A mixed methods examination of knowledge brokers and their use of theoretical frameworks and evaluative practices

Abstract Background Knowledge brokering is a knowledge translation approach that includes making connections between researchers and decision-makers to facilitate the latter’s use of evidence in health promotion and the provision of healthcare. Despite knowledge brokering being well-established in C...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kristine Newman, Ryan DeForge, Dwayne Van Eerd, Yan Wei Mok, Evelyn Cornelissen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2020-03-01
Series:Health Research Policy and Systems
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12961-020-0545-8
id doaj-17facbc342d64f32bd7b581395c0ff06
record_format Article
spelling doaj-17facbc342d64f32bd7b581395c0ff062020-11-25T02:40:45ZengBMCHealth Research Policy and Systems1478-45052020-03-0118111110.1186/s12961-020-0545-8A mixed methods examination of knowledge brokers and their use of theoretical frameworks and evaluative practicesKristine Newman0Ryan DeForge1Dwayne Van Eerd2Yan Wei Mok3Evelyn Cornelissen4Daphne Cockwell School of Nursing, Ryerson UniversityWorld Health Innovation Network, Odette School of Business, University of WindsorInstitute for Work & HealthDaphne Cockwell School of Nursing, Ryerson UniversityDepartment of Family Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of British ColumbiaAbstract Background Knowledge brokering is a knowledge translation approach that includes making connections between researchers and decision-makers to facilitate the latter’s use of evidence in health promotion and the provision of healthcare. Despite knowledge brokering being well-established in Canada, many knowledge gaps exist, including understanding what theoretical frameworks have been developed and which evaluative practices knowledge brokers (KBs) use. Methods This study used a mixed methods design to examine how KBs in Canada (1) use frameworks, models and theories in their practice and (2) how they evaluate knowledge brokering interventions. We gathered interview and survey data from KB practitioners to better understand their perspectives on effective practices. Our analysis focused on understanding the theoretical frameworks used by KBs. Results This study demonstrates that KBs in Canada tend not to rely on theories or models that are specific to knowledge brokering. Rather, study participants/respondents draw on (sometimes multiple) theories and models that are fundamental to the broader field of knowledge translation – in particular, the Knowledge to Action model and the Promoting Action Research in Health Sciences framework. In evaluating the impact of their own knowledge brokering practice, participants/respondents use a wide variety of mechanisms. Evaluation was often seen as less important than supporting knowledge users and/or paying clients in accessing and utilising evidence. Conclusions Knowledge brokering as a form of knowledge translation continues to expand, but the impact on its targeted knowledge users has yet to be clearly established. The quality of engagement between KBs and their clients might increase – the knowledge brokering can be more impactful – if KBs made efforts to describe, understand and evaluate their activities using theories or models specific to KB.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12961-020-0545-8HealthcareImplementation and disseminationKnowledge brokerKnowledge translationMixed methods
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kristine Newman
Ryan DeForge
Dwayne Van Eerd
Yan Wei Mok
Evelyn Cornelissen
spellingShingle Kristine Newman
Ryan DeForge
Dwayne Van Eerd
Yan Wei Mok
Evelyn Cornelissen
A mixed methods examination of knowledge brokers and their use of theoretical frameworks and evaluative practices
Health Research Policy and Systems
Healthcare
Implementation and dissemination
Knowledge broker
Knowledge translation
Mixed methods
author_facet Kristine Newman
Ryan DeForge
Dwayne Van Eerd
Yan Wei Mok
Evelyn Cornelissen
author_sort Kristine Newman
title A mixed methods examination of knowledge brokers and their use of theoretical frameworks and evaluative practices
title_short A mixed methods examination of knowledge brokers and their use of theoretical frameworks and evaluative practices
title_full A mixed methods examination of knowledge brokers and their use of theoretical frameworks and evaluative practices
title_fullStr A mixed methods examination of knowledge brokers and their use of theoretical frameworks and evaluative practices
title_full_unstemmed A mixed methods examination of knowledge brokers and their use of theoretical frameworks and evaluative practices
title_sort mixed methods examination of knowledge brokers and their use of theoretical frameworks and evaluative practices
publisher BMC
series Health Research Policy and Systems
issn 1478-4505
publishDate 2020-03-01
description Abstract Background Knowledge brokering is a knowledge translation approach that includes making connections between researchers and decision-makers to facilitate the latter’s use of evidence in health promotion and the provision of healthcare. Despite knowledge brokering being well-established in Canada, many knowledge gaps exist, including understanding what theoretical frameworks have been developed and which evaluative practices knowledge brokers (KBs) use. Methods This study used a mixed methods design to examine how KBs in Canada (1) use frameworks, models and theories in their practice and (2) how they evaluate knowledge brokering interventions. We gathered interview and survey data from KB practitioners to better understand their perspectives on effective practices. Our analysis focused on understanding the theoretical frameworks used by KBs. Results This study demonstrates that KBs in Canada tend not to rely on theories or models that are specific to knowledge brokering. Rather, study participants/respondents draw on (sometimes multiple) theories and models that are fundamental to the broader field of knowledge translation – in particular, the Knowledge to Action model and the Promoting Action Research in Health Sciences framework. In evaluating the impact of their own knowledge brokering practice, participants/respondents use a wide variety of mechanisms. Evaluation was often seen as less important than supporting knowledge users and/or paying clients in accessing and utilising evidence. Conclusions Knowledge brokering as a form of knowledge translation continues to expand, but the impact on its targeted knowledge users has yet to be clearly established. The quality of engagement between KBs and their clients might increase – the knowledge brokering can be more impactful – if KBs made efforts to describe, understand and evaluate their activities using theories or models specific to KB.
topic Healthcare
Implementation and dissemination
Knowledge broker
Knowledge translation
Mixed methods
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12961-020-0545-8
work_keys_str_mv AT kristinenewman amixedmethodsexaminationofknowledgebrokersandtheiruseoftheoreticalframeworksandevaluativepractices
AT ryandeforge amixedmethodsexaminationofknowledgebrokersandtheiruseoftheoreticalframeworksandevaluativepractices
AT dwaynevaneerd amixedmethodsexaminationofknowledgebrokersandtheiruseoftheoreticalframeworksandevaluativepractices
AT yanweimok amixedmethodsexaminationofknowledgebrokersandtheiruseoftheoreticalframeworksandevaluativepractices
AT evelyncornelissen amixedmethodsexaminationofknowledgebrokersandtheiruseoftheoreticalframeworksandevaluativepractices
AT kristinenewman mixedmethodsexaminationofknowledgebrokersandtheiruseoftheoreticalframeworksandevaluativepractices
AT ryandeforge mixedmethodsexaminationofknowledgebrokersandtheiruseoftheoreticalframeworksandevaluativepractices
AT dwaynevaneerd mixedmethodsexaminationofknowledgebrokersandtheiruseoftheoreticalframeworksandevaluativepractices
AT yanweimok mixedmethodsexaminationofknowledgebrokersandtheiruseoftheoreticalframeworksandevaluativepractices
AT evelyncornelissen mixedmethodsexaminationofknowledgebrokersandtheiruseoftheoreticalframeworksandevaluativepractices
_version_ 1724779940342136832