A systematic review of Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Practices: Challenges in the search and relevance steps

Oral
2010 Keystone
Van-Eerd D1, Irvin E1, Cole D1, Amick-III B1, Mahood Q1, Gibson J2, Keown K2, Kohn M3, Garcia J4, Kramer D5, Phipps D6, Lambert L1
1Research, Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2Knowledge Transfer and Exchange, Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
3Office of the Vice President, Research, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;
4Department of Health Studies and Gerontology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
5Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
6Research Services, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Background:

Knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) is a burgeoning practice at research organizations worldwide. However the effectiveness of KTE practices has not been routinely/consistently evaluated. The need for such evaluation has been voiced (Lavis et al, 2003, Eccles et al, 2005). One potential reason for the lack of evaluation is the paucity of tools and methods for evaluation across various disciplines.

Objectives:

This presentation will consider the approach used to critically review the broad scope of literature on evaluation of KTE practices and tools.

Methods:

A team of researchers and decision makers followed a systematic review process developed by the Institute forWork & Health using a Cochrane-like approach and a ‘‘best evidence synthesis’’ framework. The basic review steps include: formulation of research question and search terms; decision-maker/stakeholder meetings; literature search; relevance review; quality appraisal; data extraction; evidence synthesis; decision-maker/stakeholder key messages; and report preparation. Many of the steps required an iterative approach.

Results:

The search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, CAB Abstracts, LISA, Social Science Abstracts, and Business Source Premier. The search resulted in 13066 titles and abstracts, 744 titles and abstracts were initially found to be relevant and 309 full articles moved on to quality appraisal (QA).QAwas an iterative process with classification of articles on study methods and measurement approaches as a necessary component. Data extraction and synthesis steps are pending and will be presented.

Conclusions:

The review approach focused on transparency, reproducibility, and minimizing bias and was easily adapted to this review topic. However a significant number of challenges were encountered due to the large volume and diversity of the KTE literature and the mixed methods approach to this review. The review team met and came to consensus on the approach required at each step of the review.