Gold, M. & Fries T.E. (2007). Moving Research into Practice: Lessons from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's IDSRN Program. Implementation Science, 2(9).

Format: Peer-reviewed article

Type: Experience

Experience level of reader: Fundamental

Annotation: The authors explore two key research questions: 1) was the Integrated Delivery Systems Research Network (IDSRN) successful in supporting the operational use of research findings and moving research into practice, either within the IDSRN or externally? Success was assessed against: value of operational linkages, operational impact, and other views about program goals and outcomes 2) what characteristics or factors of teams or projects are associated with success (or lack of success) in moving research to practice? Factors that facilitated or impeded success were assessed against four project case studies (bioterrorism tools, improving culturally and linguistically appropriate services, medication information transfer, racial and ethnic disparities in quality). The authors believe that although aspects of the network may be unique, the findings are broadly relevant to a research audience interested in the challenges of adapting research into practical applications.

Setting(s) to which the reported activities/findings are relevant: Government, University

Knowledge user(s) to whom the piece of literature may be relevant: Researchers

Knowledge user level addressed by the literature: Organization

This article uses the Commercial Devices and Services version of the NtK Model

• Some researchers may have reservations about conducting user-driven research projects that have immediate utility. These types of projects are often difficult to develop in real-time and the results may be too proprietary or too hard to share or generalize — potentially limiting the value to the researcher.
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: Tip 3.8, Step 3.1, Step 2.2, Step 1.1

• When executives deliberate about the value of applying research in their organization, one of the factors they often consider is the “replicability” of the research findings, especially in their setting. Researchers should clearly communicate “replicability.”
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: KTA Step 1.A, KTA Step 2.A, KTA Step 3.A, KTA Step 1.B, KTA Step 2.B, KTA Step 3.B, Step 3.2, Step 2.2, Step 2.1, Step 1.3, Step 1.2, Step 1.1

• When organizational executives deliberate about the value of applying research in their organization, one of the factors they often consider is the “scalability” of the research findings. Researchers should clearly communicate “scalability.”
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: KTA Step 1.A, KTA Step 2.A, KTA Step 3.A, KTA Step 1.B, KTA Step 2.B, KTA Step 3.B, Step 3.2, Step 2.2, Step 2.1, Step 1.3, Step 1.2, Step 1.1

• Organizational executives often favour incremental implementation of new ideas (research findings). Researchers need to demonstrate sensitivity in these situations and offer complementary strategies, tools and techniques.
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: KTA Step 1.D, KTA Step 2.D, KTA Step 3.D, Step 1.3

• Organizational executives often state that they are exposed to more new ideas (research findings) than they have resources to explore. Researchers need to devise ways of getting their attention, communicating value and sourcing resources.
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: KTA Step 1.B, KTA Step 2.B, KTA Step 3.B, Step 2.2, Step 1.3, Step 1.2, Step 1.1

• Organizational executives often state they do not have the time to consider the applicability of new research findings. Researchers need to devise ways of getting their attention and communicating value.
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: KTA Step 1.B, KTA Step 2.B, KTA Step 3.B, Step 2.2, Step 1.3, Step 1.2, Step 1.1

• Failure of a research network (or project) to clearly articulate and broadly communicate its goals and objectives can impede its progress. It can also cloud stakeholder’s abilities to evaluate network (project) outcomes.
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation
  Occurrence of finding within the model: KTA Step 1.A, KTA Step 2.A, KTA Step 3.A, KTA Step 1.B, KTA Step 2.B, KTA Step 3.B, Step 3.1, Step 1.4, Step 3.2

• Knowledge stakeholders typically have narrow decision-making timelines and specific informational needs. They usually are unwilling or unable to wait extended periods for applicable research results. Researchers need to take this into consideration as they plan, execute and mobilize their research projects.
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: Tip 3.7, Tip 3.8, KTA Stage 1, KTA Stage 2, KTA Stage 3, Step 1.5

• Researchers should carefully define and communicate to stakeholders what they mean by “moving research into practice.” The starting point of the spectrum is research findings that are specific to a unique set of circumstances. The endpoint of the spectrum is research findings that can be generalized across an entire system. Correctly setting stakeholder expectations is crucial.
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: KTA Step 1.A, KTA Step 2.A, KTA Step 3.A, KTA Step 1.B, KTA Step 2.B, KTA Step 3.B, Step 3.1, Step 1.4, Step 3.2
• Funding agencies should consider framing individual research project funding calls with a longitudinal strategy or overarching program that ties their research objectives together, over an extended period of time. This could help researchers to better understand the agency’s research trajectory and whether there are opportunities for follow-up funding.
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: Tip 3.2

• When external researchers are embedded in an organization (especially in a team-based setting), it can be extremely helpful to have an internal champion that has sufficiently senior standing and operational knowledge and is able to make commitments regarding forms of collaboration and data/resource sharing.
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: KTA Stage 2, KTA Stage 3, KTA Stage 1, Step 3.1, Step 4.1, Step 1.3

• Funding agencies should carefully match available funding to program/project expectations. Underfunding programs/projects compromises all involved.
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: Tip 3.2

• When external researchers are embedded in an organization (especially in a team-based setting), there are opportunities to learn directly about operational systems and issues, which can enhance the researcher’s ability to ask or respond to real-world questions or issues.
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: KTA Step 1.B, KTA Step 2.B, KTA Step 3.B, Step 3.1

• When executives embed external researchers in their organizations (especially in a team-based setting), the opportunities for direct, formal and informal interaction can enhance the communication of stakeholder project needs or the implications of research findings.
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: KTA Step 1.B, KTA Step 2.B, KTA Step 3.B, Step 3.1

• Research networks (and projects) should ensure that they are adequately resourced for broad dissemination of research results.
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: KTA Tip 1.3, KTA Tip 2.3, KTA Tip 3.3, Step 1.5

• Researchers (and research networks) can enhance stakeholder receptivity to the application of research findings by establishing stakeholder advocates — members of the stakeholder community that are recognized as leaders and respected by their peers.
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: KTA Step 1.A, KTA Step 2.A, KTA Step 3.A, KTA Step 1.B, KTA Step 2.B, KTA Step 3.B, Step 3.1

• Membership in a research network can provide researchers with opportunities to influence the goals and priorities of the network as a whole, specific network members, or industry members that follow network activities. Networks should ensure they have an adequate support infrastructure.
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: Tip 3.7, KTA Stage 1, KTA Stage 2, KTA Stage 3

• Membership in a research network may facilitate unique access to the expertise and research data of other network members. Also keep in mind that you may be expected to reciprocate.
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: Step 3.1, Step 1.3, Step 1.2

• Do not always assume that embedding external researchers in an operational environment will immediately lead to the adoption of research findings. As one example, the complexities of the environment and/or research findings may require substantial time and resource commitments to achieve organizational buy-in.
  Lessons from a health research network evaluation.
  Occurrence of finding within the model: KTA Stage 1, KTA Stage 2, KTA Stage 3, Step 1.3, Step 1.2, Step 1.1