outlines three major phases in knowledge creation: (1) knowledge inquiry, (2) synthesis, and (3) products, tools. Seven actions that influence the knowledge creation
cycle are also described in the framework. The actions include: (1) identifying the
problem/identifying, reviewing, selecting knowledge; (2) adapt knowledge to the
local context; (3) assess barriers to knowledge use; (4) select, tailor, implement
interventions, (5) monitor knowledge use; (6) evaluate outcomes; and (7) sustain
knowledge use (Graham et al., p. 19).
The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services
(PARIHS) (Kitson, Harvey, & McCormack, 1998) is another example of a knowledge translation framework and is based on the idea that knowledge implementation
depends on: (1) the type of evidence, (2) the context in which the evidence is being
introduced, and (3) the method in which the evidence has been introduced into the
practice setting. The PARIHS has been revised and is now known as the i-PARIHS
(Kitson & Harvey, 2016). The “i” stands for innovation and describes the focus on
implementation. The authors purport that facilitation of evidence uptake in the
clinical setting is important to ensure successful knowledge translation implementation (Kitson & Harvey, 2016).
6 Importance of Evaluating Evidence
The benefits of incorporating evidence in health care decision-making at the point of
care and at the policy level are evident. Yet there is also the need to evaluate the
effectiveness of how the evidence is translated to the practice setting, the methods
used to translate the knowledge as well as the outcomes (Bhattacharyya &
Zwarenstein, 2009). For example, when planning to implement knowledge transfer
interventions, the organization will need to understand what worked, what didn’t,
and why it didn’t. Costs of the intervention should also be considered as part of the
knowledge translation evaluation strategy (Bhattacharyya, Estey, & Zwarenstein,
2011). Van Eerd et al. (2011) suggest that organizations carefully consider the
measurement properties of the evaluation tools chosen to evaluate the intervention
as well as the context in which the evaluation tools will be used. This denotes the
importance of having an evaluation plan as part of the knowledge translation
intervention strategy (Bhattacharyya et al., 2011).
7 Interprofessional Education—Knowledge Translation
in Action
One example highlighting the use of evidence to inform practices in both academic
and clinical environments is the implementation of effective interprofessional education (IPE). Research has supported the importance of IPE in developing
130
D. Prentice and J. Salfi
cycle are also described in the framework. The actions include: (1) identifying the
problem/identifying, reviewing, selecting knowledge; (2) adapt knowledge to the
local context; (3) assess barriers to knowledge use; (4) select, tailor, implement
interventions, (5) monitor knowledge use; (6) evaluate outcomes; and (7) sustain
knowledge use (Graham et al., p. 19).
The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services
(PARIHS) (Kitson, Harvey, & McCormack, 1998) is another example of a knowledge translation framework and is based on the idea that knowledge implementation
depends on: (1) the type of evidence, (2) the context in which the evidence is being
introduced, and (3) the method in which the evidence has been introduced into the
practice setting. The PARIHS has been revised and is now known as the i-PARIHS
(Kitson & Harvey, 2016). The “i” stands for innovation and describes the focus on
implementation. The authors purport that facilitation of evidence uptake in the
clinical setting is important to ensure successful knowledge translation implementation (Kitson & Harvey, 2016).
6 Importance of Evaluating Evidence
The benefits of incorporating evidence in health care decision-making at the point of
care and at the policy level are evident. Yet there is also the need to evaluate the
effectiveness of how the evidence is translated to the practice setting, the methods
used to translate the knowledge as well as the outcomes (Bhattacharyya &
Zwarenstein, 2009). For example, when planning to implement knowledge transfer
interventions, the organization will need to understand what worked, what didn’t,
and why it didn’t. Costs of the intervention should also be considered as part of the
knowledge translation evaluation strategy (Bhattacharyya, Estey, & Zwarenstein,
2011). Van Eerd et al. (2011) suggest that organizations carefully consider the
measurement properties of the evaluation tools chosen to evaluate the intervention
as well as the context in which the evaluation tools will be used. This denotes the
importance of having an evaluation plan as part of the knowledge translation
intervention strategy (Bhattacharyya et al., 2011).
7 Interprofessional Education—Knowledge Translation
in Action
One example highlighting the use of evidence to inform practices in both academic
and clinical environments is the implementation of effective interprofessional education (IPE). Research has supported the importance of IPE in developing
130
D. Prentice and J. Salfi