Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 89, Issue 4, pp 723–732 | Cite as

Taking Power, Politics, and Policy Problems Seriously

The Limits of Knowledge Translation for Urban Health Research
Article

Abstract

Knowledge Translation (KT) is a growing movement in clinical and health services research, aimed to help make research more relevant and to move research into practice and policy. This paper examines the conventional model of policy change presented in KT and assesses its applicability for increasing the impact of urban health research on urban health policy. In general, KT conceptualizes research utilization in terms of the technical implementation of scientific findings, on the part of individual decision-makers who can be “targeted” for a KT intervention, in a context that is absent of political interests. However, complex urban health problems and interventions infrequently resemble this single decision, single decision-maker model posited by KT. In order to clarify the conditions under which urban health research is more likely or not to have an influence on public policy development, we propose to supplement the conventional model with three concepts drawn from the social science: policy stages, policy networks, and a discourse analysis approach for theorizing power in policy-making.

Keywords

Knowledge Translation Urban health research Policy-making 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been funded in part by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) under grant #101693, entitled “ Power, Politics, and the Use of Health Equity Research.”

References

  1. 1.
    CSDH (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva, World Health Organization. Available at: http://www.who.int/social_determinants/en/. Accessed on: November 10, 2008.
  2. 2.
    Green LW, Glasgow RE, Atkins D, Stange K. Making evidence from research more relevant, useful, and actionable in policy, program planning, and practice: Slips “twixt cup and lip”. Am J Prev Med. 2009; 37(6S1). doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.08.017.
  3. 3.
    Lomas J. Using ‘linkage and exchange’ to move research into policy at a Canadian foundation. Heal Aff. 2000; 19(3): 236–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huis A, Schoonhoven L, Grol R, Borm G, Adang E, Hulscher, et al. Helping hands: a cluster randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of two different strategies for promoting hand hygiene in hospital nurses. Implement Sci. 2011; 6: 101. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    WHO 2005 World Health Organization (2005). Bridging the "Know-Do" gap: meeting on knowledge translation in global health.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Strauss SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB. Evidence‐based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. 4th Ed. Churchill Livingstone: Edinburgh; 2010.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996; 312(7023): 71–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lavis J, Ross S, McLeod C, Gildiner A. Measuring the impact of health research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003; 8(3): 165–170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Knowledge Exchange and the Production of Research. Available at: http://www.chsrf.ca/PublicationsAndResources/ResourcesForResearchers/KEYS/ProductionOfResearch.aspx. Accessed on: December 7, 2011.
  10. 10.
    Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham I, eds. Knowledge Translation in Health Care: Moving from Evidence to Practice. Oxford: Wiley‐Blackwell/BMJ; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lemieux-Charles L, Champagne F, eds. Using Knowledge and Evidence in Health Care: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP. Is evidence-based implementation of evidence-based care possible? Med J Aust. 2004; 180(6 Suppl): S50–S51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dunn JR. Housing and inequalities in health: a study of socioeconomic dimensions of housing and self reported health from a survey of Vancouver residents. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002; 56(9): 671–681.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leone R, Carroll BW. Decentralisation and devolution in Canadian social housing policy. Environ Plann C Govt Policy. 2010; 28(3): 389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fafard P. Evidence and Healthy Public Policy: Insights from Health and Political Sciences. Montreal: National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy; Canadian Policy Research Networks; 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Soroka SN. Agenda-Setting Dynamics in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kingdon JW. Agendas, alternaves, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Longman; 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deleon P. The stages approach to the policy process: what has it done? Where is it going? In: Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1999: 19–34.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Perry BW. Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q. 2007; 85(4): 729–768.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ouimet M, Landry R, Amara N, Belkhodja O. What factors induce health care decision-makers to use clinical guidelines? Evidence from provincial health ministries, regional health authorities and hospitals in Canada. Soc Sci Med. 2006; 62(4): 964–976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lomas J, Fulop N, Gagnon D, Allen P. On being a good listener: setting priorities for applied health services research. Milbank Q. 2003; 81(3): 363–388.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lomas J. Health services research. BMJ. 2003; 327(7427): 1301–1302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rhodes RAW. Policy network analysis. In: The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. New York: Oxford; 2006: 425–447.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Howlett M, Ramesh M, Perl A. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles & Policy Subsystems. 3rd ed. Toronto: Oxford University Press Canada; 2009.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Exworthy M. Policy to tackle the social determinants of health: using conceptual models to understand the policy process. Health Policy Plann. 2008; 23(5): 318–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McGarity TO, Wagner WE. Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Entman RM. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun. 1993; 43(4): 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dorfman L, Wallack L, Woodruff K. More than a message: framing public health advocacy to change corporate practices. Health Educ Behav. 2005; 32(3): 320–336. discussion 355–362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gagnon MI. Moving knowledge to action through dissemination and exchange. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 64(1): 25–31.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bevir M, Rhodes R. Governance Stories. London: Routledge; 2006.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fafard P. Public health understandings of policy and power: lessons from INSITE. J Urban Health. 2012; doi: 10.1007/s11524-012-9698-2.
  32. 32.
    Chapman S. Advocacy in public health: roles and challenges. Int J Epidemiol. 2001; 30: 1226–1232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Greenhalgh T, Wieringa S. Is it time to drop the ‘knowledge translation’ metaphor? A critical literature review. J R Soc Med. 2011; 104(12): 501–509.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Keenan Research CentreSt. Michael`s HospitalTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Graduate School of Public and International AffairsUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations