30: 429–38.
Crosswaite C, Curtis L. Disseminating research results—the challenge of bridging the gap between health research and health action. Health Promot Int 1994; 9: 289-96.
Graham IA, Tetroe J. Some Theoretical Underpinnings of Knowledge Translation. Acad Emerg Med 2007; 14: 936-41.
Graham IA, Tetroe J, Gagnon M. Lost in translation: Just lost or beginning to find our way? Ann Emerg Med 2009; 54: 313-14.
Institute of Health Economics (IHE) (2008) Effective dissemination of findings from research – A Compilation of essays. IHE Report. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Knott J, Wildavsky A. If Dissemination is the solution, what is the problem? Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1980; 1: 537-78.
Lomas J. Diffusion, dissemination, and implementation: Who should do what? Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006; 226-37.
Lafrenière D, Menuz V, Hurlimann, T, Godard, B. Knowledge Dissemination Interventions: A Literature Review. Submitted
Mitchell SA, Fisher CA, Hastings CE, Silverman LB, Wallen GR. A thematic analysis of theoretical models for translational science in nursing: Mapping the field. Nurs Outlook 2010; 58: 287-300.
Montgomery KS, Eddy NL, Jackson E, Nelson E, Reed K, Stark TL et al. Global research dissemination and utilization. Recommendations for nurses and nurse educators. Nurs Health Care Perspect 2001; 22: 124–29.
Rabin BA, Brownson RC, Haire-Joshu D, Kreuter MW, Weaver NL (2008) A Glossary for dissemination and implementation research in health. J Public Health Manag Pract 14:117–123.
Strauss SE, Tetroe J, Graham ID (2009) Knowledge to action: what it is and what it isn’t. In Straus S, Tetroe J, & Graham ID (eds.) Knowledge translation in health care. Moving from evidence to practice. Blackwell Publishing, Singapore, pp. 3-9.
Ward V, House A, Hamer S. Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature. J Health Serv Res Policy 2009; 14: 156–64.
Wilson PM, Petticrew M, Calnan MW, Nazareth I. Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implement Sci 2010; 5: 1.
Publication Inclusion and Exclusion in Nutrigenetics Clinical Research: Ethical and Scientific Challenges
An article by Hurlimann T, Stenne R, Menuz V and Godard B published in the Journal of Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics 2011; 4(6). Online first. There are compelling reasons to ensure the participation of ethnic minorities and... Read more
An article by Hurlimann T, Stenne R, Menuz V and Godard B published in the Journal of Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics 2011; 4(6). Online first. There are compelling reasons to ensure the participation of ethnic minorities and populations of all ages worldwide in nutrigenetics clinical research. If findings in such research are valid for some individuals, groups, or communities, and not for others, then ethical questions of justice – and not only issues of methodology and external validity – arise. This paper aims to examine inclusion in nutrigenetics clinical research and its scientific and ethical challenges. For more information, click here.
Publication Is Human Enhancement also a Personal Matter?
An article by Vincent Menuz, Thierry Hurlimann and Béatrice Godard, published in Science and engineering ethics, online first (2011) DOI:Read more
An article by Vincent Menuz, Thierry Hurlimann and Béatrice Godard, published in Science and engineering ethics, online first (2011) DOI:10.1007/s11948-011-9294-y. This paper proposes a timely and much needed examination of the various definitions of human enhancement found in the literature and proposes a definition of human enhancement that focuses on individual perceptions. While acknowledging that a definition that mainly depends on personal and subjective individual perceptions raises many challenges, the authors suggest that a comprehensive approach to define human enhancement could constitute a useful premise to appropriately address the complexity of the ethical and social issues it generates. For a full abstract and paper, click here.
