A pre-post evaluation of a knowledge translation capacity-building intervention.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Knowledge translation (KT) aims to reduce research-practice gaps. Few studies have investigated methods to build clinicians' capacity for KT. To: (i) evaluate the impact of a multifaceted KT capacity-building intervention; (ii) understand barriers and enablers to clinicians' use of KT; and (iii) identify useful strategies. METHODS: A pre-post study to develop KT capacity amongst occupational therapy clinicians (n = 46) in a large metropolitan hospital. A customised questionaire (baseline and 18 months) identified KT-related behaviours and barriers and enablers guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). McNemar's tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were completed on matched data (n = 20). At follow-up additional items explored perceptions of change and usefulness of strategies. RESULTS: At follow-up, participants had read more clinical guidelines (10 vs. 17) and more participants reported using strategies to increase the use of recommended clinical practices (P = 0.006). The main barriers at baseline were from the TDF domains of 'attention, memory and decision processes', 'knowledge' and 'environmental context and resources', while main enablers were from 'social/professional role and identity', 'reinforcement', 'social influence' and 'beliefs about consequences' domains. At follow-up, significant improvements were seen in 'knowledge' (p < 0.001), 'environmental context & resources' (P < 0.001), 'skills' (P = 0.008) 'beliefs about consequences' (P = 0.011), 'beliefs about capabilities' (P = 0.018), and 'memory, attention & decision processes' (P = 0.048) and participants agreed that KT had become part of the departments' culture. Strategies perceived most useful included working as a team, having a dedicated staff member, mentoring meetings, department leader support, learning about KT over time, and training sessions. CONCLUSIONS: The KT capacity-building intervention changed one clinician-reported behaviour and perceived impact of barriers across six domains. Clinicians reported perceived improvement in understanding of - and confidence in - KT, and changes in the culture to one of engaging with KT as part of clinical practice. Further research into KT capacity building is needed.

Building capacity for knowledge translation in occupational therapy: learning through participatory action research.

BACKGROUND: There has been widespread acknowledgement of the need to build capacity in knowledge translation however much of the existing work focuses on building capacity amongst researchers rather than with clinicians directly. This paper's aim is to describe a research project for developing a knowledge translation capacity building program for occupational therapy clinicians. METHODS: Participatory action research methods were used to both develop and evaluate the knowledge translation capacity-building program. Participants were occupational therapists from a large metropolitan hospital in Australia. Researchers and clinicians worked together to use the action cycle of the Knowledge to Action Framework to increase use of knowledge translation itself within the department in general, within their clinical teams, and to facilitate knowledge translation becoming part of the department's culture. Barriers and enablers to using knowledge translation were identified through a survey based on the Theoretical Domains Framework and through focus groups. Multiple interventions were used to develop a knowledge translation capacity-building program. RESULTS: Fifty-two occupational therapists participated initially, but only 20 across the first 18 months of the project. Barriers and enablers were identified across all domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. Interventions selected to address these barriers or facilitate enablers were categorised into ten different categories: educational outreach; teams working on clinical knowledge translation case studies; identifying time blocks for knowledge translation; mentoring; leadership strategies; communication strategies; documentation and resources to support knowledge translation; funding a knowledge translation champion one day per week; setting goals for knowledge translation; and knowledge translation reporting strategies. Use of these strategies was, and continues to be monitored. Participants continue to be actively involved in learning and shaping the knowledge translation program across the department and within their specific clinical areas. CONCLUSION: To build capacity for knowledge translation, it is important to involve clinicians. The action cycle of the Knowledge to Action framework is a useful guide to introduce the knowledge translation process to clinicians. It may be used to engage the department as a whole, and facilitate the learning and application of knowledge translation within specific clinical areas. Research evaluating this knowledge translation program is being conducted.