We focus on a number of topic areas identified by state health policy leaders as important to population health.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. Get the latest from thought leaders, including Christopher F. Koller, president of the Fund.
We publish The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to population health.
The Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University is a national leader in evidence-based decision making and policy design.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
March 2008 (Volume 86)
March 2008 | Jacqueline M. Tetroe, Ian D. Graham, Robbie Foy, Nicole Robinson, Martin P. Eccles, Michel Wensing, Pierre Durieux, France Légaré, Camilla Palmhøj Nielson, Armita Adily, Jeanette E. Ward, Cassandra Porter, Jeremy M. Grimshaw
Context: The process of knowledge translation (KT) in health research depends on the activities of a wide range of actors, including health professionals, researchers, the public, policymakers, and research funders. Little is known, however, about health research funding agencies’ support and promotion of KT. Our team asked thirty-three agencies from Australia, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, and the United States about their role in promoting the results of the research they fund.
Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a sample of key informants from applied health funding agencies identified by the investigators. The interviews were supplemented with information from the agencies’ websites. The final coding was derived from an iterative thematic analysis.
Findings: There was a lack of clarity between agencies as to what is meant by KT and how it is operationalized. Agencies also varied in their degree of engagement in this process. The agencies’ abilities to create a pull for research findings; to engage in linkage and exchange between agencies, researchers, and decision makers; and to push results to various audiences differed as well. Finally, the evaluation of the effectiveness of KT strategies remains a methodological challenge.
Conclusions: Funding agencies need to think about both their conceptual framework and their operational definition of KT, so that it is clear what is and what is not considered to be KT, and adjust their funding opportunities and activities accordingly. While we have cataloged the range of knowledge translation activities conducted across these agencies, little is known about their effectiveness and so a greater emphasis on evaluation is needed. It would appear that “best practice” for funding agencies is an elusive concept depending on the particular agency’s size, context, mandate, financial considerations, and governance structure.
Author(s): Jacqueline M. Tetroe; Ian D. Graham; Robbie Foy; Nicole Robinson; Martin P. Eccles; Michel Wensing; Pierre Durieux; France Légaré; Camilla Palmhøj Nielson; Armita Adily; Jeanette E. Ward; Cassandra Porter; Beverley Shea; Jeremy M. Grimshaw
Keywords: knowledge translation; health policy; implementation; qualitative research
Read on Wiley Online Library
Read on JSTOR
Volume 86, Issue 1 (pages 125–155)
Published in 2008
Notes on Contributors
Effects of Changes in Incomes and Practice Circumstances on Physicians’ Decisions to Treat Charity and Medicaid Patients
Get the Latest from the Milbank Memorial Fund