Skip to main content

Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: Disseminating Canadian Child Maltreatment Surveillance Findings to Decision Makers

Child Indicators Research volume 1, pages 51–64 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Extensive resources are invested in the production of research with the anticipation that relevant findings will be understood and utilized by decision-makers to inform practice and policy. It is well documented though that a gap exists between research production and research utilization in decision-making at clinical, administrative and policy levels. With increasing demands for accountability and the delivery of cost-effective services, evidence-informed decision-making is gaining greater attention within the fields of child health and welfare. Increasingly, researchers are encouraged to develop interactive strategies for research dissemination and knowledge transfer to different stakeholder groups. Lavis et al. (The Millbank Quarterly 81:221–248 2003a, Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 8:165–170 2003b) have developed a theoretical framework for knowledge transfer and exchange and concepts from this model were adopted to develop the dissemination strategy for the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect—2003. The objectives of this report are: 1) to describe the process of applying a theoretical model for knowledge transfer for the development of a dissemination strategy for Canada’s national child maltreatment surveillance data, including a discuss of strategies for developing key messages, selecting target audiences and identifying appropriate knowledge transfer and exchange strategies and; 2) to review lessons learned and provide recommendations for how researchers can enhance their knowledge transfer and exchange strategies to promote the uptake and utilization of their research findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  • Aarons, G. A., & Palinkas, L. A. (2007). Implementation of evidence-based practice in child welfare: Service provider perspectives. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 34, 411–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. (1982). The utilization process: A conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 591–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Guidelines Working Group (2001). Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems. MMWR, 50(RR13), 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, B. C. K., McQueen, D. V., & Rootman, I. (2003). Bridging the gap between scientists and decision makers. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57, 918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbins, M., Cockerill, R., Barnsley, J., & Ciliska, D. (2001). Factors of the innovation, organization, environment, and individual that predict the influence five systematic reviews had on public health decisions. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 17, 467–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudding, P., & Herbert, M. (2004). From evidence to action: An ongoing journey. Health Policy Research Bulletin (Health Canada), 9, 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, L., & Gambrill, E. (2002). Evidence-based practice: Counterarguments to objections. Research on Social Work Practice, 12, 452–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grol, R., & Grimshaw, J. (1999). Evidence-based implementation of evidence-based medicine. Journal on Quality Improvement, 25, 503–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huberman, M. (1994). Research utilization: The state of the art. Knowledge and Policy, 7, 13–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innvær, S., Vist, G., Trommald, M., & Oxman, A. (2002). Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: A systematic review. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 7, 239–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jack, S. M. (2006). Utility of qualitative research findings in evidence-based public health practice. Public Health Nursing, 23, 277–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jack, S. M., Dudding, P., Brooks, S., Tonmyr, L., Dobbins, M., Fox, C., et al. (2007). Understanding the uptake and utilization of research evidence by administrators in Ontario Children’s Aid Societies. Canada’s Children, 13(2), 42–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, M. L., Gira, E., & Poertner, J. (2005). Moving best practice to evidence-based practice in child welfare. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 86, 244–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Amara, N., & Lamari, M. (2001). Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy, 30, 333–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavis, J. N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J. M., McLeod, C. B., & Abelson, J. (2003a). How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers. The Millbank Quarterly, 81, 221–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavis, J., Ross, S., McLeod, C., & Gildiner, A. (2003b). Measuring the impact of health research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 8, 165–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenfant, C. (2003). Clinical research to clinical practice—Lost in translation? The New England Journal of Medicine, 349, 868–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomas, J. (2000). Connecting research and policy. ISUMA, Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 1, 140–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomas, J. (2007). The in-between world of knowledge brokering. BMJ, 334, 129–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, B. (1992). The risk approach revisited: A critical review of developing country experience and its use in health planning. In J. Liljestrand & W. G. Povey (Eds.), Maternal health care in an international perspective (pp. 107–124). Proceedings of the XXII Berzelius Symposium, 1991 May 27–29, Stockholm, Sweden. Uppsala: Uppsala University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Program in Policy-Decision Making (2003). Derive actionable messages from bodies of research knowledge. Hamilton, ON: Author. Accessed online [May 12, 2006] http://www.researchtopolicy.ca/whatwehavelearned/derive_messages.asp.

  • Reardon, R., Lavis, J., & Gibson, J. (2006). From research to practice: A knowledge transfer planning guide. Toronto, Ontario: Institute for Work and Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroup, D. F. (1992). Surveillance data for policy: A national and state approach. MMWR, 41(Suppl), 135–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonmyr, L., De Marco, R., Hovdestad, W. E., & Hubka, D. (2004). Policy makers’ perspectives on the utility of a national study of child maltreatment. Child Maltreatment, 9, 304–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., Daciuk, J., Felstiner, C., Black, T., et al. (2005). Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect—2003: Major findings. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trocmé, N., MacLaurin, B., Fallon, B., Daciuk, J., Billingsley, D., Tourigny, M., et al. (2001). Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect: Final report. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher, C. L., & Wildfire, J. B. (2003). Evidence-based practice in community-based child welfare systems. Child Welfare, 81, 597–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddell, C., Lavis, J. N., Abelson, J., Lomas, J., Sheperd, C. A., Bird-Gayson, T., et al. (2005). Research use in children’s mental health policy in Canada: Maintaining vigilance and ambiguity. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 1649–1657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 29, 426–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

During the development of the dissemination plan, Dr. Susan Jack was supported by a post doctoral fellowship from the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. We would like to acknowledge the support received from Dr. Anne Marie Ugnat and Dr. Catherine McCourt, Injury and Child Maltreatment Section, Public Health Agency of Canada and Dr. Harriet MacMillan, Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University. This work would not have been possible without the vision of Peter Dudding, Child Welfare League of Canada, Dr. Nico Trocmé and the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect—2003 Research Team and the collaborative relationships established with the Provincial/Territorial Directors of Child Welfare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing, McMaster University, HSC 2J30, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 3Z5, Canada

    Susan Jack

  2. Injury and Child Maltreatment Section, Health Surveillance and Epidemiology Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Tunney’s Pasture, AL 1910C, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K9, Canada

    Lil Tonmyr

Authors
  1. Susan Jack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lil Tonmyr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan Jack.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jack, S., Tonmyr, L. Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: Disseminating Canadian Child Maltreatment Surveillance Findings to Decision Makers. Child Ind Res 1, 51–64 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-007-9001-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-007-9001-3

Keywords

  • Knowledge transfer and exchange
  • Research utilization
  • Child maltreatment